Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 09-27 CCP Regular Session t i CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SEPTEMBER 27, 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. September 13, 1993 - Regular Session b. September 14, 1993 - Reconvened Session 8. Ordinances: a. Interim Emergency Ordinance for the Purpose of Protecting the Planning Process and the Health, Safety and Welfare of the Residents of the City, and Regulating and Restricting Development at the Property Located at 6626 West River Road and All Land South of 66th Avenue and North of I -694 lying between Willow Lane and Highway 252 -This ordinance is recommended for a first reading this evening. b. Interim Ordinance for the Purpose of Protecting the Planning Process and the Health, Safety and Welfare of the Residents of the City, and Regulating and Restricting Development at the Property Located at 6626 West River Road and All Land South of 66th Avenue and North of I -694 lying between Willow Lane and Highway 252 -This ordinance is recommended for a first reading this evening. 1. Resolution for the Purpose of Protecting the Planning Process and the Health, Safety and Welfare of the Residents of the City, and Regulating and Restricting Development at the Property Located at 6626 West River Road and All Land South of 66th Avenue and North of I -694 lying between Willow Lane and 40 Highway 252 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- September 27, 1993 9. Discussion Items: a. Recommendation from the Human Rights and Resources Commission Regarding Fair Housing Program b. Staff Report on Proposed Park and Ride Facilities on Brooklyn Boulevard, North of 65th Avenue 1. Resolution Calling for Public Hearing Regarding Proposed Park and Ride Facility, West of Brooklyn Boulevard and North of 65th Avenue North c. Staff Report Regarding Hennepin County's Proposed Changes to Policies Regarding Cost Participation for Cooperative Highway Projects 1. Resolution Regarding Hennepin County Funding of Cooperative Highway Projects d. Staff Report Regarding Twin Lakes Trail Plans -Staff will submit a report covering the work of the Twin Lakes Trail Task Force, the status of plan development and application for funds, and a schedule for public informational meetings. e. Administrative Traffic Committee Report Regarding Speed Control on Unity Avenue between 69th and 73rd Avenues 1. Resolution Approving Installation of Speed Humps on Unity Avenue, Accepting Proposals, and Allocating Funds Therefor f. Staff Report Re: Establishment of Project for Improvements to Central Garage 1. Resolution Establishing Improvement Project No. 1993 -19, Improvements to Central Garage, Allocating Funds Therefor, and Authorizing Staff to Solicit a Proposal for Professional Services Relating Thereto g. Staff Report Re: Establishment of Central Garage Internal Service Fund 1. Resolution Establishing Central Garage Internal Service Fund and Authorizing Transfer of Funds Therefor h. Staff Report Re: Parks and Recreation Risk Management Program 1. Resolution Establishing Improvement Project No. 1993 -20, Replacement of Playground Equipment in Central Park, Accepting Proposal and Allocating Funds Therefor CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- September 27, 1993 i. Report on Hennepin County Dispatch Services 1. Resolution Requesting Hennepin County Sheriff's Department to Provide Dispatching Services for Brooklyn Center Police and Fire Departments 10. Resolutions: a. Giving Final Approval to Year II of the Brooklyn Center Business Retention/Job Expansion Program * b. Amending the 1993 General Fund Budget to Provide for Safety Items -This request includes two ergonomically adjustable chairs and safety reminder signs. * c. Establishing Improvement Project No. 1993 -22, Annual Television Inspection of Sewers, Accepting Proposal and Appropriating Funds Therefor * d. Accepting Proposal for Professional Services to Conduct an Environmental Study of Property to be Used for Construction of a Storm Water Pond - Improvement Project No. 1992 -29, and Allocating Funds Therefor * e. Approving Change Order No. 5 for 69th Avenue Reconstruction, Phase 2, Improvement Project No. 1990 -10, Contract 1992 -B * f. Accepting Work Performed and Approving Final Payment for Contract 1993 -F, Furnishing and Installing Playground Apparatus at Northport Park and at Freeway Park, Improvement Project No. 1993 -14 * g. Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Diseased Trees (Order No. Dst 09/27/93) * h. Designating a Custodian of City Investments * i. Approving Contract for School Liaison and D.A.R.E. Officer Services between the Anoka - Hennepin School District Number Eleven and the City of Brooklyn Center -The City Council is requested to make a motion approving this contract. * j. Commending State Representative Phil Carruthers on His Appointment as House Majority Leader * 11. Licenses 12. Adjournment CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date September 27, 1993 Agenda Item Number 7a,4 b REQUEST FOR Q COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 13, 1993 - REGULAR SESSION CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 - RECONVENED SESSION ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: I" --oKftuz1&jt Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: O No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached l RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION 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 SEPTEMBER 13, 1993 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Paulson at 7 p,m. Todd - ROLL CALL Mayor Todd Paulson, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Dave Rosene, Barb Kalligher, and Kristen Mann. Also present were City Manager Herald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Finance Director Charlie Hansen, Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFcvere, and Council Secrotary Kathy Stratton. QPENI G CEREMONIES Ms. Betty Tombunj off6red the hlywation, QPEN 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. Mr. Mike Schwartz who resides on Humboldt Avenue stepped forward to address a traffic problem, The Mayor pointed out this issue is already on the agenda for discussion and asked if Mr. Schwartz could wait until that time. Mr. Schwartz agreed to wait. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Rosene explained he is currently working with the City Manager and Staff to establish rules of decorum for City Council meetings. He said although these rules are not completely drawn up, some of them will include the request that the members of the public present at Council meetings refrain from cheering, commenting, booing, or hissing in response to someone's speech. He continued such activity might deter someone of a minority point of view from speaking and asked the audience to abide by these few rules for the remainder of the evening. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CO_ SENT AGrENDA Mayor Paulson inquired if any Councilmember requested any items be removed from the consent agenda Councilmember Kalligher requested the removal of agenda item 12c. 9/13/93 - 1 - RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO, 93 -131 Member Barb Kalligher introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING WITH RESPECT TO FINANCING FOR FACILITIES OF MARANATHA CONSERVATIVE BAY'1151' HOME, INC. AND CENTER PARK SENIOR APARTMENTS, INC. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 93 -132 Member Barb Kalligher introduwd the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF PATRICK J. BORAN FOR HIS DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE ON THE FINANQIAL COMMISSION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIQN NO, 93-133 Member Barb Kallighar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 0 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR YEAR XIx URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO-93-134 Member Barb Kalligher introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR STORM WATER POND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -29 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. 9/13/93 -2- RESOLUTION NO. 93 -135 Member Barb Kalligher introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR ANTI -SLIP FLOOR TREATMENT ON POOL DECK AND IN LOCKER ROOMS OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER COMMUNITY CENTER, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -17, CONTRACT 1993 -H The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 93 -136 Member Barb Kalligher introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES (ORDER NO. DST 09/13/93) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO, 93 -137 Member Barb Kalligher introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF A LAWFUL GAMBLING LICENSE TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB TO UYERNFE A PULL -TAB BOOTH AT THE EARLE BROWN BOWL The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. _RESOLUTION NO. 93 -13$ Member Bart) Kallighcr introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF A LAWFUL GAMBLING LICENSE TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB TO OPERATE A PULL TAB BOOTH AT THE LYNBROOK BOWL The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. 9/13/93 - 3 - LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Kalligher and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve the following list of licenses: MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Countryside Heating and Cooling 10880 County Road No, 20 D.C. Mechanical HVAC Service, Inc. 5041 Vincent Ave. N. Quality Air, Inc. .7907 5th Street NE RENTAL DWELLINGS Renewal; Brian Follese 6933 Brooklyn Blvd. AXI AB Town Taxi #78 2500 Washington Ave. N. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL QF MINUTES AUGUST 16. 1993 - SPECIAL SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Kalhgher and seconded by Couucilinember Scott to approve the minutes of August 16, 1993, special session as printed. Councilmember Mann abstained from voting, and the motion passed unanimously. AUGUST 23, 1993 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmcmbcr Rosene to approve the minutes of August 23, 1993, regular session as printed. Councilmember Kalligher abstained from voting, and the motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM The City Manager introduced planning Commission Application No. 93010, submitted by Holiday Station Stores, Inc., request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a gasoline station/convenience store /car wash at 6550 West River Road. He indicated this application was considered by the Planning Commission on August 12 and August 26, 1993, and was recommended for denial. He added a petition had been received that afternoon from Mr. Rod Snyder which included 201 names of property owners in the neighborhood surrounding the site who were opposed to the proposed Holiday Station. The Planning and Zoning Specialist reviewed the contents of the report regarding this application and pointed out all pertinent information is included in the report to the City Council members. 9113/93 -4- Couneilmember Rosene commented it might expedite matters in the future to have an overhead presenting various arguments of different sides of an issue, Mayor Paulson asked if the applicant wanted to address the City Council. Mr. Tom Gedde of Holiday Station Stores, Inc. offered the opportunity for audience members to address the Council first in case anyone was short of time, Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 93010, submitted by Holiday Station Stores, Inc. at 7:18 p.m. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. Mr. Gary Brown of 7012 Willow Lane agreed with the original City Staff recommendations for approval of the proposal and expressed his desire to see the Holiday Station built because of safety. He said he sees many children crossing Highway 252 who would not have to do so if there was a convenience store on their side. Mr. Rod Snyder of 6408 Willow Lane said he was the one who had delivered the petition and explained at last count there were 241 names on it, and he knew of 3 or 4 others who felt the same way P explained g a but had not been included in the petition. He lained it took eight volunteers working on Saturday and Sunday to collect names for the petition. Mr. Snyder presented five reasons for opposition to the proposal for a Holiday Station. First, he said access in and out of people's property in the area would be greatly impaired. Second, he pointed out in the event all requirements for a special use permit were met, the permit "may" be granted. He noted the Planning Commission did not feel these requirements were met. Third, he said if traffic is a problem, what would it be like in the future. Mr, Snyder quoted Harold Hodgkinson, a nationally known demographer and his statement about out migration. He also gave figures from MnDOT with estimated traffic increase percentages. He sympathized with the right of the property owner and Holiday to seek economic gain, but urged the Council to consider the alternate costs to the community. Mr. Snydees fourth point asked the question "How close is too close ? " and he presented an overhead detailing the distance of as little as 200 feet that would exist between Holiday and the nearest home. He pointed out these distances are much closer than any of the distances between homes and Superamerica. He also showed a map of the configuration of lanes and pointed out the inferiority of the lanes to support Holiday as compared to what exists for Superamerica, and noted the neighbors were assessed for the cost to create the lanes and did not want it to happen again. in his final point, Mr. Snyder gave figures detailing the number of police calls generated by the Superamerica and urged the Council not to approve a proposal that would add to this problem. Mayor Paulson requested audience members only come forward with a point if it is different from the ones already expressed and reminded the audience not to applaud or respond to speakers. 9/13/93 -5 - Mr. Tom Kouri of 6416 Willow Lane said his concern was about screening and that in his meeting with an attorney he determined lights could not shine into abutting Gi property at all. He said the burden is on the applicant to show a preponderance of evidence that all conditions of the spccial use permit were met, which the applicant has not been able to do. He pointed out when gas tanks arc filled the air inside must be displaced and with the prevailing winds in tho area and no plan for recycling, this could be hazardous to the neighborhood. His final concern was for the noise of the 24 hour car wash. Mr. Al Farms of 7200 Willow Lane said he agreed with previous testimony and expressed his opinion that the quality of the neighborhood would be degraded if the Holiday were approved. He said he was concerned about leakage of an underground tank, and said there was no need for another gas station, He suggested the City buy the property and make a complete study of what could be done with it. Mr. Jerry Blamey of 7136 Willow Lane said he did not think another gas station would enhance the neighborhood as much as something else would. Ms. Ella Sander, Chairperson of the Planning Commission, addressed the Council to remind them after great thought, the Planning Commission arrived at a 6 -1 vote to deny the application. She said she lives in the neighborhood, is very concerned about traffic, and felt a different use for the property that did not stay open 24 hours or cause as much traffic would be better for the community. Mayor Paulson expressed gratitude to the Planning Commission for its efforts. Mr. Phillip DeLayne of 6518 Willow Lane said he was concerned about safety because of the history of the apartment complex roe that was recently vacated. He said this p P property rtY Y history ould probably repeat itself in the event of the Holiday Station's construction. He e ry y p p Y said he had ad bullet o through his car the tires slashed and seen a car blow y a ul g g , , up. He added he has seen police chases and drug and narcotic busts take place behind the Atkins property. He also said the National Forestry Service is expanding its limits of concern to 300 feet from the river banks. He asserted a gas station would have an overall negative impact. Ms. Victoria Snyder of 6408 Willow Lane said she was concerned about the steam from the car wash in the winter and spring. She also noted there is no acceleration lane available to accommodate the traffic and she did not think there was adequate room on the site for petroleum truck to deliver fuel, Mr. Richard Merrill who has lived in Brooklyn Center for 31 years, said because he was retired and on a fixed income, he was concerned about an increase in taxes that would be generated by this change and that the burden would fall on the members of the community, 9/13/93 - 6 - Mr. Gene Gilligan of 6900 Dallas Road said he had lived in the area since April of 1973 and had been a police officer in the city of Minneapolis for 31 years. He said if a business in Minneapolis had received 199 police Galls in a year they would consider revoking their license to operate. He said another station in the area does not make sense. Mr. Bruce Morrow of 7212 Willow Lane, resident since March of 1945, said it is already too hard to get onto Highway 252 and the Holiday Station would make it worse. Ms. Shar Bjerke of 7020 Dallas Road said people who don't want to wait at lights try to zip through the neighborhood instead. Shc said she will not let her children play in the park because the traffic goes by too fast. ShG also expressed concern about tanks leaking and that nobody knows they arc leaking until it's too late.. She said with the close proximity of the Mississippi River, this station would not be a good idea, especially since there may not even be a need for gas stations in the future as we may convert to alternate power sources. Mr. Phil Carruthers, who represents most of Brooklyn Center in the Minnesota State House of Representatives, expressed the desire of the community to keep Brooklyn Center a place where people want to live and raise their families, He said he had seen many cities become developed in such a way that no one wants to live there any more, and he said the people of the community don't want thLS to start happening to Brooklyn Center. Mr. Bill Elsholtz of 6546 Willow Lane said he is the person closest to the site of the proposed Holiday and would be the most affected. He said safety is his greatest concern because of the back side of the business could become another place to conduct illegal business. He pointed out any increase in the tax base to the City would be offset by higher expenses in police cars and possible damages. Ms. Ronda Feidt of 6925 Dallas Road said she is a Hennepin County Probation Officer, and explained the type of crime that is being gencratcd in the Superamerica area. She said the crimes include thefts, worthless checks, assaults, criminal damage to property, drug trafficking, etc. She said the Mall of America. in Bloomington has increased crime in that area by 10 %. Shc added 199 police calls a year is too many for an area, especially considering the type of crimes being committed. Ms. Julie Barry of 7119 Dallas Road said she had contacted the Pollution Control Agency, and they would be willing to work with the City in regards to pollution control. She asked the Council to continue in like wanner as the Planning Commission. A recess was called at 8:15 p.m. due to a medical emergency of an audience member. The meeting was reconvened. at 8;40 p.m. There was a motion by Councilmember KalIigher and seconded by Councilmember Scott to - schedule special City Council, EDA, and HRA meetings on Tuesday, September 14, 1993, and Monday, September 20, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. 9/13/93 -7- There was a motion by Councilmember Kalligher and seconded by Councilmember Scott to continue scheduled public hearings to Monday, September 20, 1993. The motion pawed unanimously. The City Council directed that all agenda items not considered this evening be placed on the agenda for September 20, 1993, and the 1994 preliminary budget, levy, and budget calendar be placed on the agenda for September 14, 1993. AWOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmernber Kalligher and seconded by Councilmember Scott to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 8;41 p,m, Deputy City Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Kathy Stratton TimeSavcr Off Sito Secretarial 9/13/93 - 8 - - 7,6 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 SESSION SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in special session and was called to order by Mayor Todd Paulson at 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Todd Paulson, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Barb Kalligher, and Kristen Mann. Councilmember Dave Rosene was excused from this evening's meeting. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter and Finance Director Charlie Hansen. OPENING CEREMONIES Mayor Paulson asked for a moment of silence for Howard Atkins who passed away during the City Council meeting last evening, September 13, 1993. OPEN FORUM Anna Filson, 737 Woodbine Lane, appeared opposing the elimination of the Brooklyn Center dispatch center and retaining the present dispatching system. Mr. Richard Handy, 7230 Morgan Avenue North appeared in support of the current Y� g � PP PP dispatching system. Mr. Handy is a retired police officer from the City of Brooklyn Center. 1994 PRELIMINARY BUDGET LEVY AND BUDGET CALENDAR The City Manger and Finance Director made a brief presentation on the details and totals of Version 1 and Version 2 of the preliminary 1994 levy and budget. After discussion among the Council members, there was a motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Kalligher to adopt Version 2 of the 1994 preliminary budget. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 93 -139 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 1994 PRELIMINARY BUDGET The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Barb Kalligher, and the motion passed unanimously. 9/14/93 -1- RECESS There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Mann to recess the City Council into EDA session at 8:40 .m. The meeting tang reconvened at 8:48 p.m. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED RESOLUTION NO. 93 -140 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A PRELIMINARY TAX LEVY FOR 1994 BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE GENERAL FUND AND THE E.D.A. SPECIAL OPERATING FUND The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Barb Kalligher, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 93 -141 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A PRELIMINARY TAX LEVY FOR 1994 BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FUND The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Barb Kalligher, and the motion passed unanimously. FINAL 1994 BUDGET CALENDAR The City Manager presented a proposed calendar of budget work sessions and required State public hearings on the 1994 budget for City Council review. After discussion, there was a motion by Councilmember Kalligher and seconded by Councilmember Scott approving the proposed calendar of budget sessions and public hearings for the 1994 proposed budget. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Kalligher and seconded by Councilmember Scott to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor 9/14/93 -2- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date September 27, 1993 Agenda Item Number U REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: INTERIM EMERGENCY ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING PROCESS AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY, AND REGULATING AND RESTRICTING DEVELOPMENT AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6626 WEST RIVER ROAD AND ALL LAND SOUTH OF 66TH AVENUE AND NORTH OF I -694 LYING BETWEEN WILLOW LANE AND HIGHWAY 252 AND INTERIM ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING PROCESS AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY, AND REGULATING AND RESTRICTING DEVELOPMENT AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6626 WEST RIVER ROAD AND ALL LAND SOUTH OF 66TH AVENUE AND NORTH OF I -694 LYING BETWEEN WILLOW LANE AND HIGHWAY 252 ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** • DEPT. APPROVAL: Brad Hoffman, Di ctor of Community Development ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGERS REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _� CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be Y 8"i P held on the day f g Y , 1993 at p. m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an interim Emergency Ordinance for the Purpose of Protecting the Planning Process and Health, Safety and Welfare of the Residents of the City, and Regulating and Restricting Development at the Property located at 6626 West River Road and all Land South of 66th Avenue and North of I -694 Lying Between Willow Tans and Highway 252. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at leash 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City's Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. INTERIM EMERGENCY ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING PROCESS AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY, AND REGULATING AND RESTRICTING DEVELOPMENT AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6626 WEST RIVER ROAD AND ALL LAND SOUTH OF 66TH AVENUE AND NORTH OF I -694 LYING BETWEEN WILLOW LANE AND HIGHWAY 252. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS Section 1. Background 1.01. In connection with the consideration of an application for rezoning and permits for development of a portion of the property affected by this ordinance, City staff, consultants, Planning Commission, the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group and the City Council reviewed the existing and potential development in the area. As a result of that review process, the Council determined that the current land use controls did not adequately address various land use concerns in the area. Among these concerns were inadequate or inappropriate buffering of nearby residential uses, nonconforming uses, zoning ordinances which were not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan, insufficient or hazardous traffic circulation, changes to land use and roadways which occurred since current zoning controls Y g were adopted, and adjacent or nearby land uses or potential uses which were not compatible with permitted uses or special uses in the affected area. 1.02. The Council determined that there was a need for further studies to be conducted so that the City could adopt appropriate amendments to its Comprehensive Plan and zoning code so as to ensure protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The Council directed that such studies be undertaken. CLL54963 D=91 -43 1.03. Studies and amendments to the City code which were considered in connection with earlier reviews of the official controls applicable to the affected area were not acted upon by the City Council. 1.04. As a result of consideration of an application for a special use permit for a filling station and car wash on a portion of the property affected by this ordinance, the Council has determined that the current zoning of the affected area is not, or may not be, appropriate or sufficient to protect the public health, safety or welfare for a number of reasons. These reasons include, but are not limited to, the following: a. The proposed use would have unacceptably adverse impacts on surrounding uses because of 24 hour activity, noise, lights, glare and traffic. b. Such adverse impacts cannot be adequately mitigated by site design or improvements. o. Many of these adverse impacts would result from permitted uses as well as special uses under current zoning. 1.05. A hearing has been scheduled for the purpose of considering amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. 1.06. The Council has therefore determined that there is a need for an interim ordinance to be adopted for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City and ensuring that the City and its citizens retain the benefits of, and protection sought to be afforded by, the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinances until such hearing is held, and any modifications to the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning and land use regulations are effective. 1.07. Due to the pendency of an application for a special use permit for proposed development in the area affected by this ordinance, the Council has determined that adoption of an emergency ordinance is necessary to serve the purposes described in paragraph 1.06 until an interim ordinance can become effective. Section 2. Determination 2.01. This interim ordinance shall apply to the property at 6626 West River Road and all property south of 66th Avenue and north of 1 -694 between Willow Lane and Highway 252 ( the subject area) . 2.02. During the period this interim ordinance is in effect, no property within the subject area may be developed, redeveloped, nor shall any site plan approvals, rezonings, licenses (other than renewals), platti or replattings, land divisions or consolidations, special use permits or building permits be issued by the City for any use. 2.03. This ordinance shall remain in effect until the sixty -first day following Its adoption, or such earlier date as may be adopted by the City Council. CLL0�4ai ut191 -a3 2 Section 3. gllicabi_ lity 5.01. This ordinance applies to an application pan a rove Y FP cation for site l • PP ls, rezonings, licenses, plattings or replattings, land divisions or consolidations, atiot2s, special use permits or building permits that have not received preliminary approval by the City Council before the effective date of this ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. 4.01. This ordinance is effective upon adoption. Adopted this __...— day of 1993. s Mayor City erk Date of publication: Effective Date: =58963 W91 -.s 3 6 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing be held 1 don the ].993 at day of �_ p . m , at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek rkway, to consider an interim Ordinance for the Purpose of Protecting the Planning Process and Health, Safety and Welfare of the Residents of the City, and Regulating and Restricting Development at the Property located at 6626 West River Road and all Land South of 66th Avenue and North of I -694 Lying Between Willow Lane, and Highway 252. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City's Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. - INTERIM ORDINANCE- FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING PROCESS AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY, AND REGULATING AND RESTRICTING DEVELOPMENT AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6826 WENT RIVER ROAD AND ALL LAND SOUTH OF 88TH AVENUE AND NORTH OF I -694 LYING BETWEEN WILLOW LANE AND HIGHWAY 282. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS Section 1. Background. 1.01. In connection with the consideration of an application for rezoning and permits for development of a portion of the property affected by this ordinance, City staff, consultants, Planning Commission, the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group and the City Council reviewed the existing and potential development in the area. As a result of that review process, the Council determined that the current land use controls did not adequately address various land use concerns in the area. Among these concerns were inadequate or inappropriate buffering of nearby residential uses, nonconforming uses, zoning ordinances which were not consistent with the City's Comprehensiv Land Use Plan, insufficient or hazardous traffic circulatio, changes in land use and roadways which occurred since current zoning controls were adopted, and adjacent or nearby land uses or potential uses which were not compatible with permitted uses or special uses in the affected area. 1.02. The Council determined that there was a need for further studies to be conducted so that the City could adopt appropriate amendments to its Comprehensive Plan and zoning ode so as to ens g ure P rotection of the public health, safety and welfare. The Council directed that such studies be undertaken, =36949 II1t991 -�3 1.03. Studies and amendments to the City code which were considered in connection with earlier reviews of the official controls applicable to the affected area were not acted upon by the City Council. 1 • As a result of consideration of an application for a special use permit for a filling station and car wash on a portion of the property affected by this ordinance, the Council has determined that the current zoning of the affected area is not, or may not be, appropriate or sufficient to protect the public health, safety or welfare for a number of reasons. These reasons include, but are not limited to, the following: a. The proposed use would have unacceptably adverse impacts on surrounding uses because of 24 hour activity, noise, lights, glare and traffic. b. Such adverse impacts cannot be adequately mitigated by site design or Improvements. c + Many of these adverse impacts would result from permitted uses as well as special uses under current zoning. 1.85. A hearing has been scheduled for the purpose of considering amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. 1.08. The Council has therefore determined that there is a need for an interim ordinance to be adopted for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City and ensuring that the City and its citizens retain the benefits of, and protection sought to be afforded by, the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinances until such hearing is held, and any modifications to the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning and land use regulations are effective. Section 2. Determination 2.01. This interim ordinance shall apply to the property at 6626 West River Road and all property south of 66th Avenue and north of I -694 between Willow Lane and Highway 252 (the subject area) . 2.02. During the period this interim ordinance is in effect, no property within the subject area may be developed, redeveloped, nor shall any site plan approvals, rezonings, licenses (other than renewals), plattings or replattings, land divisions or consolidations, special use permits or building permits be issued by the City for any use. 2.03. This ordinance shall remain in effect until , or such earlier date as may be adopted by the City Council, provided that if the consideration and adoption of amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning code are not effective by the end of such period, this ordinance may be extended for such additional periods as are deemed necessary by the City Council and as are permitted by law. CLL569�9 b1t291 -4� Section 3. Applicability 3.01. This ordinance applies to any application for site plan approvals, rezonings, licenses, plattings or replattings, land divisions or consolidations, special use permits or building permits that have not received preliminary approval by the City Council before the effective date of this ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. 4.01. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of � , 1893. Mayor - City cler Date of Publication: Effective Date: CLLS0949 Uagl - 3 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING PROCESS AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY, AND REGULATING AND RESTRICTING DEVELOPMENT AT THE PROPER LOCATED AT 6626 WEST RIVER ROAD AND ALL LAND SOUTH OF 66TH AVENUE AND NORTH OF I -694 LYING BETWEEN WILLOW LANE AND HIGHWAY 282. WHEREAS, in connection with the consideration of applications for rezoning and permits for development of a portion of the property affected by this resolution, City staff, consultants, Planning Commission, the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group and the City Council reviewed the existing and potential development in the area. As a result of that review process, the Council determined that the current land use controls did not adequately address various land use concerns in the area, Among those concerns were Inadequate or inappropriate buffering of nearby residential uses, nonconforming uses, zoning ordinances which were not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan, insufficient or hazardous traffic circulation, changes in land use and roadways which occurred since current zoning controls were adopted, and adjacent or nearby land uses or potential uses which were not compatible with permitted uses or special uses in the affected area; and WHEREAS, the Council determined that there was a need for further studies to be conducted so that the City could adopt appropriate amendments to its Comprehensive Plan and zoning code so as to ensure protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The Council directed that such studies be undertaken; and WHEREAS, studies and amendments to the City code which were considered in connection with the earlier reviews of the official controls applicable to the affected area were not acted upon by the City Council; and CLLi�F76 1317!1 -43 WHEREAS, as a result of consideration of an application for a special use Permit for a filling station and car wash on a portion of the property affected by this ordinance, the Council has determined that the current zoning of the affected area Is not, or may not be, appropriate or sufficient to protect the public health, safety or welfare for a number of reasons. These reasons include but ut are not limited to, the following: 1 • The proposed use would have unacceptably adverse impacts on surrounding uses because of 24 hour activity, noise, lights, glare and traffic. 2. Such adverse impacts acts ca p neat be adequately mitigated b site design or Improvements. q Y 8'a Y Sn 3. Many of these adverse impacts would result from permitted uses as well as special uses under current zoning. and WHEREAS, a hearing has been scheduled for the purpose of considering amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning codes and WHEREAS, the Council has therefore determined that there is a need for regulations to be adopted for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City and ensuring that the City and its citizens retain the benefits of, and protection sought to be afforded by, the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinances until such hearing is held, and any Modifications to the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning and land use regulations are effective. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. This Resolution shall apply to the property at 6625 West River Road and all property south of 66th Avenue and north of I -684 between Willow Lane and Highway 252 (the subject area), 2. During the period this Resolution is in effect no ra ert within p p y hin the subject area may be developed, redeveloped, nor shall any site plan approvals, rezonings, licenses (other than renewals), plattings or =54936 1A291 -4! 2 replattings, land divisions or consolidations, special use permits or building permits be issued by the City for any uses. 3. This Resolution shall remain in effect until or such earlier date as may be adopted by the City Council, provided that if the consideration and adoption of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code are not effective by the end of such period, this Resolution may be extended for such additional periods as are deemed necessary by the City Council. 4. This Resolution applies to any application for site plan approvals, rezonings, licenses, plattings or replattings, land divisions or consolidations, special use permits or building permits that have not received preliminary approval by the City Council for the adoption of this Resolution. S. This Resolution is effective upon adoption. Dated: , 1993 Tod Paulson, Mayor ATTEST. Jerry Sp ter, 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. CLL3O435 M91 -43 3 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date SM ember 77, 1"3 Agenda Item Number a� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: DISCUSSION ITEM - RECOMMENDATION FROM THE HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESOURCES COMMISSION REGARDING FAIR HOUSING PROGRAM DEPT. APPROVAL: Geralyn . Barone, Personnel Coordinator MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOAI1VIEENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SU1VIrVIARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes • At its September 8, 1993, meeting, the Brooklyn Center human rights and resources commission met with Mr. Charlie Warner of Community Action for Suburban Hennepin (CASH), who asked for the City's endorsement of the concept of a fair housing center that eventually may serve Brooklyn Center and area residents. The commission passed a motion recommending the city council support this concept. Attached is an informational description of what a fair housing center is. Mr. Warner said he has been asked to explore the feasibility of setting up such a center and to assist in determining if this is an effort CASH should pursue and help create. He is meeting with local human rights commissions in nine communities to determine the level of support available. Mr. Warner noted CASH has available resources and is only looking for an expression of support. REQUESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Consider the human rights and resources commission's recommendation to support the concept of a fair housing center. If in support, pass a motion indicating such. e f I.OP § 3. 2 FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF METROPOLITAN DETROIT ROOM 601 2230 WITHERELL DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48201 (313) 963 -1274 WHAT IS A FAIR HOUSING CENTER? Private, non - profit, citizen based fair housing centers (FHCs) exist in over sixty (60) major metropolitan areas in the Unites States. Typically, a fair housing center is a tax - exempt (501 [c] [3] IRS tax status) organization composed of a financially supporting membership base that elects a Board of Directors for the organization-. Some centers have been in existence for over 20 years -, most are still looking forward to their 10th anniversary: Although all have some funding, few have annual budgets in excess of $100,000 -. When funded, local FHCs often receive financial support through contracts for fair housing services with local units of government. Depending on the amount of funding available, centers may or may not be staffed by paid professionals -. Whether staffed by paid employees or not, local FHCs normally benefit from and depend on a high level of support from volunteers-. Generally, fair housing centers have broadly stated objectives related to the achievement of equal housing opportunity in a specific metro area or community-. Centers usually identify that they are - concerned about insuring equality of housing opportunity without discrimination based on whatever factors are unlawful in that state, area or community (e.g., race, religion color, national origin, sex, age, marital or handicap status in Michigan). In . addition, the center may adopt a more specific set of objectives or program priorities that are designed to fill gaps in fair housing services in that metro area and to help focus the limited resources and energies of the center most effectively. The following is a list of program activities most often engaged in by local fair housing centers: 1: Housing discrimination complaint reception, investigation and resolution services: These services are normally the'top priority .item for fair housing centers and include testing services to assist in the investigation of complaints, and attorney referral services to assist in the resolution of complaints -. 2; Survey testing to identify and expose broad patterns and practices of unlawful housing discrimination, even when a bona -fide homeseeker complainant is not available-. 3: Educational and informational programs about fair housing for housing providers, members of protected groups, referral agencies, attorneys and the general public-. 4•. Homeseeker services, especially geared to families /individuals who desire to make non - traditional (pro - integration) housing choices: LOP § 3. 2 WHAT IS A FAIR HOUS1NG CENTER ?, page 2 5: Conduct statistical and research activities on various fair housing issues, including "redlining "; develop demographic profiles; identify levels, types and location of discrimination complaint activity; or examine other fair housing matters. 6 -: Establishment and maintenance of a referral list of real estate agents /brokers, rental firms or mortgage lending institutions that operate (or have pledged to operate) in a manner to affirmatively further equal housing opportunity: 7 -: Provide consulting technical and program implementation services to employers, businesses, units of government and housing providers that are seeking to implement fair housing programs. 8. Work with neighborhood groups, community organizations and other service providers to help promote and achieve more racially and ethnically diverse neighborhoods. Some fair housing centers, especially those that operate in communities where there are few, if any, other agencies working on housing issues, become involved in providing some, or all, of the following general housing services: 1: Landlord /tenant advice and legal services; 2: Pre - purchase and mortgage default financial counseling; 3-, Low - income homeseeking and emergency housing services; 4. Housing rehabilitation and housing production issues and programs; 5 Monitoring of government (local, state or federal) activities as they may relate to housing issues. Fair housing centers seek to work cooperatively with other civil rights, fair housing law enforcement and citizen based housing related agencies, attempting to avoid overlapping services, to fill gaps in existing services and provide the type of service that will both benefit individuals with complaints of unlawful housing discrimination and further the cause of equality in housing opportunity in the metro area. 2/4/85 6/26/87 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 9/27/93 Agenda Item Num 7 ber / REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: STAFF REPORT ON PROPOSED PARK AND RIDE FACILITIES ON BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, NORTH OF 65TH AVENUE DEPT. APPROVAL: Knapp, erector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached AES • On 6/28/93 the City Council conducted a public hearing regarding the proposed storm water pond, Park and Ride facility and park development in the southwesterly quadrant of the I- 694 /Brooklyn Boulevard interchange. Following that meeting the Council: ✓ approved development of the storm water pond and authorized acquisition of the 4.1 acre vacant property for that purpose; and ✓ directed staff to evaluate the various issues which were discussed at the public hearing relating to the Park and Ride facility, and report back to the City Council. The staff report regarding the Park and Ride facility was submitted to the City Council on 8/9/93, and the City Council then directed staff to conduct one or more informational meetings with citizens in the project area to present staff's report and solicit additional input. The public informational meeting was held at the Garden City School on 9/9/93. A copy of our notes from that meeting and citizens' written evaluations are attached. We believe that meeting went very well, with good citizen participation. Based on the discussion at that meeting, one major area of concern is the ability of 65th Avenue to carry the additional traffic and the traffic impact (both existing traffic volumes and the additional traffic from the Park and Ride facility) on 65th Avenue. Accordingly, staff is working with SRF (the consultants) and MTC to develop a plan for improvements to 65th Avenue which will (1) improve its capacity, (2) reduce the potential for accidents by realignment of the road (larger radii on the reverse curves, etc.); and (3) move the edge of the 65th Avenue roadway approximately 8 feet away from the properties on the other side of the street - to allow the boulevard in front of those homes to be landscaped. We plan to hold a meeting with only the property owners on 65th Avenue to review this plan with them during the week of October 6 to allow additional discussion and "fine - tuning" of that plan. At the 9/9/93 meeting we asked the people who attended whether or not another general meeting should be held before this matter was brought back to the City Council. The nearly- unanimous consensus indicated such a meeting was unnecessary, because the citizens believed they now have the information they need. Accordingly, staff agreed: ✓ to conduct the meeting with the property owners on 65th Avenue; ✓ to recommend to the City Council that another public hearing regarding the proposed Park and Ride facility be conducted by the City Council; and ✓ to recommend that a final decision regarding this manner be made expeditiously. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution calling a public hearing regarding the Park and Ride facility on October 25, 1993 is provided for consideration by the Council. r Park and Ride Informational Meeting Thursday, September 9, 1993 Garden City School Residents: About 50 Staff: Sy Knapp, G G Splinter, Diane Spector, Ferrol Robinson (SRF), Aaron Isaacs (MTC), Mayor Paulson, Council Member Kalliger, Council Member Rosene Knapp opened the meeting with a welcome and stated that the purpose of the meeting was to answer questions which were raised at the public hearing. The intent is that this meeting would be a work session, with the results of this and possibly additional meetings taken to the Council. If the Council on review of this information wished to reconsider the Park and Ride, then a new public hearing would be ordered, and individual notices would again be sent out. Knapp elaborated on the background of the Park and Ride issue. He briefly reviewed the three plans under consideration. Aaron Isaacs, MTC, presented MTC's position on the Park and Ride. He stated that this site is attractive to the MTC because there is no park and ride in this area, and express bus service is slow. Currently, buses travel down to 49th Avenue, then travel almost two miles on 49th to the 1 -94 entrance. MTC is very interested in utilizing the existing bus /carpool entrance to 1 -94 at Brooklyn Boulevard. He showed a map of MTC park and ride lots in the Northwest suburbs, and how the proposed park and ride would fit into the larger plan for serving this part of the Metro area. He stated that one of the goals of MTC is to use park and ride lots as a substitute for bringing many buses into neighborhoods. Rather than bringing the route to the neighborhoods, it is more cost effective to bring the neighborhoods to the route. He sees the park and ride as the last stop before buses enter the freeway. Ferrol Robinson, SRF, reviewed the design of the park and ride. He used alternate #3 to illustrate that at first all traffic would use 65th Avenue to access the site. In the future, when a median on Brooklyn Boulevard would extend from the freeway entrance south to 65th, a right in, right out access would be allowed on Brooklyn Boulevard. He noted that as a part of the project, 65th would be widened to provide a right turn only lane. This would reduce stacking potential, and improve chances that all the cars in the queue would get out in one light cycle. Using alternate #3, Robinson showed overlays of some proposed design alternatives. The first showed slightly smoothed out curves on 65th. The second showed 65th pulled more to the north, protecting the houses on the south. This option would reduce the number of parking spaces to 200, perhaps a few more. The third was a dramatic realignment, which would reduce spaces to about 190 - 210. Page 2 Robinson reviewed traffic counts taken in July to provide a sense of the existing amount of traffic. The counts showed that traffic at 65th was about 54% "going in" (i.e., travelling west) and 46% " oin out (travelling east). The average count translated into 2 -3 cars per minute. He noted that going " ( g ) g P the crews doing the traffic counts observed that no car ever had to wait more than one cycle at the 65th light. Her i he trips reviewed t t s enerated estimate for ark and ride versus commercial and daily g P g P � Y traffic volumes on Brooklyn Boulevard. Q: What assumptions did you use to show an increase in traffic in 2010? This residential area is fully developed - there are no new houses being built. FR: One of the first reasons is that everybody's making more trips. In 1970, a study by the Met Council in conjunction with the 1970 census estimated an average of 2.7 trips per day per person. In 1982, that figure increased to 3.4 In 1990 it increased to 3.8. The second reason is that we have observed that regional facilities (i.e., freeways, arterials, etc) are more congested, and more drivers are finding commuter routes which use city streets. The third reason is that even though a neighborhood seems stable, there is a turnover over time to families with larger households. You wouldn't think that traffic would increase that much, but when you look at the historical data, you find that it does. Robinson reviewed average daily traffic forecasts, and peak hour forecasts. He said that at the peak hour, the level of service provided is level D. Knapp used an overhead summarizing the major questions put forward at the public hearing to present brief answers prepared by staff: 1. Tax impact, and why retire taxable property Taxes on the pond property are currently about $10,600, of which $1,928 goes to the City. The taxes on the other properties which would be acquired is about $19,348, of which $4,678 goes to the City. Knapp reviewed the zoning map of the area. He noted that with the existing zoning (Cl) , we don't expect to see a great improvement in the condition of residential properties. However, it would be difficult and expensive to develop this area as Cl. 2. Impact on property values We don't know the answer to this. We do know that deteriorating properties would have a negative impact on values. If the pond and park and ride are built, everything possible would be done to make the area attractive and an asset to the neighborhood. 3 & 4 Existing traffic problems and traffic impacts Page 3 Ferrol Robinson answered these questions in his presentation, but we'd be happy to answer additional questions you may have after the break 5 Brooklyn Boulevard is not the place for single family residential We totally agree with this comment 6 Overflow parking concerns The concern here is that there would be too much parking coming into the neighborhood, or that traffic would "mill" in the neighborhood. Our response is that MTC customers are repeat customers, who are aware of what happens day to day. If they consistently try to get into the park and ride and find it consistently full, they will go elsewhere. We do recognize that what could happen is that people may start parking on the streets. We have places in the city near bus stops which currently act as informal park and rides. Our response is that we have a 6 hour daytime parking limit. The police department monitors areas which become a problem. After a few tags are issued, the problem goes away. 7 Bus traffic patterns & ability to use ramp We have reviewed this question with Hennepin County, MNDOT, and SRF, and believe that with a few minor changes to the geometrics of the entrance buses will easily be able to maneuver this ramp. 8 Size of facility Alternate #3 showed 235 spaces. MTC believes the minimum spaces available at this park and ride should be about 200. We have some room to work within the layouts to address the neighborhood's concerns and to meet MTC's needs. 9 Increase in crime, vandalism We talked to the police chief in Brooklyn Park, which has two park and rides. They have experienced very low crime and vandalism. At one site open for 2 years, there have been no incidents. At the other site, there has been one minor incident. 10 Assurance about landscaping & maintenance On this question I refer you to our 69th Avenue project. That is the level of commitment we have to providing and maintaining landscaping and amenities. Q: Is the proposed landscaping and maintenance at City cost? SK: The City is responsible for all costs relating to acquiring, developing, and maintaining the pond; MTC for the park and ride. One possibility is that the City could provide maintenance for the park and ride and MTC would reimburse the City. Page 4 We recognize that the MTC in its newer facilities has a very good track record. They recognize that long term success of the park and ride depends on maintaining good, attractive, safe facilities. 11 Objections to possible commercial component At this time this is just a concept. If we were to consider such a development, then proper zoning would have to be considered. 12 Previous request for Stop sign at Indiana denied We are taking traffic counts and accident surveys, and will reevaluate the possibility of a Stop sign at this intersection. 13 Houses on 65th have been hit by vehicles We would like more information on where these might have occurred. We haven't been able to find anything. 14 Review of alternate sites Knapp noted that MTC believes that the 63rd Avenue site could work as a park and ride with certain conditions. MTC would only consider the site if it had permanent control. 200 spaces would take up 30 percent of the parking area. Staff believes that to consider this site for a permanent park and ride would be a serious mistake. Knapp showed a Brooklyn Boulevard corridor map from the Brooklyn Boulevard Phase I study showing 3 major commercial nodes: Brookdale, 63rd, and 69th. 63rd is a prime location for redevelopment, and the plan shows the entire NE corner being redeveloped as a "town center" development. Regarding the 69th Avenue site, MTC believes it could work, but is not as good a site as 65th. Again, this corner has very strong commercial redevelopment potential. At Brookdale, MTC leases only 85 spaces. This lot is overparked now, and Brookdale is not interested in leasing more space. MTC's biggest objection to the site is that it does not have a direct access to the freeway. There is no access to I -94 eastbound from TH100. Buses would have to either proceed back north up Brooklyn Boulevard to the freeway, or down to 49th, which would be no improvement at all over the current situation. The Xerxes Avenue site has serious access problems, both for drivers getting to and from the site, and for buses. Finally, the Lyndale and 53rd site is very small, and is too close to downtown. MTC believes that drivers already on the freeway would not exit so close to downtown. 15 Notices sent only to owners within 300' Notice to all property owners within 300 feet is standard for any site development proposals. We have made a commitment to also notify any persons who have spoken at meetings or signed a petition. Page 5 Break at 8:30 for coffee and cookies. During the break, a video tape of the operations at a park and ride site at I -394 and CR 73 was shown for interested parties. When meeting reconvened, all questions answered by Knapp (SK) unless noted FR (Ferrol Robinson, SRF) or Al (Aaron Isaacs, MTC). Q: If the park and ride is not approved, which properties would be acquired? A: The Council has expressed support for alternate #3, if both facilities are going to be built. If there would be no park and ride development, then the Council would have to consider its options. One option would be to acquire 5 houses and turn the area all into a park. Our recommendation is to put all further consideration of property acquisition on hold until a decision is made on the park and ride. Q: I'm concerned about the safety of the pond. A: The design incorporates very flat slopes to the water, and an even flatter slope in the water. Obviously any time there is standing water there is a chance of someone getting hurt. Staff strongly recommends not installing a fence. Kids being kids they will see this fence as an invitation. Staff has asked our risk management consultants to estimate the magnitude of the risk taken on by the city. Their response is that there would be no impact on the City's insurance rates because these types of accidents are very infrequent. This is based on their experience in cities which have literally hundreds of ponds in residential areas with no incidents. Q: I believe that adding a park adds value to the neighborhood. A: The council rejected alternate #1 because there was not enough green space. Our feeling is that we want to present a pond within a park, not just a pond. Alternate #3 shows a basketball court and playground equipment. This doesn't mean that these facilities r indicate the amount of space which a e what will o there; the are shown to p g Y would be available. I would hope that the people on indiana would consider themselves in a similar situation to the people on the new north side of 69th Avenue. We worked very closely with them to ensure that the landscaping and fencing provided met their needs. Q: If just the pond is built, then you would take 5 homes. If the park and ride, 15 properties. What's the percent of City cost versus MTC cost? A: MTC would pay the full costs of its properties. It is likely that the MTC and City would negotiate the sharing of the acquisition cost for one "interface" property. Q: What's the advantage of the park and ride for the neighbors? I have my house up for sale and I can't get what I ask because of the park and ride. A: I can't give you an answer which will satisfy you. Q: Isn't Hennepin County going to widen Brooklyn Boulevard, and if there is no park and ride, won't the city have to pay for the right of way? A: Hennepin County is considering widening Brooklyn Boulevard, and will probably need Page 6 additional right of way on the west side - maybe 15 -20 feet. When you consider taking that much property, you usually end up with a full taking. Under current Hennepin County policy, right of way acquisition costs would be split with the City 50150. If the park and ride is constructed, then MTC would pay the full cost of acquiring the right of way. MTC is working with Hennepin County to determine where that property line needs to be, and has agreed to dedicate the necessary right of way to Hennepin County. Q: If the park and ride doesn't work out, could the MTC sell the property for commercial use? A: The site is currently zoned Cl, so a commercial use is authorized. We believe that the park and ride will be successful. Q: Are you going to drain more water into the pond? A: There is a 54" pipe going down 65th. The reason for the pond is that during a storm, that pipe gets overloaded and backs up into the streets. Under this plan, that pipe would be diverted into the pond. The bottom of the pond is deeper than the existing water table. We want to keep water in the pond, and will do soil evaluation and add clay if necessary. Q: So there would be no mosquitos? This would be good clean water? A: It would be a much better situation than now, when there is standing water in the wetlands. Q: What impact would it have on water in the basements of the nearby homes? A: We wouldn't add to any existing problems. We hope that it would make your situation better, if you are now having problems. Q: Why can't a plan be developed for beautification of the entire area without the park and ride. Take out the properties on Brooklyn Boulevard, and move the pond closer to Brooklyn Boulevard. A: We don't have the extra $2 million it would take to purchase the properties. We have enough in the Storm Drainage Utility to pay for the pond and park, but not for the rest. Q: The City is empowered to zone for any uses it sees fit. You could remove properties in that area which are now an "inappropriate fit." Can't we build the pond and then acquire the properties on Brooklyn Boulevard as they become blighted? A: The Brooklyn Boulevard roadway improvement will be happening in 2 -3 years. The right of way cost is money we don't have. Regarding zoning, the City can't really do that. We have to be very careful. If a property is zoned for one use, and the City decides to "down zone," the courts consider that a taking. Cities have been held liable for damages. Q: My concern is how busy it is now at the intersection at 65th between 4 and 6 pm. A: Ferrol mentioned but I'll repeat. First, part of the project would be to add a second lane to 65th. That will reduce congestion. Second, if MTC were there, Hennepin County would have sufficient reason to reprogram the signals at the intersection. On Brooklyn Boulevard, during the morning rush hour, traffic wanting to get onto I -694 can get backed up. MNDOT will reprioritize the signals on the ramps. We are working with Hennepin County on capacity improvements to Brooklyn Boulevard. We learned today that the County's application for federal funding for this project Page 7 is #1 on the priority list. That roadway improvement will make a vast difference. The level of service now is D or F. We expect that after the project it will be a C or B. One of the reasons why this application rated so high is the high accident rate on Brooklyn Boulevard. Q: If the park and ride is built, if traffic backs up and people don't want to wait at the 65th light, people will cut through the neighborhood. A: We mentioned that we know some of that is going on now. With the proposed improvements, there will be less back up than there is now. Q: Stop signs on 65th would help. A: I don't believe in general that this is a good idea, but it is an alternative to look at. SK: Please tell us whose houses have been hit. Does anyone know the details? At this point, a resident brought forward information and photos of an accident which occurred about 15 years ago, in which a car driven by a drunk driver lost control on the 65th Avenue curve and hit the resident's house. Also, a number of residents noted that drivers regularly drive up on the boulevard, but that these were not incidents which were reported to the police. Q: The alcohol related accident is one thing. I have a day care and I don't let the kids go out and play in the yard. Drivers drive up over the edge of the street. Q: Would MTC pay a portion of the cost for maintenance of 65th? How much do express buses weigh? Al: Actually, articulated buses are easier on the streets because of the axle loadings. Q: What will happen to traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard if the signals at 65th are changed to give it priority? A: 65th won't need a lot more priority. The extra time given to 65th won't affect Brooklyn Boulevard very much. Q: 65th is wide enough for two lanes now. Why not stripe it that way? A: The roadway is not wide enough to legally stripe it as two lanes. Q: How many buses would there be? AI: There would be about 15 -20 passengers per bus, about 12 buses over 2 hours. SK: Based on our observations of other park and rides, the 15 to 20 people who arrive leave spread out over 5 minutes, so it spaces itself out. Q: What time would buses start running? AI: 6:10 - 8:15 am, 4:10 - 6:45 p.m.. If someone wants to get to the park and ride outside of those times, they can always take a local bus. Some local buses would be eliminated under this plan. Q: Brookdale wants to have a hub. Why not do both there? Page S A: These are two very different uses. People wanting to use a park and ride just want to get where they're going quickly. Off peak hours in the day and evening, people are interested in going to Brookdale, or to get to various places in town or in a different suburb. These are two separate issues. Q: What about pollution. Are buses tested for emissions? Al: There are new regulations for large diesel engines in '94 - there are no standards now. Over the past 2 years electronic controls in the newer buses have reduced emissions 50 percent. However, we don't yet meet '94 standards. Diesels produce particulates, smoke, not CO which is the main polluter. SK: Where do we go from here? the Council has asked us to hold as many informational meetings as needed. Is there a need for another meeting? We will want to meet directly with owners on 65th about the design of the reverse curve. Is another general meeting needed? [Only a few hands shown] Q: We may not have any questions. You're going to put it in whether we want it or not. A: Only after another public hearing will the Council decide. Q: Will it be a public vote? A: All meetings are open to the public Q: Would like to have a meeting when Hennepin County has decided what to do with Brooklyn Boulevard. A: Hennepin County will have open meetings. There is a citizens' committee now working on designs, which will go beyond the basic requirements for meetings. Q: Will a final plan be available at the hearing? A: There is lots of work to be done, we have to investigate a lot of details. We do want to visit with the owners on 65th. We will take all that information to the public hearing. Even at that time there could be some minor modifications proposed. Q: Would it help to have a show of hands now? A: We would prefer to wait until the hearing. Q: Any idea when the hearing will be? A: Probably a minimum of 2 months. Q: The engineering firm - who's hired him? A: MTC pays the costs for the park and ride work. It is important to be able to coordinate development of the two facilities. We don't believe that there is a conflict of interest. Respectfully submitte lane Spector e:\eng\project \pond &p8cr \min9_9 EVALUATION FORM COMMENTS FOR PARK & RIDE MEETING 09/09/93 Two people noted that MTC could do a better job in their presentation to convince them that the Park & Ride installation would be an advantage to the neighborhood. Others felt the format was very fair, informative and sometimes contained too much detail. The following suggestions were given when residents responded to what the City can do to better communicate with residents: Neighborhood Surveys. More personal contact Notify a larger number of households by direct mail regarding projects Special notices rather than "general" information articles in paper, newsletter It was a general consensus the storm water pond is a good idea, a great improvement for the area, and the plan should not be delayed any longer. Of the nine respondents, three persons believe the Park & Ride would be an asset to the community, one feels the City should use this opportunity to straighten out and widen 65th, one had no comment and five respondents concerns about the proposed Park and Ride include: Traffic going west on 65th using side streets to cut through to 63rd Crime Curves on 65th need to be straightened to prevent traffic jams with the buses Increased traffic and traffic related congestion problems Other comments or questions included concerns by an owner of a 4 -plex of keeping the units rented until the issues are settled. One resident expressed a very strong concern about traffic speed, the increase of traffic and the driveway to the Dental Center. One resident questioned why the issue is still being discussed when citizens earlier objected. Another resident said the Council should make it clear to the general public that both projects are good for Brooklyn Center. Four respondents attended the first informational meeting, six attended the Public Hearing and the 09/09/93 meeting was the first for two. e: \eng \project \pond &p &r \comments.9_9 September 13, 1993 Ferrol Robinson Strgar- Roscoe- Fausch One Carlson Parkway Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Ferrol, I am writing in regards to the MTC Park and Ride and Brooklyn Center storm water project at the corner of 65th and Brooklyn Boulevard. My wife Debra and I attended the informational meeting on Thursday September 9 and spoke with you after the meeting. 40 We live on the corner of 65th and Marlin Drive and discussed the possibility of the MTC and the city acquiring our property and the property next door to use in the straightening of 65th Avenue with you. You did express some interest in the idea in that it would make the work in dealing with 65th Avenue easier as well as providing more space for the Park and Ride. Debra spoke v0th Todd Paulson on Sunday September 12 about the idea and he agreed that the idea did have some merit. The reason that we would be open to the city and the MTC acquiring our property is that we have been planning to move during the summer of 1994 for the last two years. The project does pose problems for the sale of our property during the planning and construction phases of the project as the uncertainty of the final outcome would be in perspective buyers minds. I am confident that ultimately the area will be improved by the project but unfortunately we will not be around to see it. The property next door is currently for sale and our plans are to put our property up for sale in the spring of 94' so we can be moved before the school year starts again in the fall when we will have two children in school. I have included a map with our home highlighted and a sketch of the straightening of 65th that we talked about. I believe that this could be a winning situation for the MTC, the city of Brooklyn Center and the residents involved in the project. I would like to meet with you and the city planning staff to discuss this proposal. Sincerely, Matthew Braun 4023 65th' North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 535 -5851 (home) 574 -8276 (work) cc: Todd Paulson Sy Knapp II AVE. _ \ r r r F1 n ❑ r D; \ i \ i r ; N I EJ O 0 El _ % Storm Water Pond / Park and Ride Facility SRF I Brooklyn Center, Minnesota r I ALTERNATE #1 Neighborhood Meeting Evaluation Form Please help us to better meet your needs by filling out this evaluation form. The first part of the survey asks for your comments regarding the presentation itself. The second part of the survey asks for your comments regarding the proposed project GENERAL QUESTIONS: 1. How do you feel about the format of tonight's meeting? Liked a lot Liked somewhat Indifferent Didn't like 2. Did the presentation cover all the issues adequately? (Ve� Somewhat Not thorough enough 3. What do you think about the length of the presentation? oo long Just right Too short 4. Were all your questions answered? Yes No 5. What other comments do you have regarding the presentation? h and 6. In general, what can the City do to better communicate with residents? Please turn this sheet over for more questions QUESTIONS REGARDING ARDING THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1. What are your comments, concerns regarding the storm water pond, which has been approved for construction? aW 2. What are your specific concerns about the proposed Park and Ride? Did you have any questions which were not addressed tonight? e Cam r iz r .` o, n V Is S G' enh.dl s . r Q a& i d-..4 0 3. What other comments or questions do you have? 4. Which of the following meetings did you attend ? 1st informational meetings --Lz Public hearing This is the first Name (optional) C 7o 4 nh > A7 0 n A� Address l 3/3 Please return to: Engineering Department 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 F Neighborhood Meeting Evaluation Form Please help us to better meet your needs by filling out this evaluation form. The first part of the survey asks for your comments regarding the presentation itself. The second part of the survey asks for your comments regarding the proposed project GENERAL QUESTIONS: 1. How do you feel about the format of tonight's meeting? Liked a lot Liked somewhat' Indifferent Didn't like 2. Did the presentation cover all the issues adequately? C�ry Somewhat Not thorough enough 3. What do you think about the length of the presentation? Too long Just right Too short 4. Were all your questions answered? Yes j No 5. What other comments do you have regarding the presentation? 6. In general, what can the City do to better communicate with residents? Please turn this sheet over for more questions QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1. What are your comments, concerns regarding the storm water pond, which has been approved for construction? 2. What are your specific concerns about the proposed Park and Ride? Did you have any questions which were not addressed tonight? 3. What other comments or questions do you have? 4. Which of the following meetings did you attend ? 1st informational meetings Public hearing This is the first t g Name (optional Address Please return to: Engineering Department i 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Neighborhood Meeting Evaluation Form Please help us to better meet your needs by filling out this evaluation form. The first part of the survey asks for your comments regarding the presentation itself. The second part of the survey asks for your comments regarding the proposed project GENERAL QUESTIONS: 1. How do you feel about the format of tonight's meeting? Liked a IoCLiked somewhat Indifferent Didn't like 2. Did the presentation cover all the issues adequately? Very Somewhat Not thorough enough 3. What do you think about the length of the presentation? Too long Just right Too short 4. Were all your questions answered? Yes No 5. What other comments do you have regarding the presentation? 6. In general, what can the City do to better communicate with residents? Please turn this sheet over for more questions QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1. What are your comments, concerns regarding the storm water pond, which has been approved for construction? 2. What are your specific concerns about the proposed Park and Ride? Did you have any questions which were not addressed tonight? 3. What other comments or questions do you have? 4. Which of the following meetings did you attend ? 1st informational meetings Public hearing This is the first Name (optional) Address Please return to: Engineering Department 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Neighborhood Meeting Evaluation Form Please help us to better meet your needs by filling out this evaluation form. The first part of the survey asks for your comments regarding the presentation itself. The second part of the survey asks for your comments regarding the proposed project GENERAL QUESTIONS: 1. How do you feel about the format of tonight's meeting? Liked a lot Liked somewhat differen Didn't like 2. Did the presentation cover all the issues adequately? Very (Somew:h)a Not thorough enough 3. What do you think about the length of the presentation? Too long Just right Too short i 4. Were all your questions answered? Yes No 5. What other comments do ou have regarding the presentation? Y g g p 6. In general, what can the City do to better communicate with residents? -Q� K ,, C4� �-k- �-� o- 'R &- nc e r: R kk S Please turn this sheet over for more questions QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1. What are your comments, concerns regarding the storm water pond, which has been approved for construction? 4 G l� c-s 2. What are your specific concerns about the proposed Park and Ride? Did you have any questions which were not addressed tonight? --� m-r c 4 6 /D)W\-Jt 3. What other comments or questions do you have? 4. Which of the following meetings did you attend ? 1 st in�5rmational meetings Public hearing This is the first Name (optional) Address Please return to: Engineering Department i 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Y Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Neighborhood Meeting Evaluation Form Please help us to better meet your needs by filling out this evaluation form. The first part of the survey . asks for your comments regarding the presentation itself. The second part of the survey asks for your comments regarding the proposed project GENERAL QUESTIONS: 1. How do you feel about the format of tonight's meeting? Liked a lot Liked somewhat Indierent Didn't like 2. Did the presentation cover all the issues adequately? Very mewhat Not thorough enough 3. What do you think about the length of the presentation? Too long Just right Too short 4. Were all your questions answered? ` Yes 5. What other comments do you have regarding the presentation? 0�a CA, h \ P 6. _.In. general, what can the City do to better communicate with residents? I Please turn this sheet over for more questions QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1. What are your comments, concerns regarding the storm water pond, which has been approved for construction? 2. What are your specific concerns about the proposed Park and Ride? Did you have any questions which were not addressed tonight? 3. What other comments or questions do you have? 4. Which of the o ing meetings did you attend ? 1st informational meetings Public hearing This is the first Name (optional) _ Address 4 aa:� Please return to: Engineering Department 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Neighborhood Meeting Evaluation Form Please help us to better meet your needs by filling out this evaluation form. The first part of the survey asks for your comments regarding the presentation itself. The second part of the survey asks for your comments regarding the proposed project GENERAL QUESTIONS: 1. How do you feel about the format of tonight's meeting? Liked a l Lik somewhat 'Indierent Didn't like 2. Did the presentation cover all the issues adequately? = - V - � Somewhat Not thorough enough 3. What do you think about the length of the presentation? �oolonJust right Too short 4. Were all your questions answered? Yes No 5. What other comments do you have regarding the presentation? dc o� iGi �� o G l vt o&.( 6. In general, what can the City do to better communicate with residents? "01-y or y h e , 6� op kbj S V1 - ye��s oy� e�so�a/ �flh sic 4 J 4,/ 44 �E ✓�` d/� ✓ TE�BdT! �f �!!j2_ CJ �L �i�G° l) C/ C,-oU�c� C/ a C ev le— vC j- 'ff1 /��< /1 61` h J tv��� OfolL t '4 2 4��y Please turn this sheet over for more questions QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1. What are your comments, concerns regarding the storm water pond, which has been approved for construction? 6-7 12 V It. -04'r— (0 C4 2. What are your specific concerns about the proposed Park and Ride? Did you have any questions which were not addressed tonight? 76 L� A ? 7z-", V/ 4 .1/ e Y c e ``s,j 1 Vl eO 0(- dt- 3. What other comments or questions do you have? / ' �✓ �t /> GE?k. �1 ho4j i'c (/iti f Cq 6,-5 6�- Ate (,10 6 Fi b. � �i /k � b�- S. L 4 `Xit,�_� c hi » .,.. '� /Z ll / If?_ a � v _1ra -iv .r ang iric iirigs did lili Z1iLG11U 1st informational meetings ✓ Public hearing This is the first Name (optional) _M e l e R L � a. r , GJ /� 6 1. Address I /b �7 �� . Q�ExJ Please return to: Engineering Department 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Neighborhood Meeting �IlctI93 Evaluation Form Please help us to better meet your needs by filling out this evaluation form. The first part of the survey asks ; for your comments ..regarding the presentation itself. The second part of the survey asks for your comments regarding the proposed project GENERAL QUESTIONS: 1. How do you feel about the f t of tonight's meeting? Liked a lot Liked somewhat Indifferent Didn't like 2. Did the presentation cover all the issues adequately? Very Somewhat Not thorough enough' 3. What do you think about the length of the presentation? Too long Just right Too short 4. Were all your questions answered? Yes No 5. What other comments do you have regarding the presentation? Cc 6. In general, what can the City do to better communicate with residents? 116 N 7 - (FZ lychw Q E Please turn this sheet over for more questions QUESTIONS REGARDING ARDING THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1. What are your comments, concerns regarding the storm water pond, which has been approved for construction? pfxv v ' Doe, t 1>,q e- /v Ez� Olnr L 2. What are your specific concerns about the proposed Park and Ride? Did you have any questions which were not addressed tonight? P Po fL. , m t ?r Y 3. What other comments or questions do you have? t-6: (13 ( 161 OR I L � I T 4. Which of the following meetings did you attend ? 1st informational meetings Public hearing This is the first Name (optional) �Ll Address 46 16 Please return to: Engineering Department . 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Neighborhood Meeting Evaluation Form Please help us to better meet your needs by filling out this evaluation form. The first part of the survey asks for your comments regarding the presentation itself. The second part of the survey asks for your comments regarding the proposed project GENERAL QUESTIONS: 1. How do you feel about the format of tonight's meeting? iked a lot Liked somewhat Indifferent Didn't like 2. Did the presentation cover all the issues adequately? Very Somewhat Not thorough enough 3. What do you think about the length of the presentation? Too long Just right Too short 4. Were all your questions answered? Yes No 5. What other comments do you have regarding the presentation? b� 5 I nk h 1M�A�KS1 a��5 de4) / Mat& t�w '� �a 6. In g eneral, what can the C do to Vetter communicate with rents? t ,49 0 1a.4 g ri Please turn this sheet over for more questions QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1. What are your comments, concerns regarding the storm water pond, which has been approved for construction? 2. What are your specific concerns about the proposed Park and Ride? Did you have any questions which were not addressed tonight? l /1 rI r ' j 3. What other comments or questions do you have? Vefu 1��17d z4i�2� jaw YAO 4. Which of the following meetings did you attend ? 1st informational meetings Public hearing This is the first Name (optional) / Address Please return to: Engineering Department 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Neighborhood Meeting Evaluation Form Please help us to better meet your needs by filling out this evaluation form. The first part of the survey asks for your comments regarding the presentation itself. The second part of the survey asks for your comments regarding the proposed project GENERAL QUESTIONS: 1. How do 1 about the format of tonight's meeting? Liked a lot iked somewhat Indifferent Didn't like 2. Did the presentation cover all the issues adequately? . Very Somewhat Not thorough enough 3. What -dfl ou think about the length of the presentation? Too long Just right Too short 4. Were all your q uestions answered? Yes No 5. What other comments do you have regarding the presentation? V e- �c ►� OY YYl 1r 6. In general, what can the Cit do to better communicate with residents? Please turn this sheet over for more questions QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1. What are your comments, concerns regarding the storm water pond, which has been approved for construction? � o 1 Nr t � 2.` iat are specific concerns about e ro osed �� ,'' an Ride? o a p p �� any questions which were not addressed tonight? s1t � u i 1-4 , 5 k� \ V%- Ll 1 3. What other comments or questions do you have? SOW � 4. Which of the following meetings did you d ? a� s y� l st informational meetings Public hearing � This is the (i 4 — A— S. Name (optional) Address Please return to: Engineering Department 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 SIGN -IN SHEET FOR MTC PARK & RIDE INFORMATIONAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 9, 1993 NAME ADDRESS Vile, k/e, '�, z 2,1 Al L�4 7,0u G�1 °J� S / w y- SIGN-IN SHEET FOR MTC PARK & RIDE INFORMATIONAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 9, 1993 NAME ADDRESS D E - 7 411 C_ SIGN -IN SHEET FOR MTC PARK & RIDE INFORMATIONAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 9, 1993 NAME ADDRESS Park and Ride Petition Results o e s � ► ► � of m. � �.� *4. �•.. 66TH. AVE. N. 6 ___ AVE. N _ """ o • Z ca < WINCHESTER LA. • > 65tH AN & s ? A , 0 UL _ b •' • ♦ • • �• o� •o �z ♦ A SAN Cal ♦ z ♦ A ••�• CITY H A • • • : SQ►+�K A N �' ♦ ♦ A, AM"4N. P PARS DR. A f i ♦ -� z 63RD. AVE. N. L t o n T7 • Petitioned FOR ♦ Petitioned AGAINST Expressed support on meeting evaluation form Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PROPOSED PARK AND RIDE FACILITY, WEST OF BROOKLYN BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF 65TH AVENUE NORTH BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that a public hearing be held regarding development of a Park and Ride facility west of Brooklyn Boulevard and north of 65th Avenue North at 8 :00 p.m. on Monday, October 25, 1993 in the Council Chambers at Brooklyn Center City Hall. The clerk shall give mailed and published notice of said hearing. 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 9/27/93 G� Agenda Item Number l e. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: STAFF REPORT REGARDING HENNEPIN COUNTY'S PROPOSED CHANGES TO POLICIES REGARDING COST PARTICIPATION FOR COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY PROJECTS DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy app, Dir ctor of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached YES 1 • The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners is currently considering revisions to the policies which they adopted in 1978 for cost participation on "cooperative highway projects" (i.e. - improvement projects on roads which are under Hennepin County's jurisdiction, where such roads are within cities). Attached hereto are the following items: of the Existing Policy - 1993 (as adopted in 1978) ✓ the June 1993 draft policy ✓ the "Summary of Proposed Changes... 1993" as prepared by HCDOT ✓ an August 27, 1993 memo from the Hopkins Community Development Director, along with a draft resolution which he prepared for consideration by other cities This matter has been reviewed by Brooklyn Center staff and we submit the following summary: ■ The existing (1978) policy has one major inequity regarding cost participation in traffic signal systems, i.e.: At interchanges between trunk highways and county highways (or C.S.A.H.'s) the City is held responsible for 50% of construction costs not covered by MNDOT, for 100% of all power costs and for 100% of the costs for lamps and luminaires and cleaning and painting all • control signals, cabinets a luminaire mast arms. We believe it simply doesn't make sense to assign these responsibilities to a city which has no jurisdiction over those intersections. We also note that this policy has a significant impact on Brooklyn Center because there are 3 such major interchanges within Brooklyn Center (i.e. - the I- 694 /Brooklyn Boulevard interchange, the T.H. 100 /Brooklyn Boulevard interchange, and the T.H. 100 /CR10 interchange) with 5 existing traffic signal systems, all of which will need major upgrades or replacement in the near future; and near future need for a sixth system. Unfortunately the,proposed policy makes no change in this one area where we believe a major change is desperately needed. • The proposed policy contains many revisions which would increase the city's financial participation in cooperative highway projects, but not one revision to benefit the city. • The most potentially damaging portion of the proposed policy is the inclusion of a provision which would penalize cities for their use of tax increment financing to cover the city's share of a proposed project, i.e.: "If the municipality elects to use tax increment financing for any portion of the project, municipal participation in the construction cost will be 50% of the total engineering and construction costs (instead of a prorated portion based on the application of the detailed policy) and 100% of the right -of -way cost (instead of the 50% now required under the existing policy - and by the proposed new policy so long as no TIF funding is used)." This proposal has the very strong potential to kill a city's ability to support a project - and thereby kill the project. For Brooklyn Center, the adoption of this policy would have a very detrimental impact on the City's ability to accomplish improvements on Brooklyn Boulevard Action Outline ✓ Attached hereto is a copy of City Manager Splinter's 9/9/93 memo to the Hennepin County Board which Sy Knapp presented at the Board's 9/9/93 meeting. Several other cities presented statements and /or resolutions at that meeting, all in opposition to the proposed policy. At that time the Board continued consideration to their October 7, 1993 meeting. ✓ Brad Hoffman and Sy Knapp are attending meetings with other cities and HCDOT staff on 9/22/93 - to discuss the cities' approach to this issue. ✓ Based on the results of these meetings, staff will prepare a suggested resolution for consideration by the City Council at the 9/27/93 meeting. ✓ A coordinated follow -up to the City Council's action will be needed to minimize the damages which may result from the Hennepin County Board's proposal. APPROVED POLICY FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY PARTICIPATION IN TRAFFIC SIGNALS 6 TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION A. No Trunk Highways Involved (1) County Participation Townships & Municipalities Under 5000: 100% - Municipalities Over 5000: 25% - If two legs of intersecti or less are County highwa. 50% - If three legs of inter- section or more are Count highways. 50% - At interchange of County highway and municipal street (at ramp terminals, 75% - At interchange of two County highways (at ramp terminals). -B. One or More Trunk Highway Legs (2)• County Participation Townships & Municipalities Under 5000: 100 - Of cost not borne by MHD. - Municipalities Over 5000: 12k%- If one leg is County highw 25% - If two legs are County highways. C. Temporary Traffic Signals County Participation, :Townships & Municipalities Under 5000: 100% -Municipalities Over 5000: 0% (3) (�) Electrical power shall be furnished by the municipalities. Maintenance for all signals on county roads (except, a) within the City of Minneapolis, and b) by special agreement with Mn /DOT) shall be furnished by Hennepin County. t•lithin - ?iinneapolis the city shall be responsible for the maintenance of all traffic Signals on county roads with reimbursement `or this service appearing as an item - within the annual routine maintenance agreement between the city and county. The entire cost of any subsequent revisions, or updatings of a traffic signal originally installed in accoroance with the provisions of this --most participation policy, even to the extent of complete reconstruction, will - -tie borne by the County. - ..Approved Policy for Hennepin Page two .County Participation In Traffic Signals 2 (2) ) power and maintenance for all signals in this category shall be furnii by the MHD or the municipality (except by agreement with MHD). (3) By cooperative agreement between the City and the County, the entire cost of a temporary signal shall be borne by the City. (This applies only to locations where permanent traffic signals are planned for future installation. The county will absorb the entire cost of installing a temporary traffic signal to accomo- date detour or bypass traffic in conjunction with a construction project at a location where no permanent signal is planned.) Full credit for the City's investment will be applied toward their participation in a permanent traffic signal if installed within the time limits set forth in the cooperative agreement This credit may be extended ed should circumstances beyond the City ''s control delay the installation of the permanent signal beyond said time limits. The County wil maintain temporary signals p y gnats at county expense. The city will furnish electrical power to operate Po the device. ce. DLN:eal 10/20/77 DRAFT HENNEPIN COUNTY BUREAU OF PUBLIC SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS POLICIES FOR COST PARTICIPATION BETWEEN HENNEPIN COUNTY AND OTHER AGENCIES FOR COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY PROJECTS JUNE, 1993 INTRODUCTION The attached policies for cost participation will be used by Hennepin County to determine appropriate funding levels for cooperative highway projects with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, municipalities and other agencies. The prior cost policies were established by Hennepin County in 1978 and are being changed primarily as a result of the fact that County Property Tax funds are becoming increasingly limited and, in many cases, are not available to be used on a project. Therefore, County participation must be limited as much as possible to those items that are eligible for State Aid funding. A change has been made in the area of traffic signal participation. As traffic volumes increase, the County is being faced with an expanding number of intersections where traffic signals are warranted in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Installing and maintaining all traffic signals which meet warrants lac t 9 places a strain on both the Capital Budget et and the Operating Budget. The Count must therefore be 9 9 9 Y > more selective in terms of which traffic signals are installed and the extent of County participation. A change has also been made to address the use of Tax Increment Financing on County projects by municipalities. One reason that County Property Tax funds are limited is that the tax base is not expanding due to use of Tax Increment Financing. Since the use of the Tax Increment Financing does have a negative impact on County Property Tax funds, the established policy is intended to discourage the use of Tax Increment Financing for the municipal share of a project and, where used, to require a higher municipal cost share. TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1 SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1 PREMISES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1 DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1 ROADWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3 RIGHT OF WAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3 GRADING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3 SURFACING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3 STORM SEWER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3 CONCRETE SIDEWALK CONCURRENT WITH COUNTY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . Page 4 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER (NEW OR RECONSTRUCTED) CONCURRENT WITH COUNTY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT Page 4 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK FOR MEDIANS (NEW OR RECONSTRUCTED) CONCURRENT WITH COUNTY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT . . . . . . . . Page 4 CONCRETE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES (NEW OR RECONSTRUCTED) CONCURRENT WITH COUNTY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT Page 4 MUNICIPAL AND PRIVATE UTILITY RELOCATION OR RECONSTRUCTION (ABOVE /BELOW GROUND) . . . . . . Page 4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 4 PERMANENT TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM INSTALLATIONS . . Page 4 RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS . . Page 5 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATIONS . . . . . . . Page 5 BRIDGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 6 STREET LIGHTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 6 BIKEWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 6 LANDSCAPING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 6 ENGINEERING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 6 LUMP SUM, PRO -RATA ITEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7 UTILIZATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING . . . . . . . . . .• Page 7 HENNEPIN COUNTY BUREAU OF PUBLIC SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS POLICIES FOR COST PARTICIPATION BETWEEN HENNEPIN COUNTY AND OTHER AGENCIES FOR COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY PROJECTS I. PURPOSE To establish policies for determining appropriate division of cost participation to be used by Hennepin County in funding cooperative roadway, traffic signal and bridge construction projects with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, municipalities and other agencies. II. SCOPE The establishment of cost policy is consistent with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 162.17, 373.01, 471.59 and Amendments. III. PREMISES A. The basic premise is that the County pays for costs peculiar to County needs and municipalities pay for costs peculiar to municipal or local needs. B. On the County Aid Highway (CSAH) System, the County's participation may be limited to the County's State Aid eligibility. In order for the County to utilize CSAH funds to the fullest extent, the municipality may be precluded from using Municipal State Aid funds for certain elements of its project costs. C. A greater degree of County participation is afforded municipalities having a population of less than 5,000 because of the function of the County roadways in these areas. It is generally true that these roadways are of greater benefit to County -wide users and of less benefit to local users than is the case for roadways in more urbanized areas. In addition, this would be a form of compensation for the absence of direct State Aid allocations to these municipalities; notwithstanding the present County program of Aid to Municipalities under 5,000 population. IV. DEFINITIONS Accident Severity Factor: One element of the County's Traffic Signal Ranking System. This factor is used to measure the relative severity of Page 1 IV. DEFINITIONS Accident Severity Factor: - continued accidents by differentiating between property damage and personal injury accidents in terms of cost. Bikeway: A bicycle route, bicycle path, or bicycle lane. 1. Bicycle Route. A roadway or shoulder signed to encourage bicycle use. 2. Bicycle Path. A bicycle facility designed for exclusive or preferential use by persons using bicycles and constructed or developed separately from the roadway or shoulder. 3. Bicycle Lane. A portion of a roadway or shoulder designed for exclusive or preferential use by persons using bicycles. Bicycle lanes are to be distinguished from the portion of the roadway or shoulder used for motor vehicle traffic by physical barrier, striping, marking, or other similar device. Contributing Flow: A storm sewer procedure that considers that each agency participates in proportion to its share of the design discharge for each section of sewer between inflow points. This method is used by the Minnesota Office of State Aid on all projects except where federal participation is anticipated. County: Hennepin County. County Engineer: The County Engineer of Hennepin County or his designated representative. Municipality: Any municipality or township within Hennepin County. Over 5.000: A municipality of 5,000 population or more. Peak Discharge: A storm sewer method that considers that each agency's share is the ratio of its peak discharge through each section of sewer between inflow pints to the summation n of peak discharge for all agencies participating in the section 9 P P 9 tion of sewer between inflow P pints. Permanent Traffic Signal: A traffic control signal system normally consisting of metal signal poles with mast arms and underground electrical systems with conduit, cable and handhole installations. Priority Factor: A number which reflects the sum of the traffic volume factor, the accident susceptibility factor, and the accident severity factor in the County's Traffic Signal Ranking System. Storm Sewer: A drainage system usually consisting of one or more pipes connecting two or more drop inlets. The purpose is to convey surface runoff water from the inlets to an acceptable outlet. Street Lighting: All components normally installed by a municipality for the purpose of street illumination. Standard Specifications: Minnesota Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Highway Construction, latest edition and /or supplement thereto. Page 2 IV. DEFINITIONS - continued State Aid Manual: Manual published by the Minnesota Department of Transportation outlining State Aid policies and procedures. State Highway: A highway under jurisdiction of the State of Minnesota. Temaorary Traffic Signal: A traffic control signal system normally consisting of wood poles with signal indications suspended on span wires and overhead electrical systems. Trunk Line: Main conveyor of storm sewer system. Under 5,000: A municipality or township under 5,000 population. Utilities: Water, heating, electric, storm sewer, gas, sanitary, telephone, cable TV, telegraph, street lighting, fiber optics, etc. V. ROADWAYS The County's participation in roadway projects will be as follows: A. RIGHT OF WAY Under 5,000 100% Over 5,000 50% The County will not participate in right of way for parking lanes requested by a municipality. The County's participation in retaining walls constructed in lieu of right of way will be the same as for right of way. B. GRADING Under /Over 5,000 100% C. SURFACING Under /Over 5,000 100% The County will not participate in surfacing of parking lanes requested by a municipality. D. STORM SEWER The County's participation is based on the State Aid formula as defined in State Aid Manual No. 5- 892.600 -605 which uses the ratio of contributing flows except on federally funded projects where the peak discharge formula is used to arrive at the percentage of allowable State Aid funds. 1. Trunk lines Under 5,000 100% of County's Contributing Flow Over 5,000 50% of County's Contributing Flow 2. Catch basins and leads within the County highways and at the curb returns of side roadway entrances that drain onto the County highways. Under 5,000 100% Over 5,000 50% Page 3 V. ROADWAYS - continued 0 E. CONCRETE SIDEWALK CONCURRENT WITH COUNTY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT New - Under /Over 5,000 0% Replacement - Under /Over 5,000 State Aid Eligibility or 100% Whichever is Less F. CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER (NEW OR RECONSTRUCTED) CONCURRENT WITH COUNTY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT Under 5,000 75% Over 5,000 50% G. CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK FOR MEDIANS (NEW OR RECONSTRUCTED) CONCURRENT WITH COUNTY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT 100% H. CONCRETE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES (NEW OR RECONSTRUCTED) CONCURRENT WITH COUNTY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT Under 5,000 75% Over 5,000 50% I. MUNICIPAL AND PRIVATE UTILITY RELOCATION OR RECONSTRUCTION (ABOVE /BELOW GROUND) 0% VI. TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS Rationale: As traffic volumes increase, the County is being faced with an expanding number of intersections where traffic signals are warranted in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Installation of marginally warranted traffic signals reduces the efficiency of moving traffic on the County highway system and consumes construction and maintenance funds more appropriately used on higher priority needs. The County must, therefore, be more selective in terms of which traffic signals are installed and the extent of County participation. The County has developed a Traffic Signal Ranking System which reflects traffic volumes and accident susceptibility and severity. This system will be utilized to determine priorities for new traffic signals (both temporary and permanent). As a general policy, the County will not normally install, or allow to be installed, traffic signals at intersections with a priority factor of less than 30. In addition, some elements of County participation may vary depending upon the factors in the Traffic Signal Ranking System. Municipalities under 5,000 normally will not be required to participate in costs for traffic signal systems. The County's participation in traffic signal projects with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, municipalities over 5,000 and other agencies will be as follows: A. Permanent Traffic Signal System Installations: - The County will not normally install, or allow to be installed, traffic i s signals at intersections with a priority factor of less than 30. At locations where traffic signals are warranted and have a priority factor of 30 or more in the County's Traffic Signal Ranking System, the construction costs shall be pro -rated as follows. The construction costs Page 4 VI. TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS A. Permanent Traffic Signal System Installations - continued include all of the control equipment and standards, signal heads and related items, but does not include the costs of interconnect cable, conduit, and handholes necessary to coordinate traffic signals between intersections. These interconnect costs will be 100% County cost. 1. No Trunk Highways involved if: Two legs of the intersection or less State Aid Eligibility or are County roadways. 25% Whichever is Less Three legs or more of the State Aid Eligibility or intersection are County roadways 50% Whichever is Less 2. Trunk Highways involved if: One leg is a County roadway State Aid Eligibility or 12 1/2% Whichever is Less Two legs are County roadways State Aid Eligibility or 25% Whichever is Less B. Reconstruction of Existing Traffic Signal Systems Where existing. traffic signals are upgraded by installation of a new system the County's share shall be twice that shown in Paragraph A of Item No. VI. C. Temporary Traffic Signal Installations The municipality will pay the full cost of a temporary traffic signal and will not receive any credit for those costs when a permanent traffic signal is installed if the accident severity factor is less than 10. For those temporary traffic signal projects with an accident severity factor of 10 or more, the municipality will receive credit for 50% of the cost of the temporary traffic signal when the permanent traffic signal is installed. The costs for temporary traffic signals installed only for traffic control during construction of a County project shall be paid 100% by the County. D. Electrical power shall be furnished by the municipality. Source of power, including transformer, shall be provided by the municipality. E. Maintenance for all traffic signals on County roadways shall be furnished by the County when the County is the road authority. F. The entire cost of necessary equipment, installation and maintenance of any traffic signal emergency preemption equipment will be borne by the municipality. G. Costs for County furnished equipment such as, but not limited to, controller cabinets, mast arms, poles, etc. will be apportioned the same as the traffic signal installation /reconstruction costs. H. When street lighting is integral to the traffic signal pole, the cost will be included with installation. Page 5 VII. BRIDGES The County's participation in bridge projects will be as follows: Under /Over 5,000 Negotiation by County Engineer VIII. STREET LIGHTING The County will not participate in the installation of new street lighting or in the relocation of existing street lighting. IX. BIKEWAYS The County's participation in bikeway projects will be as follows: Bicycle Path, including any additional right of way - Under /Over 5,000 50% Bicycle Lane /Routes - Under /Over 5,000 100% Bikeway /Roadway Grade Separation - Under /Over 5,000 Negotiation by County Engineer Bikeway Signing - Under /Over 5,000 100% X. LANDSCAPING The County will participate in landscaping for replacement only to the extent of State Aid participation and limited to one percent (1 %) of the total cost of the construction project. Participation is limited to a two to one replacement on trees. The County will not participate in the landscaping of median areas or in irrigation system costs. XI. ENGINEERING The County's participation in engineering includes design costs which are cost incurred prior to the award of the contract and contract administration costs which are costs incurred subsequent to the award of contract. A. Design and /or Contract Administration performed by the County and based on the municipality's share of contract construction. - Under /Over 5,000 *Negotiation by County Engineer B. Design and /or Contract Administration performed by the municipality and based on the County's share of contract construction. Under /Over 5,000 *Negotiation by County Engineer * Based on current Hennepin County costs. Page 6 XII. LUMP SUM, PRO -RATA ITEMS Proposal forms carry lump sum bidding requirements for the items of Mobilization (2021), Maintenance and Restoration of Haul Roads (2051) and Traffic Control (0563). Field Office and Field Laboratory (2031) are not, strictly speaking, lump sum pay items. However, their general characteristics are such as to require that they be handled the same as Mobilization. A municipality shall be charged a pro -rata share of the above items. Proration shall be based on a percentage factor applied to the cost amounts chargeable to the County and the municipality for other construction items. Mobilization, Maintenance and Restoration of Haul Roads, Field Office and Field Laboratory, and Traffic Control are construction items and shall be subject to the negotiated percentage charge for engineering. After bids have been received and a contract awarded, and also upon completion of construction, the unit prices shall be substituted for the estimated unit prices /quantities and the percentage ratio established originally shall be recomputed. XIII. UTILIZATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING Rationale: This policy has been included to address the use of Tax Increment Financing on County projects by municipalities. Tax Increment Financing limits expansion of the tax base for new development and, thereby, limits the availability of additional County Property Tax funding which might be used on the County highway system. The County does not have a voice as to whether Tax Increment Districts will be created nor the length of time that the tax increment will be in effect. Since the use of Tax Increment Financing does have a negative impact on County Property Tax funds, the established policy is intended to discourage the use of Tax Increment Financing and, where used for the municipal share of a County project, to require a higher municipal cost share. The County's participation in a project where Tax Increment Financing is utilized by a municipality will be as follows: At the time a municipality is requested to approve the preliminary plans for a project, the municipality must identify, by resolution, the source of funds for municipal participation. If the municipality elects to use Tax Increment Financing for any portion of the project, municipal participation in the construction cost will be 50% of the total engineering and construction cost and 100% of the right of way cost for the project. 0 Page 7 a SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS POLICIES FOR COST PARTICIPATION The policies for cost participation are used to determine appropriate funding levels for cooperative construction projects with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, municipalities, and other agencies. The Department of Public Works originally established these cost policies in 1978 and changes are being proposed primarily as a result of the fact that County Property Tax funds are becoming increasingly limited and, in many cases, are not available to be used on a project. The following is a summary of the proposed major changes to the cost participation policies: PARTICIPATION IN ROADWAY PROJECTS • The participation policy for freeway projects has been eliminated because the County has transferred its freeways to Mn /DOT. New Sections: • On the County State Aid Highway System, the County's participation may be limited to those items that are eligible for State Aid funding. Municipalities may be precluded from using Municipal State Aid funds for certain elements of their project costs. • The County will participate in retaining walls constructed in lieu of right of way (100% for municipalities under 5,000 population and 50% for municipalities over 5,000 population). • The County will participate 100% in new or reconstructed concrete curb and gutter and sidewalk for medians. • The County will participate in landscaping for replacement only to the extent .of State Aid participation and limited to 1% of the total cost of the construction project. Participation is limited to two to one replacement on trees. The County will not participate in the landscaping of median areas or in irrigation system costs., • Municipalities will be charged a pro- rata.share of lump sum items such as mobilization, maintenance /restoration of haul roads, traffic control, and field office /field laboratory. Proration shall be based on a percentage factor applied to the cost amounts chargeable to the County and the municipalities for other construction items. Revised Sections: • County participation in the construction of new sidewalk has been changed from 25% to 0% and for replacement sidewalk, participation will be limited to State Aid eligibility or 100% whichever is less. • County participation in new.or reconstructed concrete driveway entrances has been reduced from 100% to 75% in municipalities under 5,000 population and to 50% in municipalities over 5,000 population. • The County will not participate in the installation of new street lighting or in the relocation of existing street lighting. Previously, the County has participated 100% in the replacement of street lighting. • Definitions of bikeway, bicycle route, bicycle path, and bicycle lane have been revised to be consistent with current State definitions. PARTICIPATION IN TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS A change has been made in the area of traffic signal participation. As traffic volumes increase, the County is being faced with an expanding number of intersections where traffic signals are warranted in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Installation of marginally warranted traffic signals reduces the efficiency of moving traffic and consumes construction and maintenance funds more appropriately used on higher priority needs. In order to be more selective in terms of which traffic signals are installed and the extent of County participation, a Traffic Signal Ranking System has been developed which reflects traffic volumes and accident susceptibility and severity. This system will be utilized to determine priorities for new traffic signals (both temporary and permanent). As a general policy, the County will not normally install, or allow to be installed, traffic signals at intersections with a priority factor of less than 30. In addition, some elements of County participation may vary depending upon the factors in the Traffic Signal Ranking System. Municipalities under 5,000 population will normally not be required to participate in costs for traffic signal systems. County participation in traffic signal projects with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, municipalities over 5,000 population, and other agencies will be as follows: Permanent Traffic Signal System Installations• • The County will not normally install, or allow to be installed, traffic signals at intersections with a priority factor of less than 30. At locations where traffic signals are warranted and have a priority factor of 30 or more, the construction costs (control equipment and standards, signal heads, and related items) shall be pro -rated depending on the number of legs of an intersection which are County roadways. County participation will be limited to State Aid eligibility or a percentage of the cost (from a minimum of 12.5% to a maximum of 50 %) whichever is less. All interconnect cable, conduit, and handholes necessary to coordinate traffic signals between intersections will be 100% County cost. Reconstruction of Existing Traffic Signal Systems: • A new section has been added for existing traffic signals which are upgraded by the installation of a new system. For these type of signal installations, the County's participation will be twice that indicated for permanent traffic signal installations. Temporary Traffic Signal System Installations: • A new section has been added for temporary traffic signal installations. Municipalities will be responsible for 100% of the cost of a temporary traffic signal and will not receive credit for those costs when a permanent traffic signal is installed if the accident severity factor is less than 10. For those temporary traffic signal projects with an accident severity factor of 10 or more, the municipality will receive credit for 50% of the cost of the temporary traffic signal when the permanent traffic signal is installed. • The costs for temporary traffic signals installed only for traffic control during construction of a County project shall be paid 100% by the County. UTILIZATION ATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING A new section has been added to address the use of tax increment financing on County projects by municipalities. The use of tax increment financing limits expansion of the tax base for new development and, thereby, limits the availability of additional County property tax funding which might be used on the County highway system. This policy is intended to discourage the use of tax increment financing and, where used for the municipal share of a County project, to require a higher municipal cost share. It is proposed that at the time a municipality is requested to approve the preliminary plans for a project, the municipality must identify, by resolution, the source of funds for municipal participation. If the municipality elects to use tax increment financing for any portion of the project, municipal participation in the construction cost will be 50% of the total engineering and construction cost and 100% of the right of way cost. NON - SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS - TRAFFIC SIGNAL RANKING SYSTEM TRAFFIC VOLUME FACTOR ACCIDENT ACCIDENT PRIOR RY R SIGNAL SUSCEPTABLRY FACTOR SEVER. FA CTOR FACTOR COMMENTS A LOCATION WARRANTS WARRANT NUMBER T S TOT S TVF+ N MET 1 2 3 8 9 11 V U ACC E SUF+ (PROJECT NUMBER) K HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS PTS F 88 89 90 TOT F 1000s F SEF 1 202 Q CSAH 81 2,8,8,9,11 5.0 8.0 0.0 8.0 4.0 3.7 29 12 11 11 34 32 692.0 32 93 4 -WAY 12/8/88. FLASHER 314/91. SIGNAL PROP. IN 1994 (CP 8908) 2 73 @ CSAH 5 1,0,9,11 8.0 4.0 0.0 7.3 4.0 3.9 27 11 4 15 30 28 523.0 24 80 4 -WAY STOP 3 152 @JOLLY LANE 1,2,8,8,9,11 8.0 8.0 0.0 8.0 4.0 2.0 30 5 8 11 24 23 405.0 19 71 , 4 5 @ CSAH 60 1,2,8,9,11 8.0 8.0 0.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 32 5 3 2 10 9 291.0 13 55 SIGNAL PROPOSED IN 1993 (CP 9218) 5 130 @ BOONE AVENUE 1,2,6,8 911 .;; 8.0 8.0 0.0 8.D 4A 4.0 _ 32 2 ', 2 b 10 ; . 9 : ` 281.0 13 T 64 4 :.WAY STOP SIGNAL PROPOSED IN 1993 (CP 9216) 6 109 QLAKELAND AVENUE 1,2,8,9,11 8.0 8.0 0.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 32 4 4 4 12 11 128.0 8 49 7 109 @ XERXES AVENUE 2,6,8,9,11 8.0 8.0 0.0 8.0 4.0 3.6 30 2 2 5 9 8 228.0 11 49 SIGNAL PROPOSED IN 1993 (CP 9215) 8 30 @ CSAH 12 1,2,8,9,11 8.0 8.0 0.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 32 0 2 2 4 4 277.0 13 49 ALL -WAY STOP 9 103 @ CSAH 30 (WEST) 1,9,11 8.0 5.0 0.0 6.5 4.0 17 27 3 3 1 7 7 258.5 12 40 10 30 @ CSAH 81 2,9.11 6.0 8.0 : j 0.0 7.9 4.0 3.2 <. 28 3 :.: 5 1 Q :.; 0 1 ; 150.3 7 44 4 -WAY STOP, SIGNAL PROPOSED IN 1994 (CP 8906) 11 30 @ C.R. 202 1,2,8,9,11 8.0 8.0 0.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 32 3 3 1 7 7 83.0 4 42 4 -WAY STOP, SIGNAL PROPOSED IN 1994 (CP 8906) 12 3 Q V LLISTON RD. 2,9,11 1.0 8.0 0.0 .6.3 4.0 2.4 22 3 3 4 10 9 211.5 10 41 13 61 Q MAIN STREET 1,2,8,9,11 8.0 8.0 0.0 . 8.0 4.0 3.5 32 0 2 1 3 3 122.0 8 40 14 18 @ TEXAS AVE. 2,11 0.0 8.0 0.0 4.5 3.0 1.7 17 2 2 3 7 7 305.5 14 38 1$ 01 @ CAMPUS DR. 2.9,11 7.3 4.0 -; 0.0 7.9 4-0 3.2 30 2 1 Q 3 3 100.0 5 - 36 10 81 @ CITY WEST PKWY 2,8,9,11 6.3 8.0 0.0 8.0 4.0 3.7 30 1 1 0 2 2 120.0 0 37 17 103 @ CANDLEAOOD 2,9,11 3.8 8.0 0.0 7.1 4.0 2.9 20 2 2 1 5 5 140.5 0 37 18 30 Q NOBLE AVE. 9,11 4.5 7.3 0.0 6.9 4.0 3.0 28 3 0 2 5 5 132.5 6 37 19 103 @ CSAH 30 (EAST) 9,11 5.0 3.0 0.0 6.5 4.0 2.4 21 0 0 3 9 8 148.5 7 36 20 30 @ REVERE LN. K 2,8.9,.11 7,3 8.0 ?: 0.0 8.0 4.0 3.0 30 1 2 1 4 4 :40.5 2 36 ALA -WAY STOP 21 130 @ ZAf E AVENUE 1,9 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 4.0 0.0 18 3 1 3 7 7 224.0 10 35 4 -WAY STOP 22 4 @ SCENIC HTS. RD. 1,8,9,11 8.0 7.0 0.0 8.0 4.0 3.9 31 1 0 0 1 1 71.0 3 35 23 17 @ W. 38TH ST. 11 7.0 1.5 0.0 7.1 3.0 1.0 20 0 1 1 8 8 171.0 8 35 24 152 @ 51ST. AVE. N. 2,8,9,11 0.0 8.0 0.0 8.0 4.0 1.3 21 1 2 1 4 4 199.5 9 34 25 109 @REGENT AVENUE. 2 9 i 1 0.0 0 0 ;: 0.0 < 3,3 4.0 ;: 2.5 ';: 18 3 2 3 10 : :'9 148.0 7 34 SIGNAL PROPOSED IN 1903 (CP 9214) 20 17 @ W. 39TH ST. 2,9,11 1.5 8.0 0.0 7.3 4.0 1.1 22 5 1 1 7 7 110.0 5 34 27 110 @ THREE PITS BLVD 9 6.0 4.0 0.0 7.4 4.0 0.0 21 2 3 4 9 8 81.0 4 34 28 31 @ SOUTHT CAN DR. 1 911 8.0 8.0 0.0 7.9 4.0 1.5 27 1 1 0 2 2 . 34.5 2 31 4 -WAY STOP 29 10 @ INTN.IGETTYSBURG 2 9 11 2.8 8.0 0.0 5.9 4.0 2.9 24 2 3 0 5 5 44.5 2 30 SIGNAL. PROPOSED IN 1993 (CP 9217) 30 4 9TERREY PINE DR. 2,11 7.5 8.0 ; :: 0 3.2 3.Q ; 1.1 17 1 .:: .3 ; <, A 41 129,0 0 30 31 81 @ 79TH AVE. N. 2,8,9,11 2.3 8.0 0.0 8.0 4.0 1.4 24 0 1 1 2 2 81.5 4 29 32 14 @ CANDLEWOOD DR. 2,9,11 0.0 8.0 0.o 0.0 4.0 2.5 21 0 0 1 1 1 138.5 0 28 33 16 @ VIRGINIA AVE. 11 0.0 4.3 0.0 5.1 3.0 1.3 14 1 3 2 0 6 173.0 8 27 34 819 CSAH 150 9,11 4.5 5.3 0.0 7.3 4.0 1.2 22 1 1 1 3 3 42.5 2 27 4 -WAY STOP IS @ HIGHVVOoo DRNE 2.e.P.11 t.8 0. A !i':9, Q . 8.0 4.9 ': 2.4 ; R4 0 0 1 1 1 32s 30 12 @ 109TH AVE. N. 11 2.0 6.8 0.0 7.0 3.0 1.1 20 0 0 1 1 1 120.0 6 28 37 40 @ WIRTH PARKWAY 9,11 6.3 2.5 0.0 8.3 4.0 1.3 20 2 0 1 3 3 85.0 3 20 4 -WAY STOP 38 30 @ CSAH 121 8,11 5.8 0.8 0.0 8.0 0.0 2.1 22 0 1 0 1 1 57.0 3 25 ALL-WAY STOP 39 158 @VERNONJGLEASON 11 7.3 1.5 0.0 0.5 3.0 1.0 19 1 / 1 3 3 01.0 3 25 40 32 @ 77TH ST./N. FRAD 2.9,11 2.0 8.0 : 0.0 . ::.4.0 4.0 : 32 21 0 1 t 2 2 34.5 2 26 SIGNAL PROPOSED IN 1993 (CP 8334) 41 130 @ GROVE DR. 1,11 8.0 3.8 0.0 7.8 3.0 1.4 24 0 0 0 0 0 4.0 0 24 42 40 @TURNERS CROSSROAD 9,11 5.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 4.0 2.1 16 2 1 1 4 4 89.5 4 24 43 10 @ ZARTHAN 9,11 1.5 7.8 0.0 0.0 4.0 1.1 21 0 0 0 0 0 57.0 3 24 44 31 @ EDM80RCUGH 11 3.5 8.3 0.0 4.3 1.0 1.1 10 1 0 1 2 2 85.5 4 22 45 A Q JUNEAU LANE : 9,11 2,a • • 0 3 :::0 0 : b 3 .4.9, ':12 ; 0 :ii. 0 . >! :: 1 i.. 1 >' 30.5 40 28 @ W. 80TH ST. 11 2.0 2.3 0.0 3.1 2.0 1.1 11 2 0 3 5 5 40.5 2 17 47 130 @TH 109 E RAMPS 0,11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3 1 2 5 8 e 101.5 5 15 ALL -WAY STOP 48 6 @ ANNAPOLIS 11 1.0 4.3 0.0 3.5 2.0 1.1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 12 40 50 REVISED: 3/12/93 CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 BROOKLYN TELEPHONE: 569 -3300 CENTER FAX: 569 -3494 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Hennepin County Board of Commissions FROM: G. G. Splinter, City Manager DATE: September 9, 1993 (Public Hearing Date) RE: Brooklyn Center's Response to Revised Policies For Cost Participation Between Hennepin County and Other Agencies For Cooperative Highway Projects The following comments are offered in reference to the proposed changes in Hennepin County's policy for cost participation for cooperative highway projects: 1. overall, it is obvious that the proposed policy changes will increase cities' participation in an effort to reduce Hennepin County's costs. We believe that the entire policy statement should be evaluated on the issues of fairness and responsibilities which are inherent in the fact that Hennepin County has jurisdiction over a roadway— instead of on the basis of the level of funding which is now available. Following that evaluation, Hennepin County should do what is necessary to avail itself of the level of fundin which that analysis indicates instead " those costs to g y o "downloading" g cities. 2. on redevelopment projects Brooklyn Center and other developed cities must often rely on tax increment financing (TIF) to make adequate funding available to cover the city's share of project costs. While we agree that a city should explore other options first, and use them to the optimum extent possible, some projects which would benefit both the City and Hennepin County in the long term simply will not happen if the City is penalized for the use of TIF funding. We believe this portion of the policy change, as proposed would be fatal to a number of potentially good projects. Accordingly, we strongly object to the TIF portion of your proposed policy and ask you to terminate consideration of this ill - advised strategy. 3. we believe that, under your existing policies regarding cost participation in traffic signal systems, one major inequity exists, i.e.: AYN a At interchanges between trunk highways and County highways (or C.S.A.H.'s) the City is held responsible for 50% of construction costs not covered by Mn /DOT, for 100% of all power costs and for 100% of the costs for lamps and luminaires and cleaning and painting all control signals, cabinets a luminaire mast arms. We believe it simply doesn't make sense to assign these responsibilities to a city which has no jurisdiction over those intersections. Unfortunately your proposed policy makes no change in this one area where we believe a major change is desperately needed. In summary, we see nothing positive for cities in any of the proposed policy changes. Rather, the entire effort seems to be directed to reducing Hennepin County's costs by dumping them to the cities, and in addition — punishing cities who wish to utilize tax- increment - financing to accomplish sorely- needed redevelopment. We ask you to reject the entire proposal as it now stands and, instead, focus on positive changes. Regarding funding available to Hennepin County for roadway improvements, we wish to advise you of the following: 1. we are aware the existing County State Aid formula results in an unfair allocation to Hennepin County. We believe it is Brooklyn Center's responsibility to assist Hennepin County in obtaining increased funding through changes in that formula. 2. we encourage you to authorize your Public Works staff to make summary information available to cities regarding the level of funding which is available to Hennepin County for roadway improvements. If that information demonstrates a serious deficiency in available funding, we believe it will then be the cities' responsibility to assist Hennepin County in obtaining adequate funding to meet your responsibilities. 3. at the same time, we ask you to make yourself aware of, and to consider the fact that cities including. Brooklyn Center simply don't have adequate funding available to cover our current responsibilities. We solicit your support in our efforts to obtain adequate funding. In closing, we believe that the best long -term results will be achieved by having Hennepin County and its cities work together on a partnership basis. In that spirit, we ask you to reject the currently proposed policy changes and request that you initiate a new effort, based on teamwork with the cities. Please be advised that we have not had an opportunity review this matter in detail with our City Council. However, we intend to do so during the month of September, and will submit the Council's response ASAP thereafter. Thank you for providing us with this opportunity to respond to your proposal. We look forward to continued cooperation in the development and achievement of our mutual goals. A te& G.G. Splinter, City anager CITY OF HOPKINS MEMORANDUM DATE: August 27, 1993 TO: City Manager s Hennepin County FROM: �� Tom Harmening, Hopkins Community Development Director SUBJECT: PROPOSED HENNEPIN COUNTY ROADWAY POLICY You may be aware that Hennepin County is considering an amendment to its policies regarding cost participation for cooperative highway projects. These policy changes impact a community's ability to finance-the local share of these projects. Attached is a copy of the proposed policy along with a summary of the changes as compared to the existing policy. You will note in the attached information that the proposed changes increase a city's share of roadway projects over what currently exists in the present policy. In addition, one of the more troublesome Policy changes relates to a city's use of tax increment financing to pay for the local share. The proposed policy is intended to strongly discourage cities from using tax increment funds for its share of the project. This discouragement is accomplished by significantly increasing the local community's share of the project if tax increment dollars are used. On behalf of the staff in the cities of Hopkins, St. Louis Park and Minnetonka, I wanted to bring this matter to your attention and request your assistance in voicing opposition to the proposed policy changes. To assist you in this task I have enclosed a draft of a resolution which we would ask that you consider adopting and sending to the County. As the County is scheduled to conduct a public hearing on the policy changes on September 9, 1993 at 10:00 a.m. in Room A -2400 of the Government Center, it is important that you attempt to adopt this resolution, or a similar one, as soon as possible. Other efforts which you may wish to consider, if you haven't already, include contacting your County Commissioner to express concern over the proposed policy changes. Although we recognize this is short notice, any efforts which you may be able to extend regarding this matter would be very much appreciated. cc: Steve Mielke, Hopkins City Manager Lee Gustafson, Hopkins Public Works Director Cities of St. Louis Park, Minnetonka Attachments O H08273B U CITY OF Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: RESOLUTION REGARDING HENNEPIN COUNTY FUNDING OF COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY PROJECTS WHEREAS, in a policy dated June, 1978, Hennepin County established parameters for determining an appropriate division of cost participation to be used by the County in funding cooperative roadway and street construction projects with municipalities; and WHEREAS, since 1978 municipalities within the County have accepted said policy and cooperated with the County in the construction and reconstruction of County roads and highways; and WHEREAS, municipalities have established capital improvement programs which contemplate the improvement of County roads and highways based upon the receipt of County funds as outlined in said policy; and WHEREAS, in a draft policy dated June, 1993 the County proposes a number of changes to the established parameters contained in the June, 1978 policy; and WHEREAS, most of the changes between the existing June, 1978 Policy and draft aft J une, 1993 olic P y provide for a reduction s i of the County's t a Y participation ation i p n the funding of Cooperative roadway adwa projects wit Y and street construction p J within municipalities; .cipalities; and WHEREAS, the draft June, 1993 policy includes a provision which, by the County's own admission, is intended to discourage the use of tax increment financing for the municipal share of a project, and when used, to require a higher municipal cost share; and WHEREAS, the cost division parameters contained in the June, 1978 policy have been accepted as an appropriate division of cost participation to be used by the County and as a result has been the basis for long range capital improvement planning by the City of ; and WHEREAS, the implementation of this policy will encourage development in the rural or underdeveloped areas of the County and cause disinvestment in the developed areas as well as deterioration of existing facilities due to the County's disparate funding formula. This disparity is due to the reduction in the percentage of funding for the developed areas of the County versus the rural areas; and RESOLUTION NO: Page 2 0 WHEREAS, the Countyls claim that a reduction in cost participation by the County is justified because of the fact that County property tax funds are becoming increasingly limited is, in fact, unjustified because in reducing its participation, the County would shift the tax burden to the City, and WHEREAS, the County's proposed policy relative to the use of tax increment financing is a misguided attempt to punish municipalities attempting to improve conditions in areas of need, when in fact, the expenditure of tax increment financing will ultimately result in higher property tax receipts for the County. Further, if tax increment financing is utilized, the costs of the project to the City will increase, thereby potentially increasing the amount of tax increment financing used, which in turn may delay the time period upon which properties can be returned to the tax rolls. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of that: For the aforementioned reasons, the Hennepin County Commissioners are urged to reject the proposed June, 1993 policy and retain the June 1978 policy as an equitable means of establishing an appropriate division of cost participation to be used by the County in funding cooperative roadway and street construction projects with municipalities. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of will assist Hennepin in C ount p y officials to obtain through the County State Aid formula which is currently n an n unfair allocation according to population. Adopted this day of 1993. I CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 09/77/'93 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: STAFF REPORT REGARDING TWIN LAKES TRAIL PLANS DEPT. APPROVAL: J."l- - - � �� I Sy Knap , Director of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMIVIENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes At the Twin Lakes Trail Task Force meeting on 9/08/93 the task force: ® ✓ gave approval to the attached map of the Twin Lakes Trail System Plan for the purpose of conducting public informational meetings regarding the plan. ✓ agreed that the Park and Recreation Commission for each of the 3 cities (Brooklyn Center, Crystal and Robbinsdale) will conduct a public information meeting regarding the plan; and ✓ directed Westwood Professional Services to continue development of applications for Federal and State grants to assist in developing the "Lake Loops" system At its 9/21/93 meeting the Brooklyn Center Park and Recreation Commission agreed to conduct its public informational meeting in the Brooklyn Center Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. on October 19. A formal notice of that meeting (see copy attached) will be published in the Brooklyn Center SunPost on October 6. We have also contacted the SunPost, the NorthWest News and Northwest Community TV, requesting them to provide news story coverage of the plan and the informational meeting. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION This report is submitted for information and discussion. No Council action is required at this time. PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING TWIN LAKES TRAIL SYSTEM Brooklyn Center - Crystal - Robbinsdale September 22, 1993 A public information meeting by the Brooklyn Center Park and Recreation Commission will be held at the City of Brooklyn Center Council Chambers on Tuesday, October 19,1993 at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of accepting public input on the concept of a bicycle /pedestrian trail system that will 1) allow access around the upper, middle and lower Twin Lakes (Lake Loop System) and 2) facilitate safe and convenient access between the Central Business Districts of the three cities that front on the Twin Lakes — Brooklyn Center, Robbinsdale and Crystal. The routes proposed (illustrated on map) include a combination of existing streets, sidewalks, and off road trails, depending on traffic volume and available space. The City may pursue a grant for implementation of the lake loop system in 1994 or 1995. City staff and the design consultant will be available to answer questions on funding and implementation. Those attending will be asked for comments and ideas. This trail system plan is a result of a joint planning by a task force made of park and recreation commission members and city staff from all three cites. Similar meetings will be coordinated b the Park and Recreation Commissions of Robbinsdale Y and Crystal on the following dates: Robbinsdale Park and Recreation Commission on October 26, 1993 at Robbinsdale City Hall at 7:00 p.m.and Crystal Park and Recreation Commission on October 20, 1993 at the Crystal Community Center at 7:00 p.m. 11 R,!w! e ■ ■ ■ ■ a�� -�t� -a �a -� a�- a- �a'a�ri 61 r-• a l•J� - �� Z W U RO `� in \\ COM 0 a A. AVE. .60TH I ., _ ; Crystal Airport N\ � 2 59 T AVE. \ ca 4 z ° I I ui nn W > _ •�•7 Alternate Y� 58TH AVE. N. TH AVE. o • �� U n n 'LiJ:. L A. iL 3t ti 1 AVE. TH AVE N. F z m Z V W Z W i i E U VE a W d � a 1 0 A > s ��� z >'•p i AVE. W z LANE 51 \ ZANE PL . U a > 10 N I a 54Ti1 i '.fAVE'. Tt > ce Ix 0 LILAC tt a ownt z Crystal m 54 TN z a AVE. N. ° 3 Twin 538 W IN . 41 PA S ° � z > 153 RO of AVE. N. RY 4� 1 '2- G'Pr n a A • CT. ° R T ` 5 ' j D AVE. > iot SoN •. tin R R �- - -•- W� Co. o ? df NO AVE. N.rc • J Soo � ST Il tt�� 5I v $ O 51 ST > AV N. • �j W 3 o CORVALLIS I • '`� 2 7d AVE AVE. 9� � OTti AVE. N. �/ � m a 3 FAIR IEW 1- AV N. Lakes • a II,' `.11`ppNpC� L' w 49 Ili AVE. N. u a z i Y J AV E. yrQ' Q-: • 48 111 AVE N. AKESIOE N - J N 48TH p O a R yon 48TH 7A 11v z v �� z 39 • Lake a F AKESIDE AV • 7Ttl AVF, z RYRON AV q u1 EO N 1 : 46 a- __•__DNS �un AVE FA ° _ •• 4 = a Alternate routes J �6m evF- n- y � 9 n H1. n N . w • < _ , rr 45 AVE. � • � • > TO nn avF. . C �" 41h F? LeR IJ = 1 LAKE AVE. • �' 4 /ih AVE. N. AOA N z 43 D AVE. ; N. y pP z 7 rd AV ~ N. ,SF-' _® AV n N. 93re AV N. L a pI 4 n AVE N. O � yI U sale IN _ n U Biel l::r. 415 Legend L VE and vT " ■ E N E ■ Transportation Tl•ian g le 102 OIh AV ` +• Gry J /a/ AVE. N L Pa NS AJ • • • • • • Lake Loops System °, ,N P AVE. N nnn 1 " yNO y L e R m Linking Segments g,n " VE O 9� '" "" N - yq \ ' Sept. 21, 1993 l = j o Twin Lakes Trail System Plan Westwood Brooklyn Center - Crystal - Robbinsdale, MN ....,,�nr w -�� Een fla +. M.nrevrs SSN+ o - 6:l 411 Srl� j a 2 e ,w. : sei - :::� ;_.: nvF f ._;. N ,. E „ ::_.: r' -_ )s,q � _ nvE n_.. u w,,, n e•.F n � ,._ CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 9/27/93 Agenda Item Number E • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: ADMINISTRATIVE TRAFFIC COMMITTEE REPORT REGARDING SPEED CONTROL ON UNITY AVENUE BETWEEN 69TH AND 73RD AVENUES DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Dir ctor of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: G No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes • Residents on Unity Avenue between 69th and 73rd Avenues have for a number of years been concerned about the volume and speed of traffic on their street. Several years ago the Commissioner of Transportation's office approved lowering the speed limit on this section of Unity from 30 mph to 25 mph, primarily because of the many curves and winding nature of the roadway. While this speed limit reduction has helped, residents continue to be concerned, and have several times in the past few years requested the Administrative Traffic Committee to evaluate alternatives for improvement. A radar survey conducted in August of this year indicated that the average speed on Unity was just under 24 mph, and the 85th percentile was 28 mph (85 percent of vehicles were travelling 28 mph or less). However, the top speed recorded was 46 mph. These statistics suggest that the majority of motorists on Unity obey the speed limit, but that there are a number of vehicles which do travel at too high a speed for conditions. Residents on Unity regularly have problems with vehicles losing control around curves and knocking down mailboxes, etc. After considering many alternatives, the ATC believes that Unity Avenue may be a good location to try out a type of speed control that is used successfully and extensively elsewhere to control similar speeding problems: the speed hump. The speed hump differs from a traditional speed bump in that it is a gradually sloped rise of about 4 inches. This hump is virtually unnoticeable to vehicles travelling 25 -30 miles per hour. At higher speeds, however, it becomes more • noticeable and more uncomfortable. Research conducted by the Institute of Traffic Engineers indicates that speed humps, properly designed and installed, can very significantly reduce top speeds The Administrative Traffic Committee recommends installing three speed humps • on Unity Avenue: one on the south end near the culvert; one just south of 71st Circle; and one just north of 72nd Circle. A number of residents in the area have petitioned for an improvement, and the presidents of the two Mallard Creek Associations and a representative of the Ponds management company, LaSalle Group, approve of the speed humps. It is further recommended that the humps be installed and speeds monitored for a minimum of two years. City Engineer Mark Maloney has developed specifications for speed hump installation, and requested proposals from three contractors. One contractor, Master Asphalt of Maple Grove, submitted a proposal of $3,525, which compares favorably to the Engineer's Estimate of $4,500. As the submitted proposal is responsible and is less than the Estimate, it is recommended that the Council award the contract to Master Asphalt. An additional cost of installation is proper signage and pavement markings. The cost of these items is estimated to be about $500, and would be acquired and installed by our Street Maintenance sign shop crew. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution approving the installation of three speed humps on Unit Avenue PP g P P y for a trial eriod of two ears accepting the proposal of p y p g p p Master Asphalt in the amount of $3,525, and allocating funds from the Unrestricted Local State • Aid Account is provided for Council consideration. • _ A MEMORANDUM DATE: September 13, 1993 TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM: Mark J. Maloney, City Engineer RE: Speed Hump Design and Estimated Costs for Unity Ave. I have had an opportunity to spend some time with the concept of speed "humps ", as applied to the segment of Unity Avenue through "The Ponds" development. Reviewing various articles and abstracts, I am now able to offer some comments and design criteria on speed humps if the City wishes to pursue their use. Function The function of a speed hump is simply to provide a physical reason for traffic to reduce speed or to avoid the route altogether. The primary difference in function between the proposed humps and the more recognized speed "bumps" is that while the intent of the hump is to safely allow the passage of traffic with 10 to 15 mph reduction in speed, the abrupt design of speed bumps has had the effect of requiring drivers to slow to a speed of 5 mph or less, or risk damage to or loss of control of their vehicle. Due to damage claims, accidents, increases in traffic noise and high maintenance costs, speed bumps have been found to be an inappropriate form of management for moderate to high levels of traffic on residential streets. The challenge, it seems, is to provide enough of a driver "discomfort" without jeopardizing the safety of the motoring public. Speed humps, when properly designed and implemented, appear to have found success in various jurisdictions throughout the United States. De gn It appears that a number of jurisdictions, most notably the California Dept. of Transportation, have already embraced the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) design criteria for the construction of speed humps (see attached). In a retrofit situation, as is proposed for Unity Ave., I would recommend the removal of a 12 foot long section of the full width of the street, leaving the curbs in place, and constructing the hump from the gravel base on up. I can think of at least two good reasons for this approach; 1) simply adding bituminous on top of the existing street would require "feathering" the new bituminous to match the existing, and it has been our experience that these infinitesimal thicknesses of paving do not stand up to the rigors of snowplowing, and 2) it would be very difficult to control the paver -laid thickness of asphalt to the tolerances required of this specialized design. Rather, I would require that the gravel base be toleranced, and a constant, 3" inch lift of asphalt be laid and butted cleanly against a sawcutted edge. In addition, the hump would be tapered transversely along the edges to allow normal gutter flows. I would further recommend that this work be performed by a contractor who possesses the personnel and equipment necessary to construct this specialized design. As noted above, the humps should extend the full street width so as not to encourage drivers to use the other (on- coming) lane to avoid them. Also essential to the safe design and placement of speed humps is a corresponding amount of advance warning and speed advisory signage, and pavement markings. Making the humps as visible as possible not only helps to make drivers aware of their presence (which hopefully equate to a reduction in speed and /or traffic volume), but also serves to help limit the City's liability in the event of potential claims for vehicle damage, accidents, etc. Other Concerns Physically forcing a reduction in vehicular speed in this proposed manner does have a potential downside, however. Drivers of snowplows, street sweepers, emergency vehicles, buses, etc. will need to be aware of the consequences of hitting these humps at various speeds to minimize the potential damage. Motorcycles and bicycles, with their inherently designed rigid or near -rigid suspension systems, may have problems negotiating even properly designed humps at higher speeds. In addition, there may be increased noise near the hump from vehicles because of acceleration/deceleration. The installation of speed humps along this road could also divert traffic to other routes, which may in fact turn out to be a desired effect, at least in the eyes of the local residents. Albeit hard to quantify, air quality and energy consumption will suffer any time through traffic is slowed or stopped. Finally, from an engineering standpoint, the ability of the street (outside of the gutter) to convey runoff during large or intense rain events will be diminished, or at least on- street ponding will increase at and upstream of the hump as it will block a portion of the drainage way. The increased likelihood of standing water at the hump will require a more intense level of de -icing or snow removal so that icy spots on the traveled roadway do not develop in the winter. Estimated Costs Considering the method of construction that I detailed above, I've estimated that each speed hump would cost $2,500 initially to construct, assuming contracted labor, equipment and materials. I estimate that a project to construct 2 or 3 humps along Unity Ave. would be in the $5,000 to $8,000 range, considering traffic control, mobilization, etc. In addition, the City would annually incur additional costs for maintenance of the signing and pavement markings necessary for each hump; perhaps on the order of $150 to $300 each. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING INSTALLATION OF SPEED HUMPS ON UNITY AVENUE, ACCEPTING PROPOSALS, AND ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR WHEREAS, the Administrative Traffic Committee has received a number of complaints from residents of Unity Avenue between 69th and 73rd as to volume and speed of traffic on their street; and WHEREAS, radar surveys indicate that there is a problem with speeding, made more serious because of the curvilinear and winding nature of the roadway; and WHEREAS, the Administrative Traffic Committee recommends the installation of three speed humps at various locations on Unity Avenue on a trial basis for a period of two years, to determine their effectiveness at reducing speeds; and WHEREAS, the Mallard Creek Homeowners' Associations and a representative of the company managing the Ponds complex concur with this recommendation; and WHEREAS, three firms were invited to submit proposals, and one proposal in the amount of $3,525 was received from Master Asphalt of Maple Grove, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the proposal received is less than the Engineer's estimate of $4,500. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Installation of speed humps at three locations on Unity Avenue is hereby approved, on a trial basis for a minimum period of two years. 2. The proposal as submitted by Master Asphalt of Maple Grove, Minnesota is hereby accepted, and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract in the amount of $3,525 with Master Asphalt in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center. 3. All costs associated with this improvement, including the cost of signage and pavement markings, estimated at $500, shall be funded from the Unrestricted Local State Aid Account No. 2900. 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 9/27/93 Agenda Item Number- • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: STAFF REPORT RE: ESTABLISHMENT OF PROJECT FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO CENTRAL GARAGE DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Di or o blic Works; Charles Hansen, Director of Finance MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached No The City Council on July 12, 1993 received a report regarding an air quality • study of the City Public Works Garage. This report concluded that substantial remodelling was required at the Garage to meet health, life safety, building and fire code, ADA, and EEO requirements. Three options were presented to the Council, and the Council endorsed "Option 2," which would provide a comprehensive improvement to the Garage and meet all identified needs. The Council requested that staff report back with a financing plan. Option 2 would provide for substantial remodelling of the existing Garage facility. It is proposed that the Council contemplate other "campus" improvements which were also identified in the air quality report. Consideration of an additional cold storage building is not recommended at this time. Improvements which could be considered include relocation and replacement of the fuel tanks; additional screening of the facility from 69th Avenue and Shingle Creek Parkway; relocation of employee parking; and addition of a "ring road" around the facility. It is recommended that specifications be developed which identify these "campus" improvements as "add -ons." The Council could then consider some or all of the improvements when bids are taken, and approve the add -ons to the building improvements based on desirability and cost. Financing Plan The cost of the building remodelling is estimated to be $1.28 million. With add- ons, it is estimated that the total cost could be $1.5 to $1.7 million. It is proposed to fund these improvements from a combination of sources. The Capital Improvements Fund would provide for the largest share of the cost, while the water and sanitary sewer utilities would share the remainder of the cost. The following is the proposed financing, assuming a maximum cost of $1.7 million: Capital Improvements Fund: $1,200,000 • Water Utility Fund: $250,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund: $250,000 Capital Improvements Fund Maintaining a floor of $3 million in the Fund, and assuming that up to $750,000 is committed to be transferred to the Central Garage Internal Service Fund, about $2 million would be available in the Capital Improvements Fund. There are three major project areas which the Council will be asked to review in the coming year, which could include improvements considered for funding from Capital Improvements: this project; interim remodelling of Upper City Hall, including remodelling the Council Chambers, providing additional work space, meeting ADA accessibility requirements, and providing ergonomic computer workstations for employees who make extensive use of computers (estimated in total at $400,000); and park playground equipment and shelter repair and replacement. Commitment of $1.2 million to this project may require the Council to prioritize the repair or replacement of playground equipment and shelters between short -term needs to be considered for funding from Capital Improvements, and longer -term needs which may wait for consideration of funding from a bond issue. • Water Utility Fund The Water Utility would benefit substantially from the proposed remodelling of the Garage. The meter shop area would be extensively remodelled, as would the water testing area. In 1993, $75,000 was budgeted in the water utility fund for remodelling (this was in contemplation of much less extensive improvements). An additional $131,000 was budgeted for water improvements relating to the Southeast Neighborhood Improvement program, which will not be spent. It is proposed to dedicate this $206,000, plus an additional $44,000 to this improvement, to reflect the magnitude of benefit which the utility will experience because of the remodelling. Sanitary Sewer Utility The Sanitary Sewer Utility would benefit from an improved utility engineering area, including a better working area for utilization of the Hansen utilities maintenance software. This database tracks all sanitary sewer maintenance and repair. The utility would also benefit in general from the improved operational area. In 1993, $50,000 was budgeted for remodelling. An additional $261,000 was budgeted for sewer work in the Southeast Neighborhood, of which about $50,000 • will be expended for spot repairs. It is proposed to dedicate $250,000 of this $261,000 to the remodelling roject. g J • It should be noted that Public Utilities represents about 25 -30 percent of the Public Works Garage's operations, both in terms of employees and dedicated area. The proposed financing scheme would charge about 29 percent of the cost to the Public Utilities. Professional Services Authorization is requested from the Council to solicit a proposal for architectural services. The city's policy for the procurement of professional services requires that an RFP process be used for consultant selection, with some exceptions. Staff proposes to consider this case an exception to the policy, and to solicit a proposal for professional services from Mjorud Architecture, based on the following justification: • Mjorud Architecture has provided architectural services relating to this building for the past 8 years. Mjorud provided the architectural component of the air quality study, and was intimately involved in the development of the preliminary plans for the remodelling now under consideration. • Mjorud has a strong track record with the City, and has a demonstrated ability to develop cost - effective plans which meet the City's needs. . It is requested that the Council authorize staff to negotiate a proposal with Mjorud for all professional services, with Mjorud to provide architectural services and to subcontract for other professional services with providers who are acceptable to the City. If staff are unable to negotiate an acceptable contract, then we would return to the Council with a request to approve solicitation of proposals by RFP. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution establishing the improvement project, allocating funds, and authorizing the solicitation of a proposal for architectural services is provided for Council consideration. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -19, IMPROVEMENTS TO CENTRAL GARAGE, ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO SOLICIT PROPOSALS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATING THERETO WHEREAS, the City Council on July 12, 1993 received an Air Quality report which concluded that substantial remodelling was required at the City's Central Garage to meet health, life safety, building and fire code, ADA, and EEO requirements; and WHEREAS, the Council supported implementation of "Option 2" remodelling within one to two years, and directed staff to provide additional information regarding said remodelling; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works and the Director of Finance report that adequate funding is available in the Capital Improvements Fund and the Water and Sanitary Sewer Utility funds to finance the cost of said remodelling, estimated to be a maximum of $1.7 million; and WHEREAS, the City Council determines that circumstances in this case justify the solicitation of professional services relating to said remodelling from a single consultant, in exception to the City's policy for procurement of professional services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Improvement Project No. 1993 -19, Improvements to Central Garage, is hereby established. 2. Funding for this project is hereby appropriated as follows: Capital Improvements Fund $1,200,000 Water Utility Fund $250,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility $250,000 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to negotiate a contract for all professional services relating to said project with Mjorud Architecture. 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 9/ Agenda Item Number / REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: STAFF REPORT RE: ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTRAL GARAGE INTERNAL SERVICE FUND DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, irector of Public Works; Charles Hansen, Director of Finance MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached No In their presentation to the Council regarding the 1992 Annual Financial Report, the City's auditors recommended that we look for ways of moving functions where appropriate out of the General Fund. One major area where this could be accomplished is in the maintenance, repair, and replacement of our fleet of vehicles and equipment. Many cities have already implemented a Central Garage Internal Service Fund to finance and account for vehicle and equipment expenditures. Such a fund meets the auditor's goal of transferring an appropriate function from the General Fund to an Enterprise Fund. This type of fund would also help the Council and the Financial Commission meet the goal of identifying the true cost of providing specific services, because each function would be charged a rental fee for the costs of ownership and the costs of use and maintenance of vehicles and equipment used by it. This type of fund is essential to the concept of program budgeting. The ur ose of this report is to: P P P • Provide the Council with background regarding how a Central Garage Internal Service Fund would work; • Request authorization to establish the fund; • Request endorsement of the concept of "seeding" the fund from various fund sources; and • Request authorization to conduct more detailed analysis necessary to establish accounting details. Background • The Central Garage Internal Service Fund would account not only for operation and maintenance of vehicles, but also would provide for the replacement of vehicles. Each vehicle or piece of major equipment would be charged a flat rental rate, which would be sufficient to recover its share of overhead, depreciation, insurance, licensing, etc. Then throughout the year, each vehicle would be charged a rate based on use to recover the costs of fuel, and maintenance and repairs that it requires. Each department or program (including enterprise funds) would budget for the cost of operating and maintaining the vehicles and equipment that it uses. Capital outlay for replacement vehicles would occur from the Internal Service Fund rather than the General Fund. One of the advantages of the Central Garage concept is that charging back the cost of vehicle maintenance provides an incentive for departments to work to minimize vehicle repair costs. Under the current arrangement, all repair and maintenance costs are paid for from the Vehicle Maintenance Division (Division 143), and individual departments have no feedback as to how their driving or operating habits affect maintenance costs. Monthly chargebacks would provide that feedback. Establishing the Internal Service Fund The City Charter provides the City Council with the authority to establish funds, and to make transfers between funds. The Council may establish a Central Garage Internal Service Fund, and specify which types of expenditures are to be accounted for in that fund. "Seeding" The Fund If the creation of this Fund is approved, starting in 1994 vehicles and some equipment would be purchased from the Fund. As described above, a basic monthly fee for each vehicle would be charged out to each department using the vehicle, which would cover certain fixed costs - license, insurance, overhead, and depreciation. The accumulated depreciation would be used to finance future equipment replacement. Since no depreciation has been accumulating until now, the Fund must be "seeded" to provide a reserve from which vehicles and equipment would be purchased until the accumulated annual depreciation plus interest earnings is sufficient for self funding. The amount to be "seeded" would be the amount of accumulated, unfunded depreciation for all vehicles and equipment for which ownership will be transferred to the Central Garage. For example, say a particular $30,000 vehicle has a useful life of 10 years. It was purchased three years ago (i.e., it has been accumulating depreciation for three years). The total accumulated depreciation would be $30,000 divided by 10 years = $3,000 depreciation per year, times three years = $9,000 total unfunded depreciation. Most of the vehicles and equipment in the City's fleet were purchased by the General Fund. The total value of general fund motorized equipment (vehicles) is just under $3 million. The value of Other Equipment, some of which may also be transferred to the Central Garage, is currently about $1.1 million. The value of the vehicles and equipment for each of the other funds has not • yet been computed. It is estimated that current unfunded depreciation of the General Fund vehicles is about $1.5 million. We don't yet have an estimate for the other funds. To fund that depreciation, transfers from other funds must be made to the Central Garage Fund. It is proposed that when the total unfunded accumulated depreciation is computed, that the Council authorize transfers as follows: • To fund the General Fund motorized equipment, currently estimated as $1.5 million, transfer about $750,000 from the Capital Improvements Fund and about $750,0000 from the Refunding Bonds of 1987 Fund. • To fund the depreciation for vehicles and equipment purchased by the other funds, transfer the requisite amount from the respective fund. This information will be brought to the Council for its consideration at a future meeting. Expenses To Be Accounted For In The Fund Aside from funding capital outlay, the fund would also account for all expenses previously charged to Division 143, Vehicle Maintenance. This includes mechanics' time, shop tools, equipment, and supplies; parts; outside repairs; fuel, motor oil, and other fluids; tires; insurance; licenses; and some supervisory time. To be added to those expenses in 1994 would be some additional supervisory time, and a major share of the MIS Technician and Public Works Clerk's time. Budget Process It is proposed that the Central Garage Internal Service Fund budget be considered parallel to the General Fund budget. Obviously, there is overlap in that General Fund departments will be budgeting for equipment rental and maintenance. Replacement of existing vehicles and equipment would be requested through the Central Garage budget process in the same manner as General Fund vehicle purchases were in previous years; the department would be responsible for justifying the capital outlay. Acquisition of new (as opposed to replacement) vehicles and equipment would also be requested in this manner, with the department responsible for identifying a fund source for acquisition. Emergency replacement of vehicles and equipment could be considered by the Council at any time, with special emphasis given to identifying how the replacement would be funded if the item has not accumulated sufficient depreciation in the fund to pay entirely for its replacement. • In summary, the Council would retain the same level of oversight and control over expenditures from the Fund as currently exists. VMS Data Processing Requirements In order to collect and access data necessary for accounting transactions and for proper management of vehicle acquisition, maintenance, and replacement, it is necessary to have a powerful and flexible Vehicle Maintenance System computer program and database (known for short as VMS). Brooklyn Center has used LOGIS's VMS for several years; staff are still in the process of evaluating the ability of that VMS to meet our needs. As a part of that process, we are reviewing the VMS that LOGIS is considering as a replacement for its now aging system. Staff are also reviewing stand alone PC packages. There are two VMS options. The first is to remain with LOGIS for 1994 I Sufficient funds have been budgeted for this option, although the have been g P g Y budgeted as capital outlay rather than operating costs. This option would simply require the budget request to be reclassified as operating rather than capital. The second option would be to replace the VMS with a PC package to reside on the City's network, at an estimated cost of $8,000- 12,000. If purchased in 1994, sufficient funds have been budgeted. However, it is essential for efficient operations to purchase the package in 1993, so that Garage and Finance Department staff can set up fleets, accounts, codes, etc., and become familiar with operating the package prior to January 1. If this option is recommended after staff completes review, then purchase in 1993 would have to be considered from the Contingency Account, and the amount budgeted in 1994 would not be necessary. i Under either option, short and long term costs for a new VMS are anticipated to be lower than the costs under the existing VMS system. RECOMMENDED N ED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution establishing the Central Garage Internal Service Fund is attached for Council consideration. The resolution also endorses the concept of "seeding" the fund from a combination of sources, including the Capital Projects Fund, the Refunding Bonds of 1987, and the various enterprise funds. i 9 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CREATING A CENTRAL GARAGE INTERNAL SERVICE FUND ---------------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, Section 7.11 of the City Charter does provide the City Council with the authority to order the creation of such funds as may be needed to y properly account for the financial activities of the City; and WHEREAS, there now exists the need to account for the way the City purchases and maintains its Y P vehicle fleet which requires that a Central Garage internal service fund be established to properly segregate these activities; and WHEREAS, creation of the Central Garage fund also requires that an initial level of funding be put in place to provide for the purchase of replacements for vehicles against which no depreciation has been charged in the past; and WHEREAS, this unfunded past depreciation is estimated to be approximately $1,500,000; and WHEREAS, sufficient surplus funds exist in the Refunding Bonds of 1987 debt service fund and the Capital Improvements fund which could be transferred to the Central Garage fund to provide to past depreciation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the classification of funds shall be expanded to include a Central Garage internal service fund. 2. Funds available in the Refunding Bonds of 1987 debt service fund and the Capital Improvements fund will be considered for transfer to the Central Garage fund to provide initial funding. 3. That staff be directed to determine which equipment should be included in the Central Garage fund, to analyze the amount of past depreciation which needs to be funded, and report back to the City Council on the amount and the recommended sources of funding. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. is 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 9/2 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: STAFF REPORT RE: PARKS AND RECREATION RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Vector o blic Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Attached hereto is a copy of a letter dated August 16, 1993 from Berkley Risk • Services Inc. to Bob Cahlander (not Colander), our Street and Park Maintenance Supervisor regarding their review of our Parks and Recreation Risk Management Program. Following are the staff's comments and recommendations to each of the issues itemized by Berkley: Note ADA = Americans with Disability Act CPSC = U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Issue No. 1. 7/93 The ADA compliance schedule has been developed, the City Council has allocated special funds for items which must be accomplished in 1993, other items are included in 1994 budget requests or included into the Capital Improvements Program. Necessary documentation will be submitted to Berkley. 2. 7/93 The "impact absorption material" which has been used under playground equipment at all parks is sand. Maintenance staff is in the process of reviewing this to be sure adequate depths are present. However, to assure that the sand has not been displaced and is properly fluffed up to meet USCPSC standards while using sand we would need to follow Hennepin Parks' practice of tilling and raking each of these areas weekly. This task alone would take two employees one day each week (we currently have 6 employees who are responsible for all park maintenance!). Accordingly, our interim plan is to have our employees check the heavy -use areas (at merry -go- rounds and slides) weekly — along with general maintenance. Beyond that, we are evaluating options, costs, etc. to develop a long term plan. 3. 7/93 The rope in question has been removed and will not be replaced because it will not meet clearance requirements of the CPSC standards. • 4. 7/93 This work has been done and crews will continue to monitor it. 5. 7/93 Sand has been added, and crew is checking out options. 6. 7/93 Work at Bellvue Park is done, and the "torso template" has been built and is being used to evaluate entrapment hazards at all other parks. 7. 7/93 Work is done and /or being done. 8. 7/93 Work is being done. 9. 7/93 Work is being done. 10. 7/93 Work is being done. 11. 7/93 After evaluation of these comments from Berkley, and applying other & C.P.S.C. standards it becomes apparent that the apparatus in the 12. 7/93 Central Park plaza (City Hall Park) cannot be modified to meet the many numerous standards which this equipment does not now meet. Accordingly, it is recommended that this equipment be removed immediately and new apparatus purchased for installation this fall. Note 1: Staff has obtained 2 proposals for furnishing and installing new equipment. We recommend accepting the proposal of Minnesota • Playground, Inc. in the total amount of $14,994.99. Note 2: We recommend continued use of sand as the impact absorption material at this facility for the time being. We plan to investigate options for installation of a different material at this, and other locations in 1994. 13. 7/93) 14. 7/93) Staff is following up on each of these issues. 15. 7/93) SUMMARY COMMENTS In our detailed review of CSPS standards it is becoming obvious that many improvements will need to be made to playground apparatus in all of the City's parks. The most important standards to meet, from a risk management standpoint are (1) the "entrapment" standard; (2) the standards which apply to clearances (between various portion of playground apparatus in the same area, and between the apparatus and the perimeter curbs); and (3)the standards for impact absorption both for the materials and for ongoing monitoring and maintenance). Staff will review this entire issue and, as with ADA standards, develop recommendations for a compliance implementation plan. Are We Over - Reacting To ADA and CSPS Standards? In an attempt to gauge our program with that of other cities, we have made contact with the following cities and find that they have replaced playground apparatus in the number of parks indicated: Crystal 9 Parks New Hope 7 Parks Golden Valley 5 Parks St. Louis Park 5 Parks • West St. Paul 10 Parks Bloomington 7 Parks North St. Paul 3 Parks New Brighton 4 Parks Moundsview 3 Parks Plymouth 4+ Parks Brooklyn Park 3+ Parks Andover 5 Parks Vadnais Heights 4 Parks Maplewood 7 Parks Brooklyn Center has already replaced apparatus in two parks (Northport and Freeway) this year. Replacement of the apparatus in Central Park will leave Brooklyn Center "about average" in this list of cities. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution authorizing staff to remove the existing playground apparatus at the Central Park playground immediately, and accepting the proposal of Minnesota Playground, Inc.to furnish and install new apparatus at this site, at a cost of $14,994.99 is provided for consideration by the City Council. • b Berkley Risk Services, Inc. August 16, 1993 Mr. Bob Colander Park and Recreation Department CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Subject: Parks and Recreation Loss Control Review: 6/17/93 - 7/9/93 Dear Mr. Colander: This letter will summarize my recent loss control review of the city's various parks, recreational facilities and programs. This is in conjunction with the City of Brooklyn Center's participation in the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust property and casualty program. I would like to thank you and your staff for your efforts and assistance in completion of this loss control survey. As a result of this loss control survey, I have developed several loss control recommendations, which may assist the city in minimizing the potential for loss. Wherever possible, I have divided the recommendations into general recommendations, which may apply to several different locations, and specific location recommendations, which only apply with that particular_ location or facility. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 1 -7/93 At the time of my survey, we discussed recent changes and upgrades the city has made concerning playground areas and playground equipment. From my review, it became apparent that many positive changes and upgrades have indeed taken place. If not already in place, the city should develop a more formalized, written, plan of action which would outline the city's intention to upgrade and re P Y g p lace P outdated equipment. In addition, the plan should also outline the city's intended efforts in establishing parks or park areas which are accessible to disabled individuals as it relates to the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. 2 -7/93 The depth of impact absorption material under the playground equipment should be evaluated to determine if an adequate amount is in place. When properly installed and maintained, impact absorption material could minimize the potential for severe injuries should a fall to the surface occur. Because head impact injuries from a fall have the potential for being life threatening, the more shock absorbing 920 Second Avenue South, Suite 700 • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 -)023 • (612) 376 - - +200 • Fax (612) 376 -1299 A blench r of Berkley Ri,�k NUi.igcnwm Sm Group City of Brooklyn Center August 16, 1993 Page Two the surface can be made, the more is the likelihood that the severity of the injury will be reduced. Please refer to page 22 of the attached Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) Handbook for Public Playground Safety which reviews various surfacing requirements. The extent and depth of impact absorption material is largely determined by the individual playground equipment's critical height. Once the critical heights are determined, Table 2 (page 21) can be used as a guideline for determining the type and depth of loose -fill materials that are needed. FIREHOUSE PARK 3 -7/93 The climbing rope located on the climber appeared to be in very poor condition and could potentially cause injury to a child if it was to break while the child was climbing on the rope. This rope should be replaced as soon as possible to minimize the potential for injury. 4 -7/93 Impact absorption material should be filled in under the merry-go -round to help minimize the potential for injury should a child climb underneath the merry -go- round while it is spinning around. The material should be built up as close as possible to the bottom of the merry -go- round. This will create a safer environment for those children using this apparatus. GRANDVIEW PARK 5 -7/93 The concrete footings located at the base of the spiral slide were exposed, thus presenting the potential for a severe head injury should a child's head strike the footings. The footings should be covered with an adequate amount of impact absorption material. This will minimize the potential for injuries in this area. BELLVUE PARK 6 -7/93 The existing climbing structure should be evaluated for possible entrapment hazards. Please refer to page 25 of the CPSC handbook which reviews entrapment requirements and testing methods. An opening may present an entrapment hazard if it is greater than 3 -1/2 inches or less than 9 inches. To determine if a completely bounded opening creates an entrapment hazard, it is recommended that the city develop a small torso template and a large head template, as defined on page 26, and appropriately test the openings to determine Is if there are any entrapment hazards. If any entrapment hazards are found, they should be appropriately remedied to eliminate this exposure. City of Brooklyn Center August 16, 1993 Page Three LIONS PARK 7 -7/93 The existing climbing posts appear to be somewhat high based on the depth of impact absorption material underneath them. As the city upgrades various playground areas, consideration should be given to removing the climbing posts and replacing them with a more appropriate style of equipment based on the CPSC handbook. KYLAWN PARK 8 -7/93 The existing climbing structure should be evaluated for possible entrapment hazards. Please refer to page 25 of the CPSC handbook which reviews entrapment requirements and testing methods. An opening may present an entrapment hazard if it is greater than 3 -1/2 inches or less than 9 inches. To determine if a completely bounded opening creates an entrapment hazard, it is recommended that the city develop a small torso template and a large head template, as defined on page 26, and appropriately test the openings if there are any entrapment hazards. If any entrapment hazards are found, they should be appropriately remedied to eliminate this exposure. 9 -7/93 The impact absorption material located under the swing set should be extended to provide protection for the entire "fall zone" of the equipment. Because children_ may deliberately attempt to exit from a single axis swing while it is in motion, the fall zone in front of and behind the swing should be greater than to the sides of such a swing. It is recommended that the fall zone extend to the front and rear of a single axis swing a minimum distance of two times the height of the pivot point above the surfacing material measured from a point directly beneath the pivot on the supporting structure. Please refer to Figure 16 on page 22 of the CPSC .handbook. WILLOW LANE PARK 10 -7/93 The existing climbing structure should be evaluated for possible entrapment hazards. Please refer to page 25 of the CPSC handbook which reviews entrapment requirements and testing methods. An opening may present an entrapment hazard if it is greater than 3 -1/2 inches or less than 9 inches. To determine if a completely bounded opening creates an entrapment hazard, it is recommended that the city develop a small torso template and a large head template, as defined on page 26, and appropriately test the openings if there are City of Brooklyn Center August 16, 1993 Page Four any entrapment hazards. If any entrapment hazards are found, they should be appropriately remedied to eliminate this exposure. CITY HALL PARK 11 -7/93 The climber structure is located too close to the edge of the border set up to provide proper fall protection from this piece of equipment. The fall zone should extend a minimum of six feet in all directions from the perimeter of all stationary equipment. Consideration should be given to extending the impact absorption material a distance of six feet out from the structure or moving the structure closer to the center of the defined playground area. 12 -7/93 The multi -axis tire swing should be evaluated to determine if there is a minimum 30 -inch clearance between the tire and the outside post when the swing is fiilly extended. This minimum clearance of 30- inches is designed as a safety factor should the child be in an extended position while swinging close to the support structure. Please refer to page 15, Figure 11, in the CPSC handbook. If this distance of 30 inches already exists, then no further action is required. SWIMMING POOL MOBILE STEPS From my review with the safety committee, it was brought to my attention that there have been several problems with the new swimming pool mobile steps. I have since had a chance to review the mobile steps and have developed several recommendations the city should consider to minimize any liability associated with the use of these steps. 13 -7/93 The city should collect a certificate of product liability insurance from the manu- facturer and should specifically follow the manufacturer's recommendations for set up and use of these steps. 14 -7/93 It is imperative that proper supervision be provided in this area to ensure that the steps are used appropriately. You may wish to establish a limit of persons allowed on the steps at any one time. Again, I would check with the manufacturer's recommendations in this area. 15 -7/93 The city should document what steps or procedures have been taken to improve the quality of the steps. This may assist in the defense of any potential claims in this area. The long -term benefits and successes that can be enjoyed by a cooperative, self- insurance organization depend upon serious and careful consideration of loss control recommendations. City of Brooklyn Center August 16, 1993 Page Five In that context we ask that you keep us informed of the steps you take to address these loss control recommendations. Therefore, PLEASE RESPOND WITHIN 60 DAYS OF YOUR RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER REGARDING THE STATUS OF HOW YOU INTEND TO RESPOND TO THESE LOSS CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS. For your convenience, enclosed is a self - addressed envelope. Feel free to make your reply on a copy of this letter and return it in this envelope. Thank you for your continued efforts in the interest of loss control. We look forward to working with you. Sincerely, n4 A Mark Wagner Loss Control Consultant Berkley Risk Services, Inc. MW:eab Enclosures c: Mr. Gerald Splinter City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Mr. David Howard BHK &R 7825 Washington Avenue South Bloomington, MN 55435 Recommendations and comments are provided for loss control and risk exposure improvement purposes only. They are not made for the purpose of complying with the requirements of any law, rule or regulation. We do not infer or imply in the making of these recommendations and comments that all sites were reviewed or that all possible hazards were noted. The final responsibility for conducting loss control and risk management programs must rest Willi the insured. CENTRAL PARK PLAZA BROOKLYN c emp, hw. FUTURE SIDEWALK 0 er IT/mli n n esota Pioyground, Inc, P.0.la 9898 GeNwvdry, w.woaE0C3Y 1612516+�7V FORT PAYW AL try Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -20, REPLACEMENT OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT IN CENTRAL PARK, ACCEPTING PROPOSAL, AND ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR WHEREAS, the City's loss control consultant has reviewed the City's parks, recreational facilities,and programs, and has outlined a number of recommendations for improving safety; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has concluded that the playground apparatus in Central Park cannot be modified to meet the numerous standards that it does not now meet; and WHEREAS, proposals as follows for replacing the playground apparatus were obtained from two responsible contractors: Bidder Bid Minnesota Playground, Inc. $14,994.99 Maxwell Diggs Const. 15,831.00 WHEREAS, it appears that Minnesota Playground, Inc. of Golden Valley, 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. Improvement Project No. 1993 -20, Replacement of Playground Equipment in Central Park, is hereby established. 2. The proposal as submitted by Minnesota Playground, Inc. of Golden Valley, Minnesota is hereby accepted and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract, in the amount of $14,994.99, with Minnesota Playground in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1993 -20. 3. All costs relating to this project shall be charged to the Capital Projects Fund. 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 September 2.7 1993 Agenda Item Number / REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION i ITEM DESCRIPTION • REPORT ON HENNEPIN COUNTY DISPATCH SERVICES PROPOSAL DEPT. APPR . Gerald ter, City Manager MANAGER'S REVIEW/R.ECOAMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached pp p / hed SUM MMY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes ) • On June 14, 1993, the City Council reviewed in detail the proposal of transferring responsibility for public safety dispatching from the City of Brooklyn Center to Hennepin County. At that meeting, there were a number of issues the council believed had to be addressed before they would consider approving the proposal to transfer dispatch responsibilities to Hennepin County. The four issues were: (1) Hennepin County Board must reaffirm their current policy of not charging for public safety dispatch services; (2) adequate capacity for car -to -car communications on a talk - around basis must be provided to the police department; (3) adequate capacity for truck -to -truck communications must be provided for on a talk - around basis for the fire department; and (4) provision of an automated notice to public safety dispatchers for notifying the fire department for response to medical emergencies at different hours on different days. For your information, I have attached a table indicating the history of Brooklyn Center's review of joint dispatching proposals. Since June 14, 1993, when the council passed the Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Proceed Further in Evaluating the Hennepin County Dispatch Proposal, the city managers of the four cities — Crystal, New Hope, Robbinsdale, and Brooklyn Center —have met with Hennepin County to address the final issues raised. Attached for your review are copies of letters from Sheriff Omodt's office regarding issues and questions raised by the cities with regard to Hennepin County providing dispatch services (letters dated: September 17, 1993; July 6, 1993; August 17, 1993; and June 8, 1993). 1 believe the letter from Sheriff Omodt's office dated September 17, 1993, adequately answers all q Y four mayor outstanding issues raised by Brooklyn Center during its consideration of this matter on . June 14, 1993. The attached resolution recommended for your approval authorizes the city manager to transfer the public safety dispatching functions to Hennepin County in an orderly manner contingent upon the Hennepin County Board taking specific action to reaffirm their policy of not charging for dispatching services and the cities of Crystal, Robbinsdale, and New Hope authorizing the transfer of their dispatch services to Hennepin County. In answer to the four major issues raised by the City Council at its June 14, 1993, consideration of this matter, I offer the following: 1. Hennepin County Board Reaffirmation of "No Charge" Policy. The letter of September 17, 1993, from Sheriff Omodt's office, states that the sheriff's department will • propose reaffirmation of the no charge policy upon approval of the transfer of dispatch services by any city to Hennepin County. The attached resolution authorizing this transfer is contingent upon the Hennepin County Board reaffirmation of their no charge policy. 2. Talk - Around Capability for Police Department. The proposed frequency allocation is stated in the July 6, 1993, letter from Sheriff Omodt's office. The new frequencies brought to the County by the four cities, together with the existing County frequencies, would provide talk - around capabilities for our police department, offering three separate County channels for communication. The City of Brooklyn Park's police department has indicated we could also install their talk - around or car -to -car frequency on our radios, plus we're proposing to add MDT's to our squad cars thus giving our police personnel five choices for talk - around capability for communicating car -to -car off the main channel. 3. Truck -to -Truck Talk- Around Capability for lire Department. The July 6, 1993, letter from Hennepin County indicates the frequency allocation proposed by Hennepin County. Under the proposed County allocation, there would be two main fire dispatch frequencies and two truck -to -truck (talk - around) frequencies plus an additional truck -to -truck frequency limited in use to the cities of Brooklyn Center, Golden Valley, New Hope, Robbinsdale, and Crystal. We believe this arrangement would give adequate talk - around capability to the fire department. • 4. Automated Dispatcher Notice for Fire Medial Callouts. Police department and fire dep artment p ersonnel have met with Hennepin n p p p Cou nty and have agreed that for a one time programming charge ($4,000 to $6,000) to the City of Brooklyn Center, the County system could be reprogrammed to provide the automated notice requested by the Brooklyn Center fire department. (This cost is included in the cost estimates for transferring to Hennepin County.) I have included for your information the table "Criteria for Judging Emergency Communication Systems," which lists our evaluation of the Hennepin County option and our existing system. Also included are materials which detail the cost of operating our existing dispatch system and our costs of operation if the council chooses to approve its transfer to the Hennepin County system (these costs include keeping our station open 24 hours per day, 365 days per year). Based on our preliminary and now final discussions with Hennepin County, we have every reason to believe if the communities of Brooklyn Center, Robbinsdale, New Hope, and Crystal authorize going with the Hennepin County Public Safety Dispatching System, we will be joining a system which offers a high quality service whose quality can be assured by high- technology monitoring systems. Brooklyn Center citizens, I believe, will be well served by the County system as it has a proven track record of quality service to other suburban communities, both larger and smaller than Brooklyn enter such as Brooklyn Park, le Grove, Yn G ove 1 outh Champlin, In addition ( yn � P �, Ym P ) , such communities in Anoka County as Fridley, Coon Rapids, and others receive quality service from Anoka County dispatching systems. The same is true in Ramsey County where Roseville and other communities in the county receive a similar service from their county. I have reviewed this proposal with personnel from both the fire and police departments. The fire department personnel are almost unanimously opposed to going to the Hennepin County system. The police department appears to be divided on the issue with some favoring going to the County and a probable majority preferring to stay with our current system. If both short-term and long- term financial considerations for Brooklyn Center were not ' involved, I would agree with the employees of the police and fire departments. I am personally convinced that if the City Council chooses the Hennepin County service, citizens in need of service, city personnel, and the tax payers of Brooklyn Center will be very well served. Citizens in need of service and employees of Brooklyn Center will have available to them a quality, high- technology dispatching system which has a proven track record of quality service. The tax payers of Brooklyn Center will be very well served by choosing the County system. They will be taking advantage of taxes they are currently paying to Hennepin County with no services received. In addition, Brooklyn Center tax payers will stand to save a minim of $136,087 per year. Our tax payers will be further served by the fact that by going to Hennepin County they will be spared significant major capital expenditures (estimated at $500,000 to $750,000) approximately two years from now when our existing base radio system must be considered for replacement. Choosin g the County system also represents a quality, timely example of collaborative and cooperative efforts between and among various levels of government. I have also included for your consideration an attachment labeled "What the Annual Savings ($136,087) From Going to the County System Could Fund ". RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION I recommend your favorable consideration of the attached resolution authorizing transfer of Brooklyn Center Public Safety Dispatch services to Hennepin County with the two stated conditions. Given the significant budget constraints Brooklyn Center is currently encountering and the fact that this financial situation will not improve for the foreseeable future, this is a golden opportunity to accomplish significant short -term ($136,087) annual savings and long -term ($500,000 to $750,000) capital savings through intergovernmental cooperation. I believe this savings could be accomplished while still maintaining a quality level of service. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REQUESTING HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE DISPATCHING SERVICES FOR BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS WHEREAS, in February 1992 the Brooklyn Center City Council through resolution directed the city administration to study the feasibility of a joint dispatch center. The center would dispatch police, fire, and emergency services for the cities of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope, and Robbinsdale; and WHEREAS, this study determined that the start-up cost and annual operating cost to establish a joint facility were excessive and recommended three options: (1) change dispatch to the Hennepin County Sheriff's Department; (2) build and operate an independent five -city joint dispatch facility; or (3) remain the same; and WHEREAS, in March 1993 the city manager recommended that Brooklyn Center consider having Hennepin County provide the dispatching services resulting in a potential savings of over $130,000 annually. Council directed the administration to continue to examine the Hennepin County option, but also examine the feasibility of joint dispatch with another city; and WHEREAS, during May 1993 the cities of Robbinsdale, New Hope, and Crystal have authorized joint city negotiations with Hennepin County for dispatch services, and Golden Valley is planning to join with St. Louis Park for dispatch services; and WHEREAS, evaluation of the Hennepin County dispatch services indicates they are a quality operation capable of giving good service to Brooklyn Center at an equal service capability of our current dispatch system; and WHEREAS, the Hennepin County public safety dispatch system offers significant annual operating savings to the City of Brooklyn Center, and in addition, it offers long -range cost saving opportunities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the City of Brooklyn Center hereby authorizes the transfer of public safety dispatch services to Hennepin County when the following conditions are met: 1. Hennepin County Board must reaffirm its "no charge" policy for providing public safety dispatching services to cities in Hennepin County contained in their resolution 82 -3 -84 (R). RESOLUTION NO. 2. The cities of Robbinsdale, New Hope, and Crystal must agree to transfer public safety services to Hennepin County. 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. HISTORY Joint Powers Dispatch Services concept among cities raised as a cost saving strategy during preparation of 1991 budget. After staff recommendation, City Council authorized study of potential of Joint Powers dispatching among the cities of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, New Hope, Golden Valley, and Robbinsdale. In July of 1992, the Montgomery and Associates study demonstrated the technical and operational feasibility of the Joint Dispatch concept. However, financial analysis demonstrated Brooklyn Center's share of the cost of a joint system exceeded the cost of the existing Brooklyn Center system. In March of 1993, City staff recommended evaluation of Hennepin County option. City Council authorizes evaluation of County and other service options. I During May of 1993, cities of Robbinsdale, New Hope, and Crystal have authorized joint city negotiations with Hennepin County for dispatch services (attached are copies of their resolutions). The City of Golden Valley will not be considering the Hennepin County option. They will be remaining with their own system or joint with St. Louis Park. On June 14, 1993, passed a resolution authorizing the city manager to negotiate final details of a transfer. There were four major unresolved issues: (1) Hennepin County reaffirming their policy of not charging for dispatch services• 2 car-to-car - car to car talk around capability for h () o the police 3 p department; Y P P �() truck -to -truck talk- around capability for the fire department; and (4) automated dispatch notification of fire department for response to certain types of medicals on certain days. I SHERIFF 6 COURTHOUSE DON OMODT - MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55415 (612) 348 -3744 September 17, 1993 Jerry Dulgar, City Manager City of Crystal 4141 Douglas Drive North Crystal, Minnesota 55422 Re: Memorandum of Understanding Dear Mr. Dul g ar• I During the last few months, numerous meetings and conversations have been held regarding a wide variety of subjects, as they pertain to the potential migration of dispatch operations from the independent dispatch centers for Brooklyn Center, Crystal, New Hope, and Robbinsdale into the operation of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Communications Center. At our last meeting, you requested that a memorandum of understanding be drafted to confirm previous P oints of discussion. It is difficult to compose a specific memorandum in that numerous details are -remaining to be decided. While many specific details remain to be worked out, we have come to agreement in general terms on how such a g merger could be accomplished in a manner that would appear to be to the benefit of the public safety agencies of both the independent and dependent agencies involved. Each of the cities have had n co cerns regarding how such merger g g c a e ge r would affect them. I believe each of these concerns has been addressed as they arose. My understanding as it applies to these specific areas is recapped below: Minn. Stat.387.03 "The sheriff shall keep and preserve the peace of his county...- Jerry Dulgar, City Manager City of Crystal September 17, 1993 Page 2 PERSONNEL While we cannot guarantee an offer of employment to your current dispatchers, a provision has been made to bypass the qualification criteria and allow them the opportunity to compete for the additional telecommunicator positions anticipated at the Hennepin County Sheriff's Communications Division. LOGIS Several of the independent cities use the LOGIS computer system for their internal record management system. The option of an interface with the Hennepin County CAD system and LOGIS has been explored and appears to be technically possible. We have agreed to cooperate with the cities and LOGIS in creating this interface. In that this interface would be of benefit to only those agencies that use LOGIS, the cost of this interface would be borne by the agencies involved, on a shared basis, as worked out by those agencies. AD It is necessary for the Hennepin. County Sheriff's Communications Division to perform its functions in a standardized manner that is applicable to all the cities dispatched. A specific modification to the Hennepin County CAD has been identified and requested by the Brooklyn Center Fire Department. It has been our practice to absorb the cost of modifications that enhance the CAD system for all users. We will assist in the implementation of this specific modification, but the programming costs are anticipated to be paid by Brooklyn Center. Jerry Dulgar, City Manager City of Crystal September 17, 1993 Page 3 FCC The County resolution that offers emergency communications and dispatch service, without charge to all municipalities in Hennepin County, is specific in requiring that frequencies be pledged to Hennepin County to be utilized on an equal load basis. In this regard, the cities will assist and cooperate in obtaining the proper licensing as required by FCC. At a minimum, to meet this provision, Hennepin County's name must appear on the FCC frequency license. COUNTY RESOLUTION The cities have requested a reaffirmation of the County Board Resolution 82 -3 -84 (R) by the current Hennepin County Board. The Sheriff's Department will propose this to the current board for action. AB The Users Advisory Board has expanded its membership to include a voting membership for a police, fire, and city manager representative from the group of four cities exploring a merger with Hennepin County Sheriff's Communications. FREQUENCY USAGE A suggestion for the potential utilization of the police and fire frequencies was outlined in a letter to Jerry Dulgar dated July 6, 1993. Additional meetings have included representatives from the four cities, current users on the Sheriff's Dispatch System, and the Hennepin County Sheriff's Department. This utilization of the frequencies benefits all users and, barring technical difficulties, will be implemented. 0 Jerry Dulgar, City Manager City of Crystal September 17, 1993 Page 4 FIRE A potential use of the shared New Hope /Golden Valley fire frequency has been identified which would benefit these agencies and contiguous agencies. An operational plan to accomplish this will be developed by representatives from the Golden Valley and New Hope Fire Departments and the Hennepin County Sheriff's Department. EQUIPMENT Legislation requires Hennepin County to own all radio equipment used on its radio system, unless otherwise directed by the County Board. Each of the cities presently own and maintain a variety of radio equipment. The cities have offered to transfer ownership of this equipment to the County at a nominal fee. Hennepin County would then be responsible for any future maintenance costs. The specifics of such a transfer still need to be identified. In general, all items related to the "backbone" of the radio system (i.e. transmitters, antenna, etc.) would become the property of Hennepin County along with the requirement of any future maintenance needs. Mobile and portable radio equipment would become the property of Hennepin County and be subject to the normal maintenance cost charged to all users. This could be either a time and material type charge, or the maintenance charge established and approved by the County Board. Fire pagers will remain purchased and maintained by each individual city, as will radio equipment needed for local city radio networks (i.e. public works). The cost of reprogramming pagers, mobile and portable radio equipment is to be paid by the affected cities. At this time, it is difficult to project the final date for total implementation of the proposed transfer of dispatch services to Hennepin County. There are a number of opportunities for technical programming, equipment delivery and installation "surprises" to occur during the implementation process. Absent an unusual number of these Jerry Dulgar, City Manager City of Crystal September 17, 1993 Page 5 surprises, we estimate Hennepin County could complete the major elements of the implementation by mid to late summer of 1994, if the transition were started shortly. It probably will not be possible to bring on all communities at the same time. We will have to work out priorities with the communities as the implementation process is finalized. I believe this accurately reflects my understanding of the topics discussed. I have intended to include all major areas of discussion. If you have questions or comments regarding this, please let me know. Sincerely, DON OMODT, SHERIFF By: Ovide L. L er Chief Deputy OLL:ns CC: Dan Donahue Gerald Splinter John Spetch Sheriff Omodt Inspector Postle Lieutenant Lennox PAS o kV i la, Of t6 IS p pN OMOO �1�ERlF�. SHERIFF * * 6 COURTHOUSE DON OMODT \ MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55415 VIM t y (612) 348 -3744 fp �0 July 6, 1993 Mr. Jerry Dulgar City Manager - Crystal 4141 Douglas Drive North Crystal, MN 55422 Dear Mr. Dulgar: At our meeting on June 30, 1993, you asked me to suggest how a couple of issues could be handled to meet some of the concerns of the four cities. The following is a suggestion on potential frequency utilization: Use Frequency Police dispatch for the four cities Brooklyn Center repeater Police car -to -car for all dispatched police Crystal Police Police car -to -car for all dispatched police New Hope Police Fire dispatch for the four cities Brooklyn Center /Crystal Fire Fire truck -to -truck for all dispatched fire Robbinsdale Fire Fire truck -to -truck for Golden Valley, Golden Valley /New Hope Fire New Hope, and other contiguous agencies The police would also have the present County car -to -car channel available. I foresee the three car -to -car channels being available to all police users dispatched, with certain agencies grouped together as the primary users of a channel. The grouping should be determined with the input of all using agencies. One configuration would be your four cities primarily on one channel, the North dispatched cities primarily on one channel, and the South cities on the third channel. Because all channels would be available to all users, if one of the three was busy, the others could be used as backup. The sharing of the channels also provides all users a method to talk to one another. In addition, there is the county -wide channel 3 repeater, used primarily for informational inquiries and emergencies. However, the repeater talk- around is another car -to -car channel available to all police agencies in the County. Some cities also have their own city frequencies which they share with their Public Works departments. This provides for reduced channel loading on the County Minn. Stat. 387.03 "The sheriff shall keep and preserve the peace of his county..." Page 2 frequencies. Arrangements may be possible where some of the four new departments could share these local frequencies. For example, Robbinsdale may allow someone else on their channel, particularly after hours, or Brooklyn Park may allow another department on their channel. Control of these local frequencies is up to each agency, and not the County. The fire agencies, similar to the police, would also have the present County truck -to -truck channel available. They could be grouped in a like manner to police, with the input of all using agencies. The Golden Valley /New Hope channel is still somewhat of a question. I understand it belongs equally to both agencies so there does not seem to be any priority as to who determines its use. This hopefully could be worked out to the benefit of several fire agencies. In addition to the frequencies shown above for fire, there is the Statewide mutual aid channel, the metro area mutual aid channel, and a portable tactical channel that all departments have available. What all this boils down to is three main dispatch and three car -to -car channels for the police departments on the Count system tem plus a repeater County v r and a - P P repeater talk-around k ar ound channel for all Police in the County For the fire service, there would be two main dispatch channels and two truck -to- truck channels for the departments on the County system three other tactical channels shared with other agencies plus the Golden Valley /New Hope channel. There are other potential configurations which could be considered and, as I mentioned, the current users on the system should be involved in the process to decide what is the best use for all. On the matter of base stations, our technical staff has looked into the units available in your departments and how they could be used. There apparently are two base stations, antennas and related equipment available from each of the four agencies. They are of varying age and serviceability. Checking g with surplus equipment suppliers, it appears they would pay about $1000 per unit. You indicated you would like to trade the base stations for future equipment lease charges. I am not in a position to state whether the County would purchase the equipment or expect it to be contributed by the agencies. That is a County Administration decision. However, if the County were to agree to pay for them, the preferred method would be cash payment to the cities, and the lease charges remain as they are. Brooklyn Center Fire Department has requested an automatic notification for certain situations. Their department responds to certain medical related events during specific times, and not at other times. For example, the fire department responds to reports of heart attacks, shortness of breath calls, and personal injury accidents during the hours between 18:00 Friday until 23:59 Sunday. During other hours they do not respond to these events. This is not a situation that is unique to Brooklyn Center. Page 3 The flexibility f making Y king changes to the CAD system to automatically create combined responses during some time frames and not during other times, does not exist in our system at present. However, we do have agencies that are accomplishing the same thing through normal operational procedures. An event, such as a heart attack, is broadcast to the local police officer. He then requests that fire rescue be started based on what he knows about current staffing and /or local procedures. This does not cause a major delay in notification, and gives the local agency complete control over the resources needed. This does not fulfill the desires of Brooklyn Center. We have reviewed the situation with our CAD vendor and a suggested program enhancement has been identified that would give us the ability to accomplish what Brooklyn Center has requested. The program change would allow for the event table to "key in" on the current response level of the local agency to determine whether to start a corresponding fire event. The response level can be set "on- line" and changed when the need arises. The estimated cost of this enhancement is approximately $6,000 and would be borne by Brook n Center. While this would accomplish the needs of the fire department, it should be pointed out that it comes at the potential expense of the police department, in that they only have a limited number of potential response levels. The system has ten response levels. Within the CAD system, the response level would equate to a "car plan ". A car plan is the assignment of units to geographic districts with logical ical g backup assignments. This may not pose a problem fo Y P p r the Brooklyn Center Police, but they should be aware of this. The agencies on our system represent a variety of sizes. Numerous cities do not use the response level function at all, while the city of Brooklyn Park has all ten levels programmed. The modification Brooklyn Center is requesting would require an alternate response level for each car plan used by the police. This would mean that only five different car plans could be used by the police department. I hope this clarifies the issues raised at the last meeting. We obviously need further discussion, and refinement, with input from the users, to insure we are doing what is best for the entire public safety community. I'll be looking forward to our next meeting on July 9, 1993. Sincerely, DON OMODT, SHERIFF c � By: Donald H. Vode el 9 Captain - Communications Division 9300 Na P e r Street Golden Valley, MN 55427 (612) 525 -6206 cc: Chief Lager e 9 Gerald Splinter John Spetch of fl�v SHERIFF =` �,q' 6 COURTHOUSE DON OMODT , 3y MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55415 rf Z'Z�r7,� �✓ �� � �� (612) 348 -3744 August 17, 1993 Gerald G. Splinter City Manager 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN. 55414 Dear Mr. Splinter: This is in response to your letter of August 10, 1993, and our telephone conversation yesterday. Upon request of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Department, the Hennepin County Personnel Board, on Thursday, August 12, 1993, authorized a transfer eligibility program for the Sheriff's Department. Such authority allows us to set up a screening and interview process for the current public safety communications dispatchers in Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Robbinsdale, and Golden Valley. This will allow us to process all present dispatchers in the above communities that may be interested in employment as a telecommunicator in the Sheriff's Department. Should the consolidation take place as discussed and proposed, we will be hiring approximately twelve telecommunicators. Additionally, we are temporarily waiving our long- standing policy involving off duty employment. Effective last week, we are authorizing our telecommunicators to work in an off duty capacity as a dispatcher, on a part time basis, for any of the above four cities until the Sheriff assumes actual dispatching responsibilities for those cities. This is to assist those cities in getting through the interim period. If there are any other concerns regarding this potential consolidation, or anything else, please don't hesitate to call. Some inaccurate information has filtered through and we are working hard to be absolutely certain that only factual information is being disseminated. We understand that this issue is also an emotional one, and one that is very important to everyone involved. We will try very hard to qualify everyone whose job may be displaced. At the same time, we will stick to our very high standards to assure you of the best possible service. Minn. Stat. 387.03 "The sheriff shall keep and preserve the peace of his county...,, Mr. Gerald G. Splinter August 17, 1993 PAGE TWO As I stated on the telephone yesterday, we are hoping that Brooklyn Center makes its final decision on this matter, very soon. The process for such a consolidation is very complex and should go before the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners as soon as possible. There is radio systems testing, equipment evaluation, ordering and purchasing, CAD geo -base updating for all new addresses in the system, hiring and training of ,personnel, and probably a lot of things I haven't even thought of as yet. As you know, the entire four -city consolidation effort appears to pivot entirely on Brooklyn Center's decision, at this point. Please keep me advised. Sincerely, DON OMODT, SHERIFF C11 Ar By: Ovide L. La erge Chief Deputy cc:Jerry Dulgar Dan Donahue John Spetch Sheriff Omodt Inspector Postle Lieutenant Lennox OLL JUN 00 '93 03 :20PM HENN CO SHERIFF COMM P.2 f � 2" Z O '0 014 oht oa r SHERIFF 6 COURTHOUSE �` '` MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55415 DON OMODT (612) 348 -3744 June 8, 1993 Chief Trevor Hampton Brooklyn Center Police 6341 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Chief Hampton: You inquired about the policy for continued use of your current radio equipment if Brooklyn Center chooses to join the Sheriff's Communications system. As you are aware, the law requires that all communications equipment shall, unless otherwise provided by the Hennepin County Board, be owned, maintained, and serviced by Hennepin County. It is the intention of the Sheriff's Department to recommend to the County Board, that if the equipment is compatible, your city continue with your existing portables, mobiles, and present service agreements. Additional equipment, and /or system replacement, would be provided by Hennepin County. As I understand your equipment, it is compatible and would continue to remain in service with appropriate frequency changes. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, DON OMODT, SHERIFF By: Donald H. Vodegel Captain - Communications Division 9300 Naper Street Golden Valley, MN 55427 (612) 525 -6206 DHV:djt cc: Chief LaBerge Inspector Postle Minn. Stat. 387.03 "The sheriff shall keep and preserve the peace of his county..." CRITERIA FOR JUDGING EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM 1. The system should have the capacity to migrate to future technologies such as digital electronics, 800 megahertz, and 800 megahertz trunking. O Under this criteria, our current system or the County system could take advantage of technological advances. However, migration to these technologies will be significantly less expensive with the County system. Brooklyn Center's base station equipment should be considered for replacement within three to five years. With the County system, Brooklyn Center would avoid significant base station costs. 2. Any system adopted must at least equal our current dispatch technology. O The County system meets this criteria. I Any system must meet our current communication requirements and must be flexible enough to meet future needs. O Either our current system or the County system would meet this criteria. With our current system we would have complete control over flexibility. With the County system, we would have shared control over flexibility through a user advisory board. Any Joint Powers service arrangement would also involve a user board and shared control over flexibility. Over the years, Brooklyn Center has had positive experiences with such user boards as LOGIS, Tourism Bureau, Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council, Joint Health Service Board, Hennepin Recycling Group, and others. We see no reason why the "user board" concept will not work for Brooklyn Center with Hennepin County Dispatching. Cities currently serving on the County Dispatch Services User Board indicate they are listened to and their concerns are fairly addressed. 4. Any system must be able to handle and coordinate multi- community and agency response to a natural disaster or major public safety need. O Either our current system or the County system would meet this criteria. Both systems have demonstrated their capabilities in this area. i Because the County system does and will be dispatching neighboring communities, if we go with the county system, coordinating response to disaster situations would be less complicated. 5. Any system must provide service and response to both citizens and City personnel which is of high quality. O Both systems meet this criteria. Recording systems serving both systems assure quality service. 6. Any system should have the ability to contain costs and deliver the best return for resources expended. O Under this criteria, the County option is clearly superior. Comparative cost analysis indicates an annual savings of at least $130,238. If our current dispatching service is enhanced by adding an additional dispatcher, as has been recommended by the police department, the annual savings increase to $164,738. (See attached table entitled "Dispatch Services Cost Analysis.") The reason for the saving is that Hennepin County will be financing dispatching costs rather than the City of Brooklyn Center. Brooklyn Center Cost Attachment 6 Brooklyn Center Police Department 1993 Cost of Communications Center Dispatching Services Provided from the Brooklyn Center Police Department Personnel Costs Position Status # of Positions Compensation Public Safety Dispatcher Full -Time 6 $221,321 Total Personnel Costs $221,321 Figures are based on 1993 Budget as Adjusted Personnel Costs are based on Total Compensation Operating Costs Dictaphone Maintenance Contract S2,000 Motorola Maintenance Contract $8,100 Scanning Portable Radio $290 U.S. West 911 Line Charge $14,400 U.S. West Dedicated Line $396 U.S. West Dedicated Line $396 911 Printer $182 Total Operating Costs $25,764 Figures are based on 1993 Budget as Adjusted Total Cost in 1993.of Dispatching Services Provided from Brooklyn Center Police Department 247:X KELIMINARY 0 Brooklyn Center Police Department Cost of Communications Center Dispatching Services Provided from the Hennepin County Sheriffs Department Personnel Costs Additional personnel necessary to maintain holding facility 24 hours /7days a week (8,736 hours) Position Status Hours Compensation Code Enforcement Officer (1) Full -Time 2,080 $31,719 Code Enforcement Officer Part -Time 1,300 $16,380 Total 3,380 548,099 Will be able to utilize the following to fill the remaining hours; Position Status Hours Code Enforcement Officer Full -Time 2,080 Code Enforcement Officer Part -Time 2,205 Property Room Supervisor Full -Time 2,080 Total 6,365 Code Enforcement Officers hill perform CEO ditties) vhen the holdingfacility is not occupied Property Room Supervisor will maintain the holding, facility during daytime hours Additional Personnel necessary to maintain state terminal for police operation and secure records area 24 hours /7 days a week (8,736 hours) Position Status Hours Compensation Terminal Operators (2) Full -Time 4,160 $57,088 Total 4,160 $57,088 Will be able to utilize the following to fill the remaining hours; Position Status Hours Data Entry Clerk Full -Time 2,080 Data Entry Clerk Part -Time 520 Receptionist Full -Time 2,080 Records Clerk Part -Time 1,560 Secretary Full -Time 2,080 Typists Part -Time 5,624 Total 13,944 Total Personnel Costs S105,187 Operating Costs ictaphone Maintenance Contract $2,000 ,vIotorola Maintenance Contract $8,100 MDT's (10 Units) $19,240 Special LOGIS Charges (Monthly) $1,560 Total Operating Costs $30,900 One -Time Operating Costs LOGIS Conversion Programing $8,765 MDT's Installation $2,000 Total One -Time Operating Costs $10,765 Total Annual City Cost of Dispatching Services through Hennepin County Sheriffs Department S136,087 *Does not include one-time operating costs Dispatching from.Brooklyn Center Police Department $247;085 Dispatching from Hennepin County Sheriffs Department ** $136,087 Total Savings 5110,998 * Includes MD Y's Annual Cost DISPATCH SERVICES COST ANALYSIS 1994 Projected Costs - without service enhancement 1993 Brooklyn Center Costs $247,085 + Mobile Digital Terminals (MDTs) s annual (M ) al cost 19,240 1994 9 Brooklyn Center y Costs $266 withou ( t service enhancement) ent) 1994 Projected Costs - with service enhancement 1993 Brooklyn Center Costs $247,085 • Mobile Digital Terminals (MDTs) annual cost 19,240 • one additional dispatcher annual cost 34 1994 Brooklyn Center Costs $300,825* ( with service enhancement) 1994 Projected Costs - Hennepin County Option 1994 Brooklyn Center Costs $136 ** (includes $19,240 MDT annual cost) Net Annual Savings of Hennepin County Option vs. 1994 Projected Costs without service enhancement $1301238 Net Annual Savings of Hennepin County Option vs. 1994 Projected Cost with service enhancement $164,738 *Does not include $2,000 one -time cost for installation of MDTs, 1994 compensation cost increases, or any service enhancement. ** i Does not include $2,000 one -time cost for installation of MDTs, $8,740 one - `i time LOGIS data link ro ram p g ming cost, or 1994 compensation cost increases. DISPATCH SERVICES COST ANALYSIS 1994 Projected Costs - without service enhancement 1993 Brooklyn Center Costs $24705 + Mobile Digital Terminals (MDTs) annual cost 19,240 1994 Brooklyn Center Costs $266,325* ( without service enhancement) 1994 Projected Costs - with service enhancement 1993 Brooklyn Center Costs $247 • Mobile Digital Terminals (MDTs) annual cost 19,240 • one additional dispatcher annual cost 34,500 1994 Brooklyn Center Costs $300 ( with service enhancement) 1994 Projected Costs - Hennepin County Option 1994 Brooklyn Center Costs $136,087 ** (includes $19,240 MDT annual cost) Net Annual Savings of Hennepin County Option vs. 1994 Projected Costs without service enhancement $130,238 Net Annual Savings of Hennepin County Option vs. 1994 Projected Cost with service enhancement $164 *Does not include $2,000 one -time cost for installation of MDTs, 1994 compensation cost increases, or any service enhancement. * *Does not include $2,000 one -time cost for installation of MDTs, $8,740 one - time LOGIS data link programming cost, or 1994 compensation cost increases. What the Annual Savings ($136,087) from Going with the County Option Could Fund: O A reserve for funding property tax losses from Tax Court valuation appeals for the 1994 budget. O Removal of three dilapidated houses annually. O Replacement of playground equipment in three parks. O The salaries for 2+ P olice officers. O The salaries for 3 + park /street maintenance personnel. O A Class "A" reforestation program. O 1.3 times the average police department capital outlay. O The financing of our street assessment stabilization program. O 90% of our street lighting budget. O 3 times the cost of one fire inspector. O 100% + of fire department annual labor costs. O 100 %+ of City prosecution costs. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Couneff Meeting Deco 9W193 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION GIVING FINAL APPROVAL TO YEAR II OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER BUSINESS RETENTION /JOB EXPANSION PROGRAM DEPT. APPROVAL: 9 &, , e 40 --1 Brad Hoffman, D&tctor of Community Development MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOAMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUN MARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X ) • Monday evening the Council will be asked to give approval to a resolution authorizing the release of $30,000 of CDBG money for Brooklyn Center's business retention program. From the start, Brooklyn Center indicated its intent to participate in this program for a minim of three (3) years. As a result of that intent, Brooklyn Center entered into a joint powers agreement with Brooklyn Park and Blaine. New Hope has since joined the joint powers group. There has been some discussion on the part of the Council as to the merit of the program. While staff has supported and recommended the City's participation, if it is the desire of the Council to discontinue participation then we are obligated to serve notice to the commission by October 10 of this year for Year III. The fund you are asked to approve is for Year II. I strongly urge you to continue this program and recommend our continued participation, but staff needs specific direction Monday evening. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Staff recommends approval of resolution. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GIVING FINAL APPROVAL TO YEAR II OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER BUSINESS RETENTIONLJOB EXPANSION PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center through its Economic Development Authority has initiated a Business Retention /Job Expansion Program; and WHEREAS, the Program is to be funded with Community Development Block Grant Funds for the first three (3) years; and WHEREAS, the Program was given tentative approval for Year II funding at the Community Development Block Grant public hearing subject to the review and convenience of the Financial Commission; and WHEREAS, the Financial Commission did review the program at its August 31, 1993, meeting; and WHEREAS, the Financial Commission found the program to be of worthy merit and did unanimously recommend its approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center does hereby give final approval to the Brooklyn Center Business Expansion /Job Retention Program and further releases its temporary hold on the expenditure of Community Block Grant Funds for the Program. 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. Memo TO: BRAD HOFFMAN FM: Earl Netwal RE: Community Partners Survey Results Applications. The community partners survey process has already generated a significant amount of information that has been beneficially utilized in manners consistent with the programs goal of retaining and assisting existing local businesses to grow and expand. Many more applications are emerging as the data base grows and specific individual needs of various businesses are identified. The final stage of the three year project will be used to develop a wide range of specific strategies. It is premature to address these now, since they will be based upon the hard data the project is accumulating. Nonetheless, a number of obvious steps have been initiated in the interim based upon the preliminary data. One of the benefits of the project has been the increased cooperation between the participating cities, the various chambers of commerce, and the local community and technical colleges. While difficult to quantify, the process has facilitated the joint discussion of issues relevant to each of the partners in the process. The continuation of the process will only further enhance these cooperative interactions. On the primary level, the process to date has contacted over 330 Brooklyn Center businesses directly. The very contact represents the first level of benefit. The vast majority of these businesses are pleasantly impressed with the city's interest in their operations and well being. As a result of these contacts, over 100 "red flags" have been generated. These are generated weekly and referred to city staff for appropriate action. They have run the gamut from complaints about pot holes, to requests for street name changes, to issues with police, fire, zoning, health department and many more individual complaints, concerns or requests for additional information. Several companies disclosed their likely intentions to relocate, and /or needs for city assistance down the road to assist in their expansion needs. The individual red flags identify specific and often unique complaints that most often are more a set of minor irritants that companies complain about to and. amongst themselves, but not serious enough to warrant taking the time to address city hall. By actively soliciting these, the city has been able to address many minor issues that otherwise would have been allowed to fester. By demonstrating its willingness to be helpful where it can, the city helps to remove obstacles to individual businesses' success and enhance the reputation of Brooklyn Center as a good place in which to do business. y , The red flags and the city's response to individual items represent the first level of benefit of the survey process. The second major level of benefit of the survey process has been the referral of individual businesses to existing resources in the community. The most significant area of referrals has been to local community and technical colleges. Specific referrals have been made to the colleges of approximately 100 Brooklyn Center companies who indicated an interest in specific training for their current or prospective employees. The colleges were provided with the companies' names, contact people, and the specific areas of training desired. This results in several benefits to the community. First the colleges themselves have a better idea of local employers specific training needs. This will assist them in adjusting, if necessary, their programmatic mix. It will also assist their placement people assist their graduates find companies needing their skills. It also helps the employers by focusing training on those areas most in demand, and by providing qualified employees. Qualified employees in turn enable businesses to become more competitive, resulting in increased business. This in turn allows for future expansion of employment (MORE JOBS) and better paid jobs. As the survey more completely covers the universe of North Metro area businesses, the ultimate quality and value of the data increases. Ultimately, the survey will provide an across the board index of employer skill needs. This information will be extremely valuable to the colleges' leadership as they plan for future programs to ensure that they are training students for real jobs that pay living wages. An interim report has been generated to look at the first 1000 companies surveyed throughout the study area. This is being reviewed by a working committee made up on representatives of each of the colleges. A report to the four college presidents is scheduled for mid October. This is another example of the partnership building that is part and parcel of the overall project. Another area of referral already implemented relates to the advancement of cutting edge technology by area manufacturers. Each manufacturer was asked to indicate its current state of implementation on a set of 14 different technologies. Almost half of the companies were in the process of implementing one or more of the technologies or needed additional information on a given technology. In general, the larger firms tended to be fully implementing most of the appropriate technologies, while the mid size and smaller firms were more likely to need assistance. These firms have been directly referred to Minnesota Technology Inc., a non profit corporation established by the State of Minnesota, to provide this type of technology assessment and direct assistance to companies seeking to improve their state of art in these technologies. By virtue of these referrals, we have in essence put Brooklyn Center companies to the head of the list for these services. In time this will again strengthen local companies, allowing them to become more competitive and eventually result in more and better jobs. When coupled with the relationship with the colleges we will enhance the opportunities for our young people by focusing the training offered to real cutting edge jobs, while increasing the demand for such jobs among local firms. As a by product of this effort, this coordinated process will lead to greater recognition of the north metro area as a leading area for cutting edge technology companies. Such a reputation will ultimately serve the region well in terms of recruiting new firms with good jobs to the area. Referrals have been made to Hennepin County Jobs program and others of employers capable of creating one or more summer youth jobs. By next summer this list will consist of about 500 individual companies of which roughly two thirds will be Brooklyn Center or Brooklyn Park employers. Effective use of this data will enable area youth significant opportunities to learn basic job skills and earn summer income in private sector companies. This in turn improves the work readiness of our youth and improves the attractiveness of our area for existing and new companies. The third major area of benefit from the survey lies in the area of increased business interaction. Most of this work will need to await the final analysis stages of the project. However, at this time a directory of manufacturers is being prepared for distribution to area manufacturers. This directory will list production capabilities of various firms that sell services to other manufactures, as well as a list of local manufacturers who purchase production services from other firms. Nine different categories of services have been identified, plus an "other" category for which some companies buy form others while other companies sell these same services. The directory will stimulate interactive business within the region. This will keep dollars circulating within the local economy, rather than being spent outside the region. Such efforts will increase the overall vitality of our local manufactures and help strengthen the region's manufacturing infrastructure. By doing this, we simultaneously encourage these firms to remain in the area because their suppliers and customers are in the area. By helping the companies do business with each other we improve their business volume, enhance their local support network, keep dollars in the area and build a solid base of well paying jobs. The survey and its data are voluminous, and will ultimately offer many additional opportunities to positively impact the local economic base. The long term goal is to create a set of strategies that will improve the job opportunities for Brooklyn Center residents, enhance the local tax base, and coordinate the various resources that exist at the local, regional, state and federal level. Phil Carruthers - Minnesota State Representative District 47B H ouse of Henne County - - Representatives COMMITTEES: TAXES: LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND METROPOUITAN AFFAIRS; CHAIR, FISCAL AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE; JUDICIARY; FINANCIAL INSTITUMON8 AND INSURANCE; LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION 70 MGMEW APiAINISTRJATIVE RULES Mayor & City Council Ci ty of Brooklyn Mite• 6341 Shingle Creek parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55434 Dear Mayor and City Cowicil Members: The purpose of nay letter is to encourage the city to eontlnue as a participate in the Rt1qinPCS Partttera program, ctlmntly in place in the cities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Blaine and New Hope. Tlis past year a group of North Metro legislators worked with the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development to secure grant dollars for the second and third stages of this program. Last year I asked R epresentative Brian Bergson, District 48A, to shepherd the fielding request through t1v legislature. He did an outstanding job in convincing fellow legislators as to the uniqueness of this project's scope and mission. Frankly, it is the only one of its kind in the country, Together we were able to secure matching, dollars for the project for the next two years. Several Brooklyn Center businesses have made very positive cornrnents regarding this program 'Me benefits derived from this effiort are multiple. The City of Brooklyn Center will be able to utilize the work product from Community partners to encourage bushiesses to c'elllaill ill o ur city, W expand their operations and to create new jobs. For these ivasons, I et]c' outuge the Bwoklyu Cxiiter to rearain an active member of this business retention and market expansion effort. The paltneY chips that have been formed, as a result of this effort, vAll reap dividends for our city and the other Pwllc iPat,ilig wain ni hes over the years. Si�cerel y° , 8991 North Willow Lane, Brook! n Center Minnesota SWO _ (612) 56D - 5515 State Office 8uiidin9, St Pau(, Minnesota (612) 2SM709 House Fax (612) 298.1589 L- u i r-tl t r¢ P v3 1 WILLIAM P. LUTHER - - ASSISTANT MAJORM LEADER SCnator 47th District 20$ Stutt C:apitUl St. PHUT, MinAavc►tn 5's 1.55 Senate TeICPhonn: (612) 290-8869 Fax (612) 29h.252U State of Minnesota September 20, 1993 Mayor Todd Paulson and Members of the City Council City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Brooklyn Center, HN 55430 Dear Mayor Paulson and City Council Members: Y would like to encourage the City of Brooklyn Center to consider continuing its involvement with the Community Partners program. Although I am not aware of the details, I understand that the information developed by this program is being used to acres$ other state programs. We have invested significant dollars into our community and technical collogoo, 46 well an a number of other programs at the state level, to enhance the local business climate. To my knowledge, the Community partners Program is the most concerted effort to mobilize these various resources on behalf of a local community. I also understand that this pro has received the attention of the Metropolitan " re i nventing P nm Council and other artier interested in govoront•" Thank you for y your consideration. Sin Wily. P. Luther Assistant Majority Leader WPL: Rn>r1M rirr. ('014MI77CESi • Rulus tend ndminisiration, Vice Chair • f:thias and Campaign RCft) rm, Cwuuxrri Mhr ViCtl Chair • E'inruu cr • C'nmrnnruu Lad Cunts»mor Pratcctl��u ,, N Manufacturing ask Force g o ce A special thanks and appreciation to the following individuals who served on the Manufacturing Task Force. Scott Kaercher Ted Lanpher Turfco Manufacturing, Inc. Northern States Power 1655 101st Avenue N.E. 414 Nlcollet Mall Blaine, MN 55449 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Dick Doucette Doug Uhrhammer Caterpillar Paving Products, Inc. Anoka Electric 9401 85th Avenue North 2022 North Ferry Street Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 Anoka, MN 55303 Wally Waffensmith Omnitool Inc. 3500 48th Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 5542 1 Theron Horn Midwest Screw Products, Inc. 3501 48th Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Gregg Kroll Print Central 9260 Baltimore Street N.E. Blaine, MN 55449 1 Table of Content 1 Recommendation Summary ... ............................... i Preface.................. ............................... rrr Manufacturing Task Force Report .............................. 1 1 I. FACILITY AVAILABILITY .. .. .. /SITE AVAIL ITY ......... .... . ... 1 Location, Location, Location ............................. 1 l II. CHARACTERISTICS OF MANUFACTURING COMPANIES ..... 2 III. CITY ISSUES ........ ............................... 3 Communication ....... ............................... 3 Rules and Regulations ... ............................... 4 Mail Service .......... ............................... 4 Crime.............. ............................... 4 Quality of Life ........ ............................... 5 Water.............. ............................... 5 Residency Requirements . ............................... 5 IV. TRANSPORTATION ... ............................... 6 Airports............. ............................... 6 Mississippi River Crossing .............................. 6 Mass Transit ......... ............................... 6 V. ENVIRONMENTAL .... ............................... 6 j VI. EDUCATION ........ ............................... 7 K 12 Perception ....... ............................... 7 Local Business Organizations ............................. 7 VII. BUSINESS CLIMATE .. ............................... 8 VIII. TECHNOLOGY ....... ............................... 8 DC EMPLOYMENT ....... ............................... 8 Skills............... ............................... 9 Training............. ............................... 9 X. FINANCE ........... ............................... 9 Local............... ............................... 9 Small Business Administration ............................ 10 1 M. BUSINESS TNTERACTION ............................. 10 XII. RED RAG .......... ............................... 11 Conclusion ............... ............................... 12 Recommendation Summary 1 The following recommendations summarize the Manufacturing Task Force's i analysis of the manufacturing survey results in the cities of Blaine, Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park: Cities should expand their inventory of industrial space to allow growing companies options to build or buy larger facilities in the local area. Page 1 Ordinances restricting in -home businesses should be re- examined to determine if they could be more flexible; low cost incubator space may serve as an alternate. Page 2 Businesses would appreciate regular communication from the city, informing them of issues affecting the business community. Page 3 Encourage local bidding and a "buy local' policy for city purchases. Page 4 Retroactive code compliance policies should be reviewed to allow flexibility on costly construction and/or expansions projects without requiring immediate 100% code compliance. Page 4 Businesses would benefit from consistent and more convenient mail service. Page 4 Review resident requirement policies which, prohibit Y �l l� � Y� P non - resident business people from serving on boards and/or commissions, as they are also members of the community. Page 5 Local airport facilities are important to the region but their role as part of the local economic infrastructure requires additional study. Page 6 Cities should serve as a center for waste handling and recycling information for businesses. Page 6 Develop emerging manufacturing technologies informational forums to be hosted by one or more local agencies, and thereby encouraging local networking opportunities and the implementation of new technologies. Page 7 Support efforts to reduce the high costs of doing business in Page 8 1 Minnesota. 1 i Assist local businesses in accessing existing Small Business Page 10 Administration (SBA) programs. Create and rovide a directory of manufacturing companies for the P rY g P existing manufacturing base. Page 11 i i i 1 1 i i i 1 i i i i i �l Preface The economic vitality of a city is comprised of a number of elements. One of these elements is the local business base. Within this domain are the manufacturing companies whose exported products bring wealth into the community. This wealth filters through the community in the form of wages and payments to suppliers for raw materials and services, as well as taxes. In today's economic climate cities find themselves competing regionally, nationally, and internationally for wealth building industries. This competition has led to bidding wars between various local governments and states for attractive industries. In Minnesota, due in part to the higher cost of business operations, it is far more likely to see companies migrating out of the State rather than into the State. And yet, Minnesota has a strong base of companies located here due to existing roots in the community. An analysis of 197 local manufacturing companies in the cities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park and Blaine indicates that the vast preponderance of businesses are locally owned. As such, the majority are likely to remain in the area in spite of cost differentials associated with doing business in Minnesota. Nonetheless, a number of firms surveyed indicated an interest in locating all or part of their operations outside the State. Among those likely to stay in the region are companies which would consider locating outside the North Metro area for one 1 reason or another. There is great public purpose in retaining these industries and in helping them to prosper. Their prosperity brings additional dollars, jobs, and related business to the community, as well as provides a significant proportion of the cities local property tax base. The survey document, known as the Local Business Survey, was designed to accomplish several key functions as part of a city's commitment to maintaining and strengthening the local economic base. One function of the program is to open the channel of communications between government and commerce. This was accomplished by the very process of asking the companies their ' personal opinions on a number of business related issues. It was not unusual for project interviewers to be thanked by the companies for taking the time to secure their input. Many companies reported very little, if any, other contact with the city except in the form of compliance with city rules, regulations and ordinances. Sometimes these interactions were less than satisfactory from the businesses point of view. The survey gave these businesses a sense that the city cares about them and their operations. In many cases, this perception of a caring city replaced past "ill will" which may have been carried over the years. at was not unusual for companies to report issues and perceived grievances from many years ago.) The survey also actively solicited comments regarding issues of concern from the businesses. These issues, commonly known as a Red Flag, ranged from potholes to imminent plans to iii relocate elsewhere as a result of city policies. For each Red Flag generated, the particular city had the opportunity to address the complaint and build a better dialog with the concerned business. Disgruntlement levels of business owners were softened by the city's follow-up and explanation. In some cases the complaints were historical. Others involved misunderstandings between the business and the city, yet others had to do with various policies and ordinances of the city. In aggregate, they served to identify a series of repeat complaints which are highlighted elsewhere. These issues, when addressed by the cities, provide an opportunity to demonstrate the city's responsiveness to the business community. Not all issues reported could be effectively remedied without expensive capital investments. For example, all three cities received concerns regarding the issue of water quality. One of the most visible benefit of the Red Flag process occurred when one company dropped plans to relocate their operation and decided to expand their existing facility. Their relocation plans were the direct result of a five -year old misunderstanding with the city and was addressed by city staff responding to a Red Flag Report. While other Red Flag Reports may not have been as dramatic, the response by city staff has greatly improved the working relationship between the cities and their business cummunity. The survey identified a number of businesses who could benefit by appropriate referrals to community and technical colleges, Minnesota Technology Inc. and other agencies. These referrals have been made or are in the process of being made. To the extent that training and other resources benefit the concerned company, their individual prosperity is enhanced and their role as an economic generator for the community is improved. The survey also identified companies who could create one or more summer youth employment opportunities. These names were referred to appropriate youth serving agencies to enhance their job placement efforts. Additionally, each city was provided with a list of companies considering relocating within the next few years. This advance notice has equipped the cities with critical information which will allow them the opportunity to explore means of keeping these companies in the region. iv Manufacturing Task Force Report Many factors affect the operation and success of an area's manufacturing economy. Most of these factors are beyond the control of local government and are market - related, however, 1 several factors can be influenced by the decisions and actions of local government. The following pages serve to capture the thoughts and recommendations of the Manufacturing Task Force, as to the factors the cities of Blaine, Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park can positively influence in support of its manufacturing businesses. I. FACILITY /SITE AVAILABILITY An important factor in business retention is the availability of alternative facilities and sites. Manufacturing businesses were asked about their options and likely choices when faced with expansion plans. Half of the businesses surveyed indicated that they would consider building or acquiring a larger facility, while slightly less than half felt they would expand their operation on their existing site or in their existing building. A healthy inventory of available buildings and/or building sites provide emerging manufacturing companies with the options of growing in the community. A lack of expansion options is a signal for growing manufacturing companies to expand elsewhere. Both Brooklyn Park and Blaine have raw land with the potential of providing industrial sites for expanding businesses. Brooklyn Park has a number of mid -size to larger facilities which allows the city to offer not only a build -to -suit option, but a reservoir of existing facilities which will turnover from time to time and can serve as a future resource for existing firms. In contrast, industrial parks in Blaine are comprised of small to mid -size industrial buildings with relatively few large facilities. Both Blaine and Brooklyn Park indicate that the availability of fully served industrial sites is declining. This lack of inventory could inhibit the cities' ability to retain growth companies. Brooklyn Center, a developed first ring suburb, has few industrial sites available and no opportunity to improve their availability. Consequently, growing manufacturing firms in Brooklyn Center will be forced to relocated elsewhere, and as they do their former facilities will become available for other firms. As such, Brooklyn Center can expect its manufacturing base to be primarily comprised of stable mature firms with limited future physical plant needs and young emerging firm temporarily housed until such time as 1 expansions leads them elsewhere. U cation , Location , Location 1 A number of factors affect the decision making process of executives considering their firms' gP g space needs. When asked, companies provided insight into some of the factors that could affect their decision. 1 1 Among the principle reasons responding manufacturing executives would relocate , manufacturing facilities outside the area were: incentives (46 %); Minnesota business climate (42 %); inadequacy of land or facilities (30 %); labor costs and supply (29 %); city services (12 1 /o); and insufficient capital (12 %). The actual weight firms attribute to these factors depends upon its specific circumstances. To the extent that city services and other factors can be positively influenced by cities, it may help balance the equation where negative factors apply. City actions can influence direct services, attitude, and physical, financial and human infrastructure. To identify the region's strengths, companies talked about their prior location and the factors t that influenced them to locate to their current location. Seventeen responding companies indicated that they started out of their residences. Thirty -six manufacturing companies are , still in their original location. Codes regulating the operation of a business in a residential area in the metropolitan area have changed immensely over the past 20 years. These changes have served to limit the extent to which businesses can operate out of their home. These rules, while beneficial to the community as a whole, have a stifling effect on emerging and incubator stage businesses. Consideration should be given to developing alternative incubator facilities for use by part-time and start-up businesses. The dominant reasons for companies relocating into the area revolved around the personal residence of the owners, availability of space at the time of need, and lower space costs. Market access, employee access, and transportation considerations were among key infrastructure reasons given for companies locating in the area. To a very high extent, manufacturing companies in these three cities originated from locations elsewhere in the North Metro area (including the city of Minneapolis), but have predominantly stayed on the same side of the Mississippi River as their current location. Few companies came from outside the North Metro area or Minneapolis proper, but a couple of businesses traced their origins outside of Minnesota. Among those companies coming from outside the immediate region were businesses relocating from nearby rural northern areas seeking better access to the Twin City's markets. This gives significant weight to the need for the North Metro area to incubate its own businesses. The river and possibly the Minneapolis. /St. Paul mind -set split seems to be a barrier for east to west and west to east t migration. It may also suggest a possible competitive advantage for the North Metro area to the extent that it represents a regionally central location capable of serving both halves of the Twin City market. t II. CHARACTERISTICS OF MANUFACTURING COMPANIES 88% of the manufacturing companies are headquartered in the Twin City area. The average firm conducts 53% of its business within the Twin Cities area. Nearly half , of this business is conducted within the North Metro area. 30% of the companies have total annual sales of less than $500,000; 14% between $500,000 - $1,000,000 in sales; 36% between $1 - 5 million; and 14% over $5 million. 2 The majority of companies have 20 employees or less, with the average company having 28.9 employees. (This employment data excludes Alliant Techsystems, the area's largest 1 employer.) The responding companies had a total of 12,230 full -time employees and 218 part-time employees. 80% of the businesses interviewed reported their business outlook was either excellent (32 1 /o) or good (48 %), at the time of the interview. 30% of the companies reported some level of international sales, although the total volume of international sales averaged less than 6% of gross sales. ' 15% of the manufacturers have been in their current location for less than two years; 57% have been in their current location for 5 or more years; and over 20% have been in the same location for 10 or more years. 62% plan on staying in their current facilities for at least three more years, the balance of 38% are potential mid -term relocatees. ' 66% of the respondents anticipated making capital improvements to equipment or their facilities within the next two years. 37% planned on increasing research and development spending over the next two years. 1 70.6% planned to increase employment over the coming two years, with only 2% anticipating an employment decrease. (Alliant Techsystems is one of these companies anticipating decreasing employment. Their potential downsizing may well surpass the future anticipated increases in employment from all other firms combined.) 58.9% anticipated the need to increase skill training within the next two years. 1 19.8% of the manufacturers anticipated relocating part or all of their operations elsewhere within the next two years. Of these, 65% anticipated moving either within the same city or elsewhere within the North Metro area. Fifteen companies planned on looking outside the State of Minnesota. M. CITY ISSUES Communication Manufacturing companies in all three cities expressed a strong interest in being advised and involved with city issues. Keeping informed of issues affecting the local economy is an important issue to local businesses. 3 1 One possible form of communication could be a newsletter directed, in particular, to the business community. The newsletter's primary goal would be to inform the business community. Survey results revealed a number of businesses desiring to do business with the city. The newsletter could include a section announcing id r on city projects. Several g q �' P J manufacturers asked for a "buy local' preference, however most would be happy to have a chance to bid on city business, citing the biggest obstacle as the lack of knowing of these opportunities. Additionally, a few businesses were frustrated with their inability to bid on es. component arts of larger bid packages. P p g P g Rules and Regi lations Businesses in all three cities voiced concern regarding the cost of meeting city codes. Many ' manufacturers felt that they were prevented from making improvements to their property because they were unable to afford all the current code requirements. As a solution, many companies requested a mechanism which would allow them to meet the code requirements over time. It should be noted that the issue of code compliance and the costs associated come to the forefront, at the most critical time, when a company is in the process of reviewing their expansion options. As a result, companies could decide that the costs associated with code compliance are too onerous and that their most cost effective option is to locate elsewhere. Code compliance was a concern voiced b both owner occupant and tenants. One tenant p Y P reported frustration when relatively minor requirements, which would have benefited their operation, were prohibitive when the city required that a list of code compliance improvements be made. Mail Service Businesses in both Brooklyn Park and Blaine voiced concerns about irregular mail service. Brooklyn Park businesses requested a post office, while several Blaine businesses requested additional drop boxes in their industrial parks. Currently, one company couriers their mail from the nearest branch and the Minneapolis Post Office to their office, as a means of improving consistently. Brooklyn Center respondents were less critical of mail service, but mentioned the long waiting lines at the Brooklyn Center Post Office. In addition, a number of companies complained about the lack of direct mail delivery and limited post office hours. ' C rim e While there was little direct report of criminal activity experienced by manufacturers, the perception of crime was cited as a concern. The biggest concern had to do with the safety of employees. Most felt the police were doing a good job, but wanted reassurance that the 4 1 situation was under control. Some suggested that if crime were to et worse it could lead to gg g a decision to relocate. These perceptions were reflected by a number of manufacturing businesses especially in Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park. Qualit o f Life Businesses tend to locate in proximity to the residences of their principles. As such, the issue of quality of life as a business retention and/or attraction tool was explored. Manufacturing executives identified a list of benefits to living in the North Metro area: less crime, less congestion, better housing values, central location, more rural setting, and easy access to northern Minnesota cabins and recreation areas. Their negative comments included: bad water, increasing creme, increasing congestion, high percentage of low to moderate income housing, need for more upper income housing opportunities, non - supportive city ' government's, lack of upscale dining facilities and shopping, distance to the Minneapolis /St. Paul International Airport and distance from cultural amenities. Their suggestions to make the area more attractive to executives included the following: 1. Broaden and improve the selection, variety and quality of dining facilities in the area. 2. Improve cooperation between cities and businesses 3. Encourage development of professional office space 4. Improve community identity and image 5. Address and clean-up crime problems 6. Improve school systems 7. Improve highway system 8. Increase upper income housing opportunities 9. Promote area businesses Water ' Water quality or the lack thereof was cited by manufacturers in all three cities. Several businesses use city water for production processes and some need to use supplemental filtering systems to maintain quality standards. The majority of responses related to the drinkability, odor, particulate and color. The periodic flushing of water lines and the resulting temporary phenomenon of suspended particulate also received comment. Residency Requirements Opportunities to serve on city boards and commissions are extremely restrictive for business people who do not meet the residency requirements. Cities should consider making appointments from the business community to assure input on issues affecting the local economy. 5 IV. TRANSPORTATION , Airports , The potential southern relocation of the Minneapolis /St. Paul International Airport will impact , metro businesses. Eighteen percent (18.3 %) of the manufacturing companies surveyed indicated that a relocation of the airport would have a negative impact on travel time and shipping costs. The Manufacturing Task Force suggests additional studies of the local airports are needed to determine their current business usage and the need for facility improvements. Ten percent (10 %) of the manufacturers reported using the regional reliever airports. The Crystal Airport has limited usage due to inadequacy of the facility and safety concerns expressed by pilots. There exists some sentiment for a new airport to replace the Crystal Airport. Utilization of , the Blaine -Anoka County Airport is limited by inadequacy of ground transportation across the river into Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park. MississijMi River Crossing Forty-four percent (44 %) of the manufacturing companies indicated that additional Mississippi River crossings would have a positive impact on their business. This feeling was strongest in Brooklyn Park and seems to correspond with the need for a crossing further north than Trunk Highway 610. In many cases, this need related to travel congestion when traveling north to Anoka on Highway 169. Mass Transit The use of light rail transit was thought to have little, if any, impact (85 %) on manufacturers , in the North Metro area. However, 1 in 5 companies thought better mass transit would be of value to their employees. V. ENVIRONMENTAL Most companies reported few problems with hazardous waste regulations. Man executives p eP P � Y reported personal support for environmental regulations. Most frequently stated was the need for information on disposal of fluorescent light bulbs. This is symptomatic of a need unexpressed, rmation but consistent with the data which expresses a need for a central info P service to assist companies with locating qualified and certified waste disposal contractors. Many smaller companies may be unaware of how to get needed information, and in fact may in some circumstances avoid getting information for fear that inquiries may generate onerous follow -up inspections. 6 ' VI. EDUCATION K-12 Perce i n While most respondents reported satisfaction with area K-12 schools, a pervasive undercurrent ' suggested that poor perceptions of the area schools tended to cause relocatees from outside the area to select other parts of the metro area for their residences. To the extent that this perception is inaccurate, more effort should be directed at improving the public image of the area's schools. This effort should be directed at residents within these communities, as well as the real estate brokerage community. Both parties are key players in transmitting the area's image to newcomers to the region. Manufacturers indicated concern regarding the elimination or reduction of industrial art �' g courses from the basic school curriculum. It was felt by many that the system may be too college oriented to the direct prejudice of industrial and manual arts. Sentiment that the trades employment is for the dropout is ill- founded since current skill requirements are far 1 more advanced and require more than the "dummy" image prevalent in some sectors. Commun -Ayf and Technical College Surveyed manufacturing companies (42 %) indicated a strong interest in developing training relationships with area technical and community colleges. One third of the companies surveyed, however, were not aware of the custom designed training programs already offered by area colleges. Manufacturers reported concerns about the proposed merger of the community and technical college systems. The propensity to push liberal arts versus trade skills could further weaken the flexibility and capacity of the necessary skills training efforts of the technical colleges. 1 The lack of skilled people coming from area schools has forced companies to recruit employees from regions outside of the Twin Cities region. Some respondents felt the technical and community colleges should intensify its internship program, whereby students spend more time in the workplace doing hands -on work in their field of specialty. A freq uent theme of respondents was that existing programs technical college are focused q P b g P toward a general survey of various industries, without requiring industry specificity. One respondent stated that "many students do not end up with the skills they need, and worse, they don't know it." cal Business Organizations Educational forums on International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9000 and other applied technology systems should be developed as possible programs by one or more local agencies. Many companies indicated a need for additional information on specific 7 technologies. Local business organizations could organize informational sessions at local companies currently implementing a particular technology and invite companies needing information. In addition to technology applications, international trade may be a topic of one or more sessions. Over 25% of the responding companies indicated at least some international sales. The purpose of these sessions would be to provide information and a networking opportunity 1 for manufacturers. Networking opportunities were identified as a need by some small and larger companies. Over 75% of the manufacturing companies are currently not a member of their area chamber of commerce. Of those companies who are members only 10 indicated an active participation with the chamber. VII. BUSINESS C 1MATE i Business expenses associated with state income tax, worker's compensation, unemployment insurance and property tax were listed as either very important or important aspects of the manufacturers' business. Many companies asked that cities support their claims by lobbying the legislature to seek relief on their behalf Task force participants suggested that the cost of doing business in Minnesota explains why the area has relatively few businesses originating or headquartered outside the State. VIII. TECHNOLOGY The survey asked companies about their utilization of 14 different technologies. While applicability of the technologies varies by company, each of these different technologies had companies who had fully implemented them, or were in the process of implementing them. Each technology had companies requesting information regarding them. This suggests an opportunity to advance the local competitiveness of regional companies by providing the requested information. This function could be achieved via informal chamber of commerce activity, the technical and community colleges, and/or Minnesota Technology Inc. Encouraging local companies to adopt appropriate technologies and systems, at a rate in ' advance of the norm, would positively impact the economics of the company and region. Implementing these technologies (i.e., ISO 9000, JIT, etc.) and the use of existing community resources to accomplish these aims could give the region a competitive advantage. By enhancing the success of local firms, it is anticipated that spin -off activity could develop within the region, and the area could develop a reputation as a progressive area in which to do business. , PC ENPLOYM ENT o A majority of manufacturing firms (70.6%) indicated plans to add personnel during the next two years. A high percentage of these jobs are technical and skilled positions. These manufacturing companies also indicated future plans to add sales staff, unskilled workers, clerical, managerial, scientific, engineering, and professional or service staff. 8 Additionally, 41% of the responding companies said they could provide some level of summer youth employment. These companies have been referred to Anoka and Hennepin County agencies doing job development on behalf of area youth. Many companies are restricted to hiring individuals 18 or older. It should be noted that while the overall employment growth picture appears quite promising, a few companies did indicate plans to down -size their operation. Alliant Techsystems, the area's largest employer, anticipates down - sizing due to defense cutbacks which will affect its payroll. Skills Approximately 30% of employers felt their employees' weakest skills were in terms of basic skills. Among those cited were communication, basic math, work readiness and reading. This perception supports the general feeling that area schools are not adequately preparing students for the workplace. Whether this is an indictment of the areas' schools or schools in general is uncertain, but nonetheless it indicates a need for improvement. Training A number of firms indicated a need for specialized skill training. These training requests have been forwarded to both the area community and technical colleges. About one -third of the companies have used a government training program at one time or another. Two - thirds of these companies indicated that they would consider using these ' programs again; one -third would not. The most frequently utilized government training program is high school based programs. About two- thirds of the manufacturing companies considered labor costs, skills or lack of skills, and health costs as significant issues. While nearly 50% believed labor training, labor management issues, pension and retirement issues were significant. A smaller percentage ' cited flexible work schedules, work force diversity, day care, employee commuting, parking, union, and drug and AIDS testing as significant issues. X. FINANCE Local Twenty -seven percent (27 %) of the manufacturing companies reported a dissatisfaction with their banking relationships, and the availability of capital. Somewhat surprising was the fact that this opinion seemed independent of the size of the businesses. About the same percentage of larger companies cited issues here as smaller companies. 9 About a third of the companies reported that their growth has been restricted b the lack of p es ep a e gro y debt or equity capital. This was more pronounced among the smaller firms. Financing as principally needed for capital equipment, workin capital, and facilities. g P P Y P g Small Business Administration SBA Less than a third of the companies have tried to utilize SBA financing. Of those who had, about half received financing. Those who did receive financing said the process was positive and would do it again. There were those who were not as positive about the experience. Firms who used outside consultants to assist them in the process, were twice as likely to have received financing and to report positive attitudes toward the programs. A number of reasons were offered for not using SBA. Among these were fear of too much paper work, perceived difficulty to obtain, questions of eligibility, and not knowing how to apply. A number of companies felt they needed to be minority or female owned to be eligible. In view of the apparent need for financing, and the relatively better results obtained by firms who receive technical assistance in putting their loan packages together, all three cities may want to consider ways to assist local businesses in utilizing the existing SBA programs. X1. BUSINESS INTERACTION , The majority of outside professional services purchased by area manufacturers are firms located within the North Metro area. While percentages varied, roughly two- thirds of accounting, advertising, management assistance, employee training and transportation services expenditures went to North Metro companies. Outside production, warehousing and bank deposits were even more concentrated in the North Metro area. The weakest area was in financing with about 44% done locally. This reflects central banking relationships with downtown banks and out -of -state financing for the firms with out -of -state headquarters. The , data suggests that a health manufacturing base leads to employment in various professional gg P Y g services within the region. Since one -third of this business is going outside the area, it may suggest that local service firms still have opportunities to compete for this local business. While the above general percentages are relatively positive, a large number of firms purchase some or all of the following services from outside the region: Service Number of Firms Accounting 16 i Advertising 89 Bank Deposits 31 10 , Service Number of Firm Employee Training 48 Financing 29 Management Assistance 22 Marketing Services 32 Production 50 Transportation 73 Warehousing 16 ' A number of services were identified by individual firms as being unavailable within the region. Most frequently mentioned was specialty plating operations. This industry is beset with significant environmental considerations. Other suggestions were for more convenient stainless steel, hardware, and lighting distributors. Nine basic manufacturing functions were identified for which the area has multiple suppliers and customers. Many of these companies are currently doing business with each other however, it is quite possible that some local firms could be doing business with each other but are not currently aware of the others' existence. To this point, it is suggested that a directory of manufacturing companies be prepared and provided to the existing manufacturing base. This directory could categorize companies by services provided. By linking local manufacturers, it may well be possible to enhance the competitiveness of both to the net benefit of all. The following chart details the potential business interaction by showing the number of companies selling services to others and number of companies purchasing same: Number of Companies Number of Companies Services Selling Various Services Bung Various Services Molding 11 33 Casting 2 34 Metal Stamping 13 37 t Machining 56 22 Fabrication 48 23 Assembly 47 9 Finishing 33 40 Manufacturing Services 48 12 Processing Industry 10 13 Other 10 2 XH. RED FLAG Incorporated into the Local Business Survey are a number of questions designed to solicit concerns and/or questions regarding city services. These responses, know as a Red Flag, are then referred to the appropriate city staff person for their immediate action. 11 Red Flag issues tended to revolve around code enforcement issues, inflexible building and fire inspectors, landscaping requirements, signage limitations and fire hydrant costs. Several firms felt dealing with the city was difficult. Water quality, snow plowing, potholes, airport improvements (Anoka County Airport), traffic signal timing and highway congestion received , one or more "votes." Several manufacturers stated that their neighbors were not being forced to live by the same rules. (Usually due to grandfathered rights.) Many felt it unfair to change covenants within industrial parks once buildings were up and operating. Three different areas generated a series of reports of frequent power outages, and problematic current fluctuations. Police and , postal service generated a few complaints. Several requested relocation and financing assistance. , Conclusion This report and its recommendations constitutes the thoughts, comments and opinions of 197 manufacturing companies located in the cities of Blaine, Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park. The project experienced a 85% response rate. This high response rate is partly due to the surveying process but also the perception of the business community as to the city's genuine interest in their vitality and opinions. Today's economy requires companies to be more competitively advantaged. The analysis of the manufacturing data revealed ways to improve and strengthen the local business community and the region as a whole. This includes the need for advanced technologies, education and training, financing and business interaction. The strengthening of the business community directly reflects the progressive nature of the community and city government. The study exposed issues these cities should address. The Manufacturing Task Force values this program and intends to reconvene periodically to review progress on the issues highlighted in this report. 12 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 1 1 Community Partners Directory s Blaine John Cox 785 -6147 We Enjoy Economic Development Specialist Tom Snell 755 -1130 Your Anoka. County Chamber Brooklyn nt r Company Brad Hoffman 569 -3350 EDA Coordinator Mary Welch 566 -8650 Brooklyn Center Chamber i Brooklyn Park Joe McKasy 493 -8058 Economic Development Director Marilyn Slifka 424 -6744 North Hennepin Chamber New Hoe Kirk McDonald 531 -5119 Community Dev. Coordinator Projec Consultant Community Resource Partnerships, Inc. Community Resource Partnerships, Inc. 8525 &linbrook Crossing, Suite 5 493 -5373 Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 612/493 -5373 FAX 612/424 -1174 I LI N 0 1 1 We're Dedicated To Making Community Partners Will Help Community Partners Values Your Identify Business Opportunities Participation Your Stay Long And The consulting firm of Community With your participation, the Community Profitable! Resource Partnerships, Inc. has been Partners program will help: hired to execute the Community Partners program, consisting of four components Buil a strong partnership between designed to assist area businesses in North Metro communities and their Experience has proven that the vitality of our expanding their market(s): businesses. local economy depends upon a healthy, growing business community. In order to 1. Data Collection Preserve and enhance the local encourage business retention and expansion, commercial and industrial tax base and communities must be in a position to assist Local businesses will be asked to related jobs. existing companies with the problems and participate in a custom - designed survey opportunities they encounter. that will provide in -depth industry data. Create a Red FIag-Program to address the needs and concerns of local In recognition of this fact, the cities of Blaine, 2. Data Analysis businesses. Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park have joined forces to establish a business retention Analysis of the data will be used to Develob strategies designed to support and market expansion program called identify local business needs and local businesses and to generate Community Partners. concerns. business expansion opportunities. Community Partners Is A Working 3. Strategic Recommendations Community Partners: Working Partnership A regional Business Advisory Council Together To Strengthen Local will use the collected data to develop Business Working in cooperation to make Community strategic recommendations to assist Partners a success are: companies in expanding their markets. Within this partnership, strategies will be developed to market and strengthen local Blaine, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park 4. Marketing/Promotional Programs businesses, stimulate business and New Hope development, create new job opportunities Area Community and Technical Comprehensive marketing and and help build the local tax base. Colleges promotional plans will be created to Local Business Organizations help businesses implement market Community Partners plans to encourage Local Chambers of Commerce expansion programs. other North Metro communities to join the Minnesota Department of Trade and program as it evolves. Economic Development I� 1 1 1 North Metro Business Development Commission 1 Community Business Survey ' Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park Blaine i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Community Resource Partnerships, Inc., 8525 Edinbrook Crossing, Suite 5, Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 612 493 -5373 Copyright 1992, CRP, Inc. ' Community Business Survey Part I This survey is designed to address specific local business concerns to better understand what the local communities can do to help businesses. This survey is made up of two parts, this mail survey is the first. ' The second part will be conducted by a Community Resource Partnerships interviewer. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS: ' 1. Please answer each question. 2. The North Metro area is defined as all area north of Highway 12 from the west end of Hennepin County, and north of Highway 36 from the east end of Washington County. The first portion of the survey is to collect general business information. GENERAL INFORMATION Respondent Name (prefer CEO or Senior Manager): Title Business Name: Business Address: City: ' Telephone: ' Principle Product: Secondary Product: Secondary Product: Primary Standard Industrial Classification Code: (if known) ' 1. Please indicate the year the business was established: 2. Please indicate the year the present ownership /management assumed control: 3. Is this location the company headquarters? (check one) Yes No IF YOU ANSWER NO, PLEASE ANSWER QUESTION 3.A ' 3.A If no, what is the location of the company headquarters? (circle one only) A. Within city limits ............................................... ............................... 1 B. Outside city, within North Metro ................... ............................... 2 C. Inside Twin Cities 7 County Area, but outside North Metro.......... 3 D. Outside Twin Cities, within Minnesota ......... ............................... 4 E. Outside Minnesota (Go to 3.13) ...................... ............................... 5 ' 3.B If outside Minnesota, where? ' Page 1 Community Business Survey Part I 4. Please indicate the legal entity type: (circle only one) A. Corporation ...................................................... ............................... 1 B . Partnership ...................................................... ............................... 2 C. Sole Proprietor .................................................. ............................... 3 D. Nonprofit Corporation ..................................... ............................... 4 E . Cooperative ..................................................... ............................... 5 F. Other (specify) 6 5. Please indicate the appropriate special category for your business: (circle all that apply) A. Minority Owned ................................................ ............................... 1 ' B. Female Owned .................................................. ............................... 2 C. Not Applicable ................................................... ............................... 3 ' 6. Product Distribution: (indicate the appropriate percentage) A. Original equipment or com ion n manufactu /o IL' g 1 component .............. B . Retail .................................................... ............................... % C. Distributor / Wholesale ............................. ............................... % D. Direct Sales ' MARKET AREA 7. Please indicate the proportion of company sales to each market you serve: (the proportions should total to 100 percent) ' MARKET AREA PROPORTION Twin Cities 7 County Metro Area % Rest of Minnesota % 5 State Area I, SD, ND, IA, Except MN ) % Rest of Nation % International % 8. Within the Twin Cities 7 County Metro market, please indicate how your sales are allocated. (the proportions should total to 100 percent) MARKET AREA PROPORTION North Metro (North of Hwy 12 % Rest of Twin Cities 7 County Metro % The North Metro area is defined as all area north of Highway 12 from the west end of Hennepin County, and north of Highway 36 from the east end of Washington County. Page 2 Community Business Survey ' Part I EMPLOYMENT 9. Please estimate the total number of employees in each category: (indicate the number of full time and ' part time employees) CATEGORY FULL TIME PART TIME ' A. Scientists and Engineers B. Other Professional C. Managerial ' D. Sales E. Clerical F. Services ' G. Technical/Skilled Labor H. Unskilled Labor TOTAL 10. Have you ever had difficulty recruiting or retaining employees in the following categories? (circle the appropriate number, answer for both recruiting and retaining) Recruiting Retaining CATEGORY Easy Difficult N/A Easy Difficult A. Scientists and Engineers ........ 1 2 3 4 N/A 1 2 3 4 ' B. Other Professional ................ 1 2 3 4 N/A 1 2 3 4 C. Managerial .......................... 1 2 3 4 N/A 1 2 3 4 D. Sales ...... ............................... 1 2 3 4 N/A 1 2 3 4 E. Clerical ............................... 1 2 3 4 N/A 1 2 3 4 F. Services . ............................... 1 2 3 4 N/A 1 2 3 4 G. Technical /Skilled Labor ......... 1 2 3 4 N/A 1 2 3 4 H. Unskilled Labor ...................... 1 2 3 4 N/A 1 2 3 4 ' 11. Please indicate the difficulty level to recruit or retain employees for the most difficult employee category in Question 10, how important are the following reasons: (circle the appropriate number, answer for both recruiting and retaining) Employee category (A to H from Question 10) ' Recruiting Retaining CATEGORY Easy Difficult Easy Difficult A. Cost, of Labor ......................... 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 B. Lack of Skills ......................... 1 2 :3 4 1 2 3 4 ' C. Labor Shortage ..................... 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 D. Personal Taxes ....................... 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 E. Employee Health Benefits ... 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 ' F Lack of Day Care .................. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 G. Other (Specify) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 ' Page 3 1 Community Business Survey Part I 12. In general, what skills are your employees weakest? (provide summary response) 1 1 IF YOU HAD A RESPONSE FOR QUESTION 12, PLEASE ANSWER QUESTION 12A, OTHERWISE GO TO QUESTION 13. 12.A Please indicate the extent of the problem? (indicate 1, 2, or 3) A. Significant Problem ................ 1 B. Moderate Problem 2 C. Not a Problem .. 3 1 13. If arrangements could be made with local technical or community colleges to provide specific skill training would you be interested? (indicate yes or no) Yes No 1 14. What areas of training would you like to see? indicate your areas of interest 1 1 15. If you are planning to make changes in staffing over the next five years, please indicate the change(s): (circle one for each response) Decrease No Change Increase A. Scientists and Engineers ........ 1 2 3 B. Other Professional ................ 1 2 3 C. Managerial .......................... 1 2 3 1 D. Sales ...... ............................... 1 2 3 E. Clerical ............................... 1 2 3 ' F. Services . ............................... 1 2 3 G. Technical /Skilled Labor ......... 1 2 3 H. Unskilled Labor ...................... 1 2 3 1 i 1 1 1 Page 4 Community Business Survey ' Part I 16. How important are the following personnel issues to your company and employees now, and how important do you expect them to be in five years? (circle the appropriate numbers for each response ' with 1 being very important and 4 being not important) Currently In Five Years CATEGORY Very Not Very Not Important Important Important Important A. Lack of Appropriate Skills .............. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 B. Labor Costs ... ............................... 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 ' C. Labor Skills ...... ............................... 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 D. Labor Training 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 E. Employee Health Benefits .......... 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 F. Retirement/Pension 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 G. Flexible Work Schedules ........... 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 H. Day Care ........ ............................... 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1. Work Force Diversity ................... 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 J. Employee Parking /Commuting ........ 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 I K. Organized Labor Issues .............. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 L. Drug /AIDS Testing ..................... 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 M. Labor - Management Relations ......... 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 N. Other (Specify) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 BUSINESS CHANGES 17. At this facility, in the past three ,years, have ,you? (circle one for each response) A. Changed your mix of goods and services ............................ Yes No B. Added production lines .......................... ............................... Yes No C. Modernized production lines .................. ............................... Yes No D. Made other capital improvements to equipment or buildings...... Yes No E. Expanded research and development spending ....................... Yes No F. Increased employment ................................. ............................... Yes No G. Decreased employment ................................ ............................... Yes No H. Expanded labor /skill training ...................... ............................... Yes No 18. At this facility, what do you plan to do in the next two years? (circle one for each response) ' A. Change your mix of goods and services ............................. Yes No B. Add production lines .......................... ............................... Yes No C. Modernize production lines ........................... I...................... Yes No D. Make other capital improvements to equipment or buildings... Yes No ' E. Expand research and development spending ....................... Yes No F. Increase employment ................................. ............................... Yes No G. Decrease employment ............................. ............................... Yes No H. Expand labor /skill training ........ ..... Yes No ...... ............................... I. Expand elsewhere ................................. ............................... Yes No J. Relocate all of part of this operation elsewhere ....................... Yes No Page 5 Community Business Survey Part I ' The North Metro area is defined as all area north of wa Hi h 12 from the west end of Hennepin Highway County, and north of Highway 36 from the east end of Washington County. ' 19. If you indicated plans to relocate or expand, where would you move and/or expand? A. Within city limits .................................................. ............................... 1 B. Within the North Metro area ............................. ............................... 2 C. Inside Twin Cities 7 County Area, but outside North Metro ............. 3 D. Outside Twin Cities, within Minnesota .......... ............................... 4 E. Outside Minnesota .......................................... ............................... 5 20. When might you relocate and /or expand? (circle one) A. Within six months .............................................. ............................... 1 B. Six months to one year ........................................ ............................... 2 C. One to three years ................................................ ............................... 3 D. More than three years ......................................... ............................... 4 ' LOCATION FACTORS 21. How important are the following factors in making expansion or relocation decisions? (Circle one for each response, indicate the relative importance for each with 1 being very important and 4 being insignificant..) Very Not ' FACTOR Important Important Important Insignificant A. Labor Skill ........................ ............................... 1 2 3 4 B. Labor Availability ........... ............................... 1 2 3 4 C. Roads (highways, local roads) ........................ 1 2 3 4 ' D. Other Transportation (rail, air, water) ......... 1 2 3 4 E. Land /Facility Space ......... ............................... 1 2 3 4 ' F. Permit, Process ................... ............................... 1 2 3 4 G. Public Services .................. ............................... 1 2 3 4 H. Utilities ............................. ............................... 1 2 3 4 I. Finance (equity, debt, venture, stocks) .......... 1 2 3 4 J. Government Programs (assistance, incentives, job training) .. ............................... 1 2 3 4 K. Business Services (legal, financial) .................. 1 2 3 4 L. Market Access (local, regional, international).. 1 2 3 4 M. Supply Access (raw materials, components) .... 1 2 3 4 N. Quality of Life (environment, recreation, culture) .......... ............................... 1 2 3 4 0. State Income /Sales Tax ...... ............................... 1 2 3 4 P. Workers Compensation Costs ........................ 1 2 3 4 Q. Unemployment Insurance Costs ................... 1 2 3 4 R. Property Taxes ................. ............................... 1 2 3 4 S. Local Education (Ii -12) .. ............................... 1 2 3 4 T. Community Colleges ....... ............................... 1 2 3 4 U. Technical Colleges ........... ............................... 1 2 3 4 V. Other (specify) 1 2 3 4 1 Page 6 Community Business Survey Part I 22. What would your principle reasons be for locating or expanding outside the city? (circle all that apply) A. Labor supply/labor costs ..................... ............................... Yes No B. City services ....................................... ............................... Yes No C. Inadequacy of land /facilities ................ ............................... Yes No D. Incentives from other cities /states ...... ............................... Yes No E. Minnesota business climate ................ ............................... Yes No F. Insufficient local capital ..................... ............................... Yes No G. Other ......................................... ............................... Yes No BUSINESS OUTLOOK 23. In general, how is your business outlook for the next one to two years? (circle one response) A. Excellent ................... ............................... 1 B. Good ......................... ............................... 2 C. Fair ......................... ............................... 3 D. Poor ......................... ............................... 4 24. Please indicate the likelihood of future growth strategies for your company: (circle the appropriate response for each question) Very Somewhat Not Likely Likely Likely ' A. Expand market share of current product lines ......... 1 2 3 B. Add new product lines generated internally .......... 1 2 3 C. Vertical integration (bring supplier and /or ' subcontractor functions in-house) ............................ 1 2 3 D. Post production enhancement (bring direct marketing, warehousing, distribution functions in house) ......... 1 2 3 ' E. Acquire other companies in the same business ..... 1 2 3 F. Acquire other companies in different businesses .. 1 2 3 G. Merger .......................................... ............................... 1 2 3 ' H. Franchise, license existing product service line ....... 1 2 3 25. What priority would you place on additional resources that would best help your company? (circle all that apply) High Medium Low A. Capital ................................. ............................... 1 2 3 B. Production Capacity ............. ............................... 1 2 3 C. Management Support ........ ............................... 1 2 3 D. Marketing Skills ................ ............................... 1 2 3 E. Better Facilities .................. ............................... 1 2 3 ' F. Additional Research & Development ............... 1 2 3 G. Better Distribution Networks ............................. 1 2 3 H. Other (Specify) 1 2 3 ' Page 7 Community Business Survey Part I BUSINESS SERVICE USAGE 26. Please indicate the percentage of business services you purchase in each area: (estimate the percentage across for each category, A to J making sure the total is 100 percent) Outside Twin Cities Within the 7 County Business Service North Metro Rest of Metro Area A. Accounting ... % % % ............. B. Advertising % % % C. Management Assistance .. % % % D. Employee Training ........ % % % E. Banking Deposits ......... % % % F. Financing .................. % % % G. Marketing Services ....... % % % H. Production .................. % % % I. Transportation ........... % % % J. Warehousing ............... % % % 27. Please indicate any services (production or other) that are not available in the North Metro area that you would like to see. (think of goods and services that would be beneficial to your business if located ' within the area) 28. Are you a member of your local Chamber of Commerce? Yes No 28.A. If yes, are you active? Yes No 28.13. If you are not a member, why not.? 28.0 Are you interested in becoming a member? Yes No CLASSIFICATION QUESTIONS 29. What is your current sales levels: all responses will be held completely confidential ( t t y ) ' A. Less than $100,000 .................. 1 B. $100,000 - $499,999 .................... 2 C. $500,000- $999,999 .................... :3 ' D. $1,000,000- $4,999,999 .............. 4 E. $5,000,000- $14,999,999 .. 5 F. $15,000,000 and above .......... 6 Page 8 Community Business Survey Part I - Manufacturing Supplement THIS SECTION OF THE SURVEY IS FOR MANUFACTURING FIRMS ONLY If your company is not involved in any manufacturing processes, please skip this section and proceed to the Warehousing and Distribution Supplement found 4 pages beyond this section. GENERAL QUESTIONS 30. What is your scale of production? (this concerns the quantity of items produced) A. Small (Prototype; one or two items) .................. ............................... 1 B. Medium ............................................................... ............................... 2 ' C. Large (Long run - repetitive, high volume production) ..................... 3 31. What is your current production capacity utilization? (circle one) A 0% - 25 % ....................... 1 B. 26% - 50 % ..................... 2 C. 51% - 75 % ..................... 3 D. 76% - 95 % ..................... 4 E. 96% - 100 % ................... 5 F. 100% plus ..................... 6 32. What specific specialty and expertise does your firm offer? (provide a brief description of your company) 33. Please list your major pieces of equipment: 34. Please list major industries that you serve and their locations: (indicate the major industry not customers and the location, circle as many as apply) I Local Rest of State National International 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 ' 1 2 3 4 Page 9 ' Community Business Survey Part I - Manufacturing Supplement 35. Please list the major components or raw materials that you use and the location of suppliers (indicate ' the major industry and the location, circle as many as apply). Local Rest of State National International 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 36. Please list the types of activities your firm performs: Sell as Perform Need to ' Service to Internally Purchase from Others Only Other Firms A. Molding ............... ............................... 1 2 3 ' B. Casting .............. ............................... 1 2 3 C. Metal Stamping .. ............................... 1 2 3 D. Machining .......... ............................... 1 2 3 E. Fabrication ........ ............................... 1 2 3 F. Assembly ........... ............................... 1 2 3 G. Finishing ........... ............................... 1 2 3 ' H. Manufacturing Services .................... 1 2 3 I. Process Industry ............................... 1 2 3 J. Other 1 2 3 37. Which of the following materials do you use? (circle yes or no for each response) Metals: A. Stainless Steel ........................................... ............................... Yes No B. Cast Irons .................................................. ............................... Yes No C. Low Carbon Steel ...................................... ............................... Yes No D. High Alloy Content .................................... ............................... Yes No E. Aluminum, Brass, Bronze, etc ................... ............................... Yes No F. Zinc ............................................................ ............................... Yes No ' G. Copper ........................................................ ............................... Yes No H. Mercury, Lead, Beryllium, etc .................. ............................... Yes No I. Other (Specify) Yes No ' Non- Metallic: A. Composites ................................................. ............................... Yes No B. Wood ......................................................... ............................... Yes No C. Ceramic, Stone, Clay, Glass ...................... ............................... Yes No D. Polymers, Plastic, Elastomers ................... ............................... Yes No E. Textiles ...................................................... ............................... Yes No F. Food Products ............................................ ............................... Yes No G. Other (Specify) Yes No ' Page 10 Community Business Survey Part I - Manufacturing Supplement 38. Please indicate the raw material forms that you use: (circle yes or no for each response) ' A. Rods, Wires ........................................... ............................... Yes No B. Filaments, Rovings .......................... ............................... Yes No C. Ingots, Scrap .................................... ............................... Yes No D. Tubing, Pipe ..................................... ............................... Yes No E. Bars, Flats, Plate ............................. ............................... Yes No F. Sheets, Coils ...................................... ............................... Yes No G. Rolled Shapes ................................... ............................... Yes No H. Castings, Molded Parts ................... ............................... Yes No I. Forgings .......................................... ............................... Yes No J. Extrusions .................................... ............................... Yes No K. Granules, Powders, Resins ........ ....I .............. I........... Yes No L. Other (Specify) Yes No 39. Please indicate the basic shapes you produce: (circle yes or no for each response) A- Prismatic ................................................ ............................... Yes No B. Rotational .............................................. ............................... Yes No ' C. Columnar ............................................... ............................... Yes No D. Sheet ...................................................... ............................... Yes No E. Wire Forms ............................................ ............................... Yes No F. Other (Specify) Yes No 40. Please indicate any advanced technology that you either are currently using or have future plans to ' acquire: (circle all that apply) Fully Implemented In Process and of Need Not ' Producing Implementing Information Interested A. CAD- Computer Aided Design .................. 1 2 3 4 B. CAM - Computer Aided Manufacturing 1 2 3 4 C. MRP, MRP II, etc.) ... ............................... 1 2 3 4 D. Scheduling, Production Management Control Systems ... ............................... 1 2 3 4 E. Office Automation - Office Computerization. 1 2 3 4 F. SPC- Statistical Process Control 1 2 3 4 G. SQC- Statistical Quality Control .............. 1 2 3 4 H. SPS- Statistical Problem Solving, Using Charts /Graphs Taquchi Methods ......... 1 2 3 4 I. Local Area Networks- Computer LANS 1 2 3 4 ' J. Automated Inspection- Computerized 1 2 3 4 Inspection Control ... ............................... K. AMH- Automated Materials Handling ..... 1 2 3 4 ' L. Robotics - Manufacturing Robotics ........... 1 2 3 4 M. FMS - Flexible Manufacturing Systems .... 1 2 3 4 N. JIT- Just in Time ...... ............................... 1 2 3 4 41. In which industry groups are you involved? (circle all that apply) A. Local ............................. 1 ' B. State .............................. 2 C. National ........................ 3 ' Page 11 ((ID_CODE» I I « CITY_CODE>> Community Resource Partnerships, Inc. Local Business Survey Part II GENERAL INFORMATION Contact Name: «FIRST_NAME)> «LAST_NAME)) Title: <(PROF_TITLE>) Business Name: «NAME» Business Address: «ADDRESS» City: «CITY>> Telephone: «PHONE» 3rd Party «THIRD_PART�> 1 FACILITIES Assign: ((ASSIGN» 1. Is this facility owned or leased? A. Owned 1 B. Leased from Principles 2 C. Leased from Others 3 IF THE FACILITY IS LEASED, THEN ASK LA LA. When does the lease expire? GET THE DATE OR ESTIMATE 2. How long has the company been in this facility in years and months? 1 years months 3. How many square feet of space is in your facility? ASK SQ FT 4. How long do you plan on staying in this facility? READ THE OPTIONS A. 1 year or less .................... ............................... 1 G= RED FLAG B. 1 to 3 years ....................... ............................... 2 C . 3 to 5 years ....................... ............................... 3 D. 5 plus years ...................... ............................... 4 5. Where was the company located prior to this location? OBTAIN THE NAME OF THE CITY 6. Why did you choose this location? REPORT THE PRIMARY REASON(S) FOR LOCATING IN THE PRESENT LOCATION. 7. If you were to outgrow your present facility, indicate the likelihood of the following actions? READ THE LIST THROUGH ONCE, THEN READ AGAIN WITH THE OPTIONS FOR EACH QUESTION. Very Somewhat Not Likely Likely Likely A. Build to suit a new building which you own /lease ... 1 2 3 ' B. Find a larger existing building to purchase /lease.... 1 2 3 C. Build expansion to existing building ...................... 1 2 3 D. Expand into adjacent space .. ............................... 1 2 3 E. Establish satellite facility elsewhere ...................... 1 2 3 F. Divest one or more operations currently performed in house .................. ............................... 1 2 3 Page 1 Community Resource Partnership, Inc. Local Business Survey - Part II 8. Are you currently leasing or subletting your facility to any other company or entity? Yes ' No IF YES GO TO QUESTION 8.A and 8.13 8.A Who do you sub -lease to? RECORD NAME AND PHONE NUMBER NAME PHONE 8.B Is the sub - leasee a subsidiary or a directly related operation? Yes No 1 9. What percent of the maximum building utilization are you currently at? READ THE FOLLOWING LIST AND RECORD THE ANSWER. ' A. Less than 50% ... 1 B. 50% to 75% .. 2 C. 76% to 90% ....... 3 D. 91 % -99% ........ 4 E. 100% + .............. 5 LOCAL SERVICES 10. What specific factors do you regard as most advantageous or favorable to remaining, expanding, or relocating within this community? Specify as many as you wish. RECORD THE FACTORS 11. Please indicate your level of satisfaction with the following local services. READ THE LIST AND RECORD THE RESPONSE. Very Very FACTOR Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied RED FLAG A . Roads ...................... ............................... 1 2 3 4 B. Sewers 1 2 3 4 C. Water ..................... ............................... 1 2 3 4 D. Police Protection ... ............................... 1 2 3 4 E. Solid Waste Disposal ............................. 1 2 3 4 F. Hazardous Waste Regulations .............. 1 2 3 4 G. Emergency Medical Services ................ 1 2 3 4 H. Electric/Natural Gas Services 1 2 3 4 I. School Systems ..... ............................... 1 2 3 4 J. Facility Space Availability ................... 1 2 3 4 K. Land Availability .. ............................... 1 2 3 4 L. Rail Service ........... ............................... 1 2 3 4 ' M. Air Service .......... ............................... 1 2 3 4 N. Local Economic Development Efforts .. 1 2 3 4 O. Postal Service ............ ............................... 1 2 3 4 P. Local Capital Services /Banks .............. 1 2 3 1 4 Page 2 i Community Resource Partnership, Inc. Local Business Survey - Part II 12. What specific factors discourage you from remaining, expanding, or relocating within this community? Specify as many as you wish. RECORD THE FACTORS RED FLAG LOCAL ISSUES 13. Have you had any specific difficulties with any city services? PROBE IF ANSWER IS TOO VAGUE ESPECIALLY IN AREAS LISTED AS DISSATISFIED OR VERY DISSATISFIED IN QUESTION 13. a RED FLAG 14 If you indicated that one or more of the community services were inadequate, have you contacted the city /county about the problem? Yes No 1 15. Did officials make a satisfactory effort to solve the problem? Yes No 16. Was the problem satisfactorily resolved? Yes No RED FLAG TRANSPORTATION ISSUES 17. How do the following transportation issues affect your business? READ EACH ISSUE AND THE LIST OF IMPACTS TO THE INTERVIEWEE. Positive No Negative Impact Impact Impact A. Airport moving to Dakota County.. 1 2 3 B. Light rail transit in the area ........ 1 2 3 C. Additional Mississippi River crossings ..... ............................... 1 2 3 17A. Do you use local airports? For business purposes ? .............................. Yes No For personal use ? ........... ............................ Yes No 1713. If yes, which airport? A. Crystal ................................ ............................... 1 B. Blaine / Anoka ...................... ............................... 2 I C. Other 3 Page 3 ' Community Resource Partnership, Inc. Local Business Survey - Part II FINANCING 18. In terms of business financing, are local financial institutions responsive to your needs? ' Yes No IF NO ASK QUESTION 18.A 18.A If no, why not 19. Currently, to what degree has your company's growth been restricted by lack of adequate capital and/or debt financing? READ THE CHOICES AND THEN RECORD THE RESPONSE. ' A. Significantly ............... 1 B. Somewhat ................... 2 C. Insignificantly............ 3 D. Not affected ................ 4 20. Where is your need for financing? READ EACH POINT FIRST THEN RECORD THE RESPONSE. ' A. Facilities ................. ............................... 1 B. Capital Equipment . ............................... 2 C. Working Capital .... ............................... :3 D. Inventory ............... ............................... 4 E. New Product Development ................... 5 F. Other (ASK) G 21. Have you tried Small Business Administration Financing? Yes IF YES ASK QUESTIONS 2 L TO 2 L No IF NO ASK QUESTION 21.E 21.A. If ves, did you receive financing? Yes ' No 21.13. If yes, was the experience: Positive /Negative Positive Negative 21.C. If yes, would you do it again? Yes /No Yes No 21.D. If yes, did you have assistance in receiving the financing from outside your local bank? Yes No 21.E If no, why have you not tried SBA financing? A. Didn't think that I qualify ............ 1 B. Difficult to obtain ....................... 2 ' C. I do not know how ....................... 3 D. I do not need financing ................ 4 E. SBA Reputation ......................... 5 1 F. Won't work with Government .......... G. Too much paper work 7 H. Other 8 Page 4 Community Resource Partnership, Inc. Local Business Survey - Part II ' CEO /GENERAL MANAGER LIFESTYLE 22. Do you live in the North Metro area Yes IF THE CEO LIVES IN THE NORTH METRO AREA THEN GO TO Q UESTIONS 22.A -G NO IF THE CEO DOES NOT LIVE IN THE NORTH METRO GO TO QUESTION 23 22.A. In what city do you live? 22.13. How far is your one way commute in miles? 22.C. How long is your one way commute in time? 22.D. What do you like MOST about living in the North Metro area. PROBE IF TOO VAGUE 22.E. What do you like LEAST about living in the North Metro area. PROBE IF TOO VAGUE j 22.F. What one thing could be clone to attract other executives to the area? PROBE IF TOO VAGUE 1 ' 22.G. How long did you live in the North Metro area before being associated with your current company? A. Did not live in the area.......... 1 B. 0 to 3 years ............................. 2 C. 4 to 10 years ........................... 3 D. 10 plus years .......................... 4 23. In what city do you live? ASK THE CEO THEN ASK QUESTION 22A -F 23.A. How far is your one way commute in miles? 23.13. How long is your one way commute in time? 23.C. Is there any reason you don't live in the North Metro area? PROBE IF TOO VAGUE Page 5 Community Resource Partnership, Inc. Local Business Survey - Part II 23.D. Other than proximity to work, what would be the most positive feature of relocating in the North Metro area? PROBE IF TOO VAGUE 23.E. Other than the disruption of moving, what would be the most negative feature of relocating in the North Metro area? PROBE IF TOO VAGUE 23.F. What thing could be done to attract other executives to the North Metro area? PROBE IF TOO VAGUE 1 EDUCATIONAL ISSUES 24. Do you use local technical or community colleges for your employee recruiting and/or training needs? Yes No IF NO, ASK QUESTION 24.A 24.A. If no, why not? 25. Are you aware that local technical or community colleges will provide custom training for your business needs? Yes No 26. The following list requires a yes or no answer. Do you have any current needs for or want additional information on: READ THE LIST AND RECORD THE RESPONSE A. Business planning /management /marketing information ..... Yes No B. Financing assistance ............................. ............................... Yes No ' C. High technology manufacturing ............ ............................... Yes No D. Job training assistance .............................. ............................ Yes No E. Government procurement ......................... ............................ Yes No RED FLAG ' F. Exporting information . ............................... ............................ Yes No G. Permits and licensing ............. Yes No H. Environmental regulations ........................ ............................ Yes No 1. City ordinances, zoning, etc .................................................... Yes No J. Employee benefit systems .. ....... ......... . ... ..' .................. Yes No K. Other information Yes No Page 6 ' Community Resource Partnership, Inc. Local Business Survey -Part II ' COMMUNITY ISSUES 27. What is the single most important thing that could be undertaken to make the local community a better place to operate a business? RECORD THE RESPONSE - PROBE IF TOO VAGUE i 28. What business assistance would you like to see the city provide? RECORD THE RESPONSE - PROBE IF TOO VAGUE 29. Would you be willing to provide technical or professional support to new young businesses in your area of expertise? Yes No EMPLOYEES 30. Does your company frequently have openings for entry level type'ohs? 1 Yes No 31. Where does your company list entry level job openings? READ THE LIST AND RECORD THE RESPONSE A. Local Newspapers ............................. 1 B. Metro Newspapers .............................. 2 C. MN Job Service ... ............................... 3 D. County Job Training Programs .......... 4 E. Word of Mouth ..... ............................... 5 F. Temporary Services ............................ G G.Technical and Community Colleges...... 7 32. Could your company generate one or more summer job opportunities for area youth? Yes No 1 33. Does your company generate internship opportunities for area youth? Yes No 34. Please estimate the maximum distance your employees commute to work at this facility: Miles What community do they come from? 35. Would better mass transit be of value to your company? Yes No Page 7 ' Community Resource Partnership, Inc. Local Business Survey - Part II ! 36. Has your company every participated in job training programs? Yes IF YES, READ FROM THE FOLLOWING LIST AND CIRCLE THE RESPONSES: No 1. Job Training -OJT 2. Job Skills Partnership 3. Community College/Technical College 4. Targeted Jobs Tax Credit 5. Veterans -OJT 6. Job Training Partnership Act -JTP A 7. Private Training Program 8. Other 37. Would you use these programs again? Yes No IF NO, GO TO 37A 37.A.. If no, why would you not use these programs? THANK YOU FOR THE TIME THAT YOU HAVE SPENT WITH ME TODAY. Interview Date Interviewer Signature ! Other Interviewers present i ! ! Page 8 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date September 271993 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1993 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR SAFETY ITEMS DEPT. APPROV • Geral R. Barone, Personnel Coordinator r MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOnlMENDATION: ';' ° No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • The City of Brooklyn Center's employee safety committee has recommended to the city manager several items which are not provided for in the 1993 budget. The first request refers to purchasing "Seat Belts Fastened ?" signs to be posted at exits from City facilities where our employees work, along with a "Safety Starts Here" sign for the central garage. The second request relates to the purchase of ergonomically adjustable chairs for two employees who have had some medical problems associated with their workstations. The safety committee has asked that the seat belt signs be posted at the following locations (number of signs requested follows each location): civic center (2); golf course (1); city garage (1); Liquor #1 (2); and Liquor #2 (2). The "Safety Starts Here" sign for the city garage, as with the seat belt signs, hopefully will serve as a reminder to employees to take certain precautions to make their jobs more safe. The safety committee has become very concerned about the increase in the number of employee concerns and worker's compensation claims related to repetitive motion injuries, soft tissue injuries, and back problems caused by inappropriate workstations for computer users. The committee has strongly endorsed a policy of responding immediately to concerns raised in this area by employees to prevent expensive, long -term worker's comp claims, lower productivity due to working with pain, and potential claims for reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. As requested by their department heads, two employees currently are in need of ergonomically adjustable chairs to relieve pain suffered while working at their workstations. These include the payroll /personnel technician in the finance department and the staff services supervisor in the police department. Both employees are suffering from back pain which is relieved when using adjustable chairs that are located in other City departments. Each of these chairs costs approximately $500, a small preventative price to pay in comparison to a worker's comp claim which potentially could continue for years based on the job duties and use of computers by these employees. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Pass a Resolution Amending the 1993 General • Fund Budget to Provide for Safety Items. /ob Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1993 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR SAFETY ITEMS WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center Employee Safety Committee has recommended that several items be purchased to enhance the safety of both City employees and the public, including: signs at exits from City facilities reminding drivers to buckle their seat belts; "Safety Starts Here" signs at the Central Garage; and ergonomically adjustable chairs for two employees experiencing health problems due to the nature of their workstations; and WHEREAS, the City Manager recommends approval of acquisition of these items, to be funded from the General Fund contingency account; and WHEREAS, Section 7.09 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn Center does provide for a contingency appropriation as a part of the General Fund budget, and further provides that the contingency appropriation may be transferred to any other appropriation by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Ma er advises the Council that the cost of these items is as follows: "Buckle Up" Signs $ 332.00 "Safety Starts Here" Signs $ 125.00 Two Adjustable Chairs $ 1,000.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Decrease the appropriation for the Unallocated Department Contingency account (Unit 182, Object No. 4995) $ 457.00 Increase the appropriation for the Street Department Signs and Materials account (Unit 142, Object No. 4236) $ 457.00 2. Decrease the appropriation for the Unallocated Department Contingency account (Unit 182, Object No. 4995) $ 1,000.00 Increase the appropriation for the Unallocated Department Office Furnishings and Equipment account (Unit 180, Object No. 4551) $ 1,000.00 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 09/27/93 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -22, ANNUAL TELEVISION INSPECTION OF SEWERS, ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR DEPT. APPROVAL: -,4- 41_"� SAnapp, 16ifector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached In recent years the City has annually contracted for televised sewer inspections. • These televised inspections provide detailed information to the Public Works Department regarding the condition of the City's sewers. The City uses this information, in conjunction with maintenance records to determine areas where sewer back -ups or collapses are imminent, and repair projects are necessary. As of this date, the Public Works Department has televised inspection records for approximately 18 miles, or 17% of the City's entire sewer system. In addition to those which have been recommended this year by Public Utility personnel, this year's program includes the sewers that are in the areas under consideration for street improvements in 1994. Accordingly, the City Engineer has received proposals for Improvement Project No. 1993 -22, Annual Television Inspection of Sewers, for those segments of sewer shown on the attached list. Of the proposals received for this work, the lowest submitted was that of Visu- Sewer, of Minntonka, Minnesota. A list of the proposals received is as follows: Bidder Bid Visu -Sewer $ 8,047.69 Solidification Inc. $11,833.00 Visu -Sewer has considerable experience in this type of work in the Metro area and has satisfactorily performed in Brooklyn Center on previous projects. Accordingly, staff recommends award to Visu -Sewer of Minnetonka, Minnesota. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution establishing the project, accepting proposal and awarding contract to Visu -Sewer is provided for consideration. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -22, ANNUAL TELEVISION INSPECTION OF SEWERS, ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported to the City Council of the need for televised inspection; and WHEREAS, the City does not possess the equipment necessary to perform such inspections; and WHEREAS, proposals for Televised Sewer Inspection were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Engineer, on the 23rd day of September, 1993, and said proposals were as follows: Bidder Bid Visu -Sewer $ 8,047.69 Solidification, Inc. $11,833.00 WHEREAS, it appears that Visu -Sewer of Minnetonka, 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. Improvement Project No. 1993 -22, Annual Television Inspection of Sewers, is hereby established. 2. The proposal as submitted by Visu -Sewer of Minnetonka, Minnesota is hereby accepted and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract, in the amount of $8,047.69 with Visu -Sewer in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1993 -22. 3. All costs relating to this project shall be charged to the Public Utility Fund. 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 09/27/9 Agenda Item Number �� U REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO CONDUCT AN ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF PROPERTY TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A STORM WATER POND, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -29, AND ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR DEPT. APPROVAL: r Sy Knapp, 6frector 4 Public Works - MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached YES 1 • On September 15, 1993, the City entered into a purchase agreement for the acquisition of the vacant property located at the southwest corner of the I- 94/694 and Brooklyn Blvd. interchange. This 4.1 acre parcel has recently been the subject of extensive study and has been identified as the proposed site for a two -cell storm water treatment pond. The purchase agreement allows the City the right of entry onto the property for the purpose of performing "environmental and soil investigations ", which would be used by the City in an effort to determine whether there exist significant risks of inheriting any unknown landfill debris, buried tanks or potentially contaminated soils. It is highly recommended that the City ascertain, to the maximum practical extent, what, if any environmental problems it would experience by acquiring the property and developing the proposed two -cell pond. A standardized environmental investigation process, referred to as Phase 1, ASTM E 1527, has become a common practice for potential buyers of commercial real estate in recent years. This Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment includes the following four general components: Records Review, Site Reconnaissance, Interviews, and Report. The Request for Proposals (RFP) developed by the City Engineer for this purpose uses the requirements of ASTM E 1527 as a baseline, and includes a higher level of records research, adjacent property owner interviews, and actual test trenching at various locations on the property. It is hoped that in the event the site does contain any environmental hazards, as defined by the standard, the City may become apprised of them prior to the property closing, which is scheduled for October 29, 1993. Accordingly, the City Engineer directed the RFP to certified environmental assessment firms in the area and subsequently received the following bids: Bidder Bid American Engineering Testing, Inc. $4,820 STS Consultants Ltd. $6,900 The firm of American Engineering Testing, Inc., of St. Paul, Minnesota has a great deal of recent, local experience in this field, and has worked with the City on previous improvement projects. Accordingly, staff recommends acceptance of the proposal from American Engineering Testing, Inc. A copy of the proposal submitted by American Engineering Testing, Inc. is attached for reference. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution which accepts the proposal of American Engineering Testing, Inc. to conduct a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment in conjunction with Improvement Project No. 1992 -29 is attached for consideration. AMERICAN CONSULTANTS ENGINEERING •GEOTECHNiCAL INC. • MATERIALS TESTING, • ENVIRONMENTAL September 22, 1993 Mr. Mark Maloney City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parbtivay Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 RE: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Improvement Project No. 1992 -29 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota AET Proposal No. E-0050 Dear Mr. Maloney: American Engineering Vesting, Inc. is pleased to offer our services to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment {ESA} for a parcel of property the City of :Brooklyn Center is considering purchasing. This proposal describes the work scope, schedule, fees and other information regarding our services. Prajeet Info Mati yn The subject property is approximately 4.1 acres in size and is located at the southwest quadrant Of the intersection of Brooklyn Blvd. and County Road 152. The property is currently vacant land and is zoned commercially. We understand that approximately half the property is wetland and that some areas of the wetland have been filled. Brooklyn Center is considering developing the site as a two -dell storm water detention pond. The poled bottom will be about 8' to 10' below existing grade. We understand Brooklyn Center has entered into a purchase agreement for the property and the scheduled closing for the actual purchase of the property is October 25, 1993. & -Q of Services American Engineering Testing, Inc. will prepare the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment by performing the following tasks: • Site reconnaissance for visible evidence of known or suspected contamination. "AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" 2102 University Ave. IN . St Paul, MN 55774 a 612- 659 -9M • Fax 612-659 -7379 4631 WGdt Mithiga Street. Suite x4 .Oututn_ MN 55807 +718- 828 -1518 . Fax 218-C2&1 - 1738 Fist Avenu4 . LtwK910. ur4 56001 .507- 387 -22'2 • Fax 507.367.E Mr. Mark Maloney AET Proposal No. E-0050 September 22, 1993 Page 2 • State and federal database search for Imown sources of contamination within the area of the site. • Soil and ground water information review and proximity to surf ce waters. • Visual observations of on -site solid or hazardous waste disposal. • Identification of transformers or capacitors or other potential. PCB containing equipment. • Review of Sanborn Insurance Maps for information concerning underground storage tanks, wells and potential contamination at the site. • Review historical aerial photographs of the site as available for evidence of previous land uses indicating the potential for contamination. • Discussions with adjacent residential landowners ( 8-10), long time city employees (1 -2) and local government officials of Brooklyn Center.. • Preparation of a written report. See attachment A for a description of the above tasks. The scope of AEI's phase I ESA is in general accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTIVI) Standard E1527 -93 - Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment process. In addition, as you requested, we have included in our scope of services the rental, labor and associated costs for two (2) worldng day's use of a backhoe and operator to dig test trenches/pits at various locations on the site to expose, if present, buried barrels, garbage, construction debris and any associated gross contamination. We will subcontract with an excavating contractor to dig the test pits/trenches. In conjunction with digging the test pits/trenches, we will have a technician on site to direct the backhoe where to dig the pits/trenches and to screen the soils on- site with a photoionization detector (PIA). The PID checks for the presence of volatile organic vapors. The screening of samples with the PID will be done in accordance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency jar headspace method. Mr. Mark Maloney AEI' Proposal No. E -0050 September 22, 1993 Page 3 Performapse We will complete this project and deliver the report to you by October 22, 1993. In addition, we will keep you verbally appraised of the findings as the project progresses. This proposal shall be valid for a period of 90 days from the date issued. Conditions The attached Service Agreement applies to this project. Our fees for services will be charged on a time and materials basis in accordance with our currezut schedule of fees, which is attached. For the Phase I Environinental site Assessment scope described above, the fee will not exceed $4,820. The fee above is broken down as follows: • Conduct phase I ESA $2,000.00 = • big test pits/trenches (2 days), technician to direct and observe 2,820.00 pits/trenches, screens soils with PED etc. $4� . I€ during the course of digging the test pits we fmd that less than two day's of digging and observing the test pits/trenches will provide us with sufficient information to characterize the subsurface conditions, we will charge you only for the portion used. AMWAnCe Please indicate your acceptance of this proposal and authorization to proceed by signing, dating and returning one copy of this proposal to us. The second copy is for your records. Mr. Mark Maloney AE`1` Proposal No. E4)050 September 22, 1993 Page 4 American fi igineering Testing, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to provide this service for you and looks forward to working with you on this project. If you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact me at 659 -1310. Suicereiy, Charles W. Bisek Project Manager CWB/jg Attachments: Fee Schedule Service Agreement Attachment A PR 7 S % Y { 4 S } S { AV Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO CONDUCT AN ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF PROPERTY TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A STORM WATER POND, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -29, AND ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 93 -105 adopted on June 28, 1993, the City Council ordered the development of Storm Water Pond, Improvement Project No. 1992 -29; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 93 -134 adopted on September 13, the City Council approved a purchase agreement for the acquisition of the property to be occupied by the proposed Storm Water Pond; and WHEREAS, Section 5 of the aforementioned purchase agreement allows the City, as Buyer, the right of entry to perform Environmental and Soil Investigations prior to the scheduled closing date of October 29,1 993; and WHEREAS, the City does not possess the certified personnel nor the equipment necessary to perform such environmental and soil investigations; and WHEREAS, proposals for the necessary services were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Engineer, on the 22nd day of September, 1993, and said proposals were as follows: Bidder Bid American Engineering Testing, Inc. $4,820 STS Consultants Ltd. $6,900 WHEREAS, it appears that American Engineering Testing, Inc. of St. Paul, Minnesota has rovided the lowest responsible proposal. P P P P NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The proposal as submitted by American Engineering Testing, Inc. of St. Paul, Minnesota is hereby accepted and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract, in the amount of $4,820, with American Engineering Testing, Inc. in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1992 -29. 2. All costs relating to these services shall be charged to the Storm Drainage Utility Fund. 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 09/27/93 Agenda Item Number • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 5 FOR 69TH AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION, PHASE 2, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10, CONTRACT 1992 -B DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knap , Director of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached • The City Council, by Resolution No. 92 -80, authorized Contract 1992 -B, 69th Avenue North reconstruction, Improvement Project No. 1990 -10. The City's consultant for this project, SEH, Inc., has reported to staff a list of extra work items and quantity overruns for work which was beyond the scope of the original contact, as previously approved. The following items represent work authorized by the City and agreed on by the Contractor which is outside of the original contract: Item 1 Mill Bituminous, Construct Bituminous Spillway $2,265.23 The Contractor was required, during the winter, to mill the pavement at France Avenue where the fall construction ended due to complaints from the motoring public. The Contractor was also requested by the Public Utility Department to construct a bituminous spillway at Lift Station No. 3 to alleviate a maintenance problem due to drainage which concentrates at the lift station site. Item 2 Additional Traffic Control At Bypass $3,358.89 The original traffic control plan at the bypass was changed to increase traffic and pedestrian safety by adding signing and removing some pavement markings. Once the bypass was actually operating, City staff observed operations and required additional signage, delineators and markings. Item 3 Replace Corporation Stops on Existing Water Main $ 143.04 • It was discovered during construction that a water service near the cemetery, and one between Drew and Ewing were leaking at the main. Since the work was not expected and part of the original contract, it is considered extra. Item 4 Add New Water Service $ 649.81 It was discovered that an existing water main service was located under a residential home. Potential future maintenance problems prompted the City to request that it be reinstalled in the street. Item 5 Pedestrian Barrier at Retaining Walls $ 285.00 The concern for pedestrian safety during construction near the location of the precast block retaining walls prompted the City to request the Contractor to install snow fence on top of the retaining walls. This was not part of the original contract. Item 6 Temporary Drainage Improvement at Bypass $ 310.00 The addition of a small diameter PVC pipe near the bypass was added as a solution to an interim drainage problem. Ponding of water at the bypass intersection would have created a safety hazard. Item 7 Repair Damaged Sprinkler Systems $1,660.29 Existing sprinkler systems at Taystee Bread and Pilgrim Cleaners were impacted by the construction. The exact location of the private buried irrigation lines and sprinkler heads could not be ascertained prior to construction. The original contract did not include repair of these systems, and the Contractor repaired them as extra work. Item 8 Mega Lugs for Water Main Restraint $1,540.70 • Change Order No. 3 included an increase to the contract for the cost difference for using mega lugs versus retaining rods. The City staff requested that mega lugs be used at all locations for joint restraint rather than retaining rods. There is a unit cost increase to the fittings because of the cost of the material. The Contract inadvertently left some of his quantities off of Change Order No. 3 and is requesting to be compensated for the additional materials on this Change Order. Item 9 Hydrant Adjustments $2,176.86 This adjustment was necessary to accommodate additional berming and landscaping amenities. The original contract assumed a typical grade back from the curb to where the hydrants would be located. Changes in the grade during construction required the hydrants to be adjusted up to 1 to 1' /2 foot increments above the grades which were affected by changes in the berm heights. Item 10 Remove and Replace Residential Driveways $5,196.55 Four driveways that existed on the south side of 69th Avenue between Grimes Avenue and France Avenue were originally 12 feet or less in width, without an improved apron. The driveways were reconstructed to 12 feet wide and a concrete apron was placed at each location, according to the approved plan. Residents indicated to City staff • that they were having difficulty getting in and out of their new driveways because of the improved street and boulevard, and requested wider driveway access. City staff authorized the removal of the new 12 foot concrete aprons (and adjacent curbing and driveway) and replacing with an 18 foot wide apron. Item 11 Topsoil Borrow and Berming Material $14,362.50 • The locations and heights of the berms on the north side of the road adjacent to the residential properties were subject to negotiation during the project. This overrun represents costs for increasin g the heights and varying the locations of berms according to the needs of the adjacent residents. Item 12 Precast Block Retaining Wall $7,100.00 Additional retaining wall was constructed on the north side of 69th Avenue east of France to accommodate extra berming in that area while preserving a number of mature trees. Another additional wall was constructed at Ewing Avenue on the west side to accommodate the existing grade and preserve a tree. Item 13 Polystyrene Insulation for Water Main $2,407.00 Two inch insulation quantities were added over and above the original contract quantity, due to the extension of water main construction on side streets and unforeseen differences in the depths of the existing utilities. The majority of the existing water main which was to remain in place was shallower than the minimum design depth of 7.5 feet, and therefore was insulated during construction. Item 14 6" Gate Valves and Boxes $2,000.00 Five six inch gate in boxes were added at the request of the City utility department to coincide with the extension of water main construction on the side streets for future maintenance purposes. Item 15 PVC Sewer $8,910.00 The increase of the footage of the PVC sewer is also a result of coordination with the extension of water main construction on the side streets. Item 16 Rehabilitate Sanitary Sewer $4,732.00 The existing sanitary sewer under Brooklyn Blvd. was lined with Insituform. The quantity in the contract was based on an estimate and the actual quantity in the field when the work was done included an additional twenty six linear feet. City staff, the Consultant and the Contractor have negotiated the above quantities and prices, and staff agrees that these are fair and reasonable contract costs. The total value of proposed Change Order No. 5, $57,098.90, is proposed to be funded as follows: Fund Source Estimated Cost Regular MSA Fund No. 1496 $ 8,041.50 Local MSA Fund No. 2900 $23,394.05 Public Utility Water Fund $10,578.73 Public Utility Sanitary Sewer Fund $13,642.00 Public Utility Storm Drainage Fund $ 1.442.62 Total $57,098.90 A copy of the proposed Change Order is attached for reference. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution approving the proposed change order is provided for consideration. r i 0 CHANGE ORDER 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE, 200 SEH CENTER, ST PAUL. MN 55110 612490-2000 "325-2055 ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORTATION City of Brooklyn Center September 15, 1993 OWNER DATE 5 City Project 1990 -10 - Contract No. 1992 -13, S.A.P. 109-125-06, 109 - 117 -01, 27- 730 -11 90277.02 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The following changes shall be made to the contract documents SEH FILE NO. Description' A. Add extra items to contract necessary to complete the work. B. Increase estimated contract quantities to reflect actual field required quantities. Purpose of Change Order: To compensate the Contractor for exctra work and increases in estimated unit contract items. Basis of Cost: ® Actual ❑ Estimated See Attached Detail of Loss Attachments (list supporting documents) 1. Letter from Engineer detailing items 2. Contractor claims and invoices Contract Status Time Cost Original Contract N/A $1,499,942.80 — Net Change Prior C.O.'s 1 to 4 51,146.14 Change This C.O. 56,098.90 Revised Contract NIA $1,608,187.8 Recommended for Approval: SHORT- ELLIOTT- HENDRICKSON, INC. By Susan M. Mason, P.E. Agreed to by Contractor: Approved for Owner. • City of Brooklyn Center BY BY City Engineer ` nE TITLE State Aid Engineer Distribution Contractor 2 Owner 1 Project Representative 1 SEH Office 1 SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC MINNEAPOLIS, MN ST CLOUD, MN CHIPPEWA FALLS, WI MADISON, W BROOKLYN CENTER MN, 69TH AVENUE FROM BROOKLYN BLVD. TO BEARD AVE. CHANGE ORDER # 5 DETAIL OF COST A. EXTRA WORK 1. MILL BUMP AT FRANCE AVENUE CONSTRUCT BITUMINOUS SPILLWAY AT LIFT STATION $2,265.23 2. ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROL AT BYPASS $3,358.89 3. REPLACE 2 CORPORATION STOPS ON EXISTING WATERMAIN $143.04 4. ADD A NEW WATER SERVICE $649.81 5. PLACE PEDESTRIAN BARRIER AT RETAINING WALLS $285.00 6. PLACE PVC FOR TEMP. DRAINAGE AT BYPASS $310.00 7. REPAIR DAMAGED SPRINKLER SYSTEM $1,660.29 8. ADDITIONAL MEGA LUGS FOR WATERMAIN RESTRAINT $1,540.73 9. ADJUST HYDRANTS $2,176.86 10. REMOVE AND REPLACE DRIVEWAYS $5,196.55 TOTAL EXTRA WORK $17,586.40 B. INCREASE UNIT QUANTITIES ITEM UNIT INCREASEC BID PRICE INCREASEC QUANTITY COST 1. TOPSOIL BORROW C.Y. 1915 7.5 $14,362.50, 2. RETAINING WALL S.F. 710 10 $7,100.00 3. INSULATION S.Y. 301 8 $2,408.00 4.6" G.V. & BOX EACH 5 400 $2,000.00 5.18" PVC SEWER L.F. 297 30 $8,910.00 6. REHAB SAN. SEWER L.F. 26 182 $4,732.00 TOTAL INCREASED QUANTITIES $39,512.50 TOTAL CHANGE ORDER $57,098.90 PAGE NO. 1 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 5 FOR 69TH AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION, PHASE 2, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10, CONTRACT 1992 -B WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center previously entered into Contract 1992 -B with S.M. Hentges & Sons for the construction of Improvement Project No. 1990 -10; and WHEREAS, the City's consulting engineer for this project, SEH, Inc., has recommended that certain additional items and /or quantities of work should be added to the existing contract; and WHEREAS, the contractor, S.M. Hentges & Sons has agreed to the prices and quantities for said additional work; and WHEREAS, the value of this additional work is estimated as $57,098.90. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Change Order No. 5, Contract 1992 -B is hereby approved. 2. The additional costs attributable to this change order shall be financed as follows: Fund Source Estimated Cost Regular MSA Fund No. 1496 $ 8,041.50 Local MSA Fund No. 2900 $23,394.05 Public Utility Water Fund $10,578.73 Public Utility Sanitary Sewer Fund $13,642.00 Public Utility Storm Drainage Fund $ 1.442.62 Total $57,098.90 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 09/27/93 • Agenda Item Number /0 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION *********************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR CONTRACT 1993 -F, FURNISHING AND INSTALLING PLAYGROUND APPARATUS AT NORTHPORT PARK AND AT FREEWAY PARK, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -14 DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, irector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Contract 1993 -F, Improvement Project No. 1993 -14, Furnishing and Installing Playground Apparatus at Northport Park and at Freeway Park, has been completed by Minnesota Playground, Inc. The City Council accepted their bid per Resolution No. 93 -94 and a contract was subsequently executed. The actual final value of work, $56,125.55, is the same as the original contract. This compares to the 1993 General Fund budget of $63,900.00. Staff recommends acceptance of the work performed and authorization to make final payment to Minnesota Playground, Inc. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution accepting work performed and authorizing final payment to Minnesota Playground, Inc. is attached for consideration. • 10F Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR CONTRACT 1993 -F, FURNISHING AND INSTALLING PLAYGROUND APPARATUS AT NORTHPORT PARK AND AT FREEWAY PARK, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -14 WHEREAS, pursuant to written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Minnesota Playground, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the following improvements in accordance with said contract: FURNISHING AND INSTALLING PLAYGROUND APPARATUS AT NORTHPORT PARK AND AT FREEWAY PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -14 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: Original Contract Final Amount Value of Work $56,125.00 $56,125.00 2. The actual value of the work performed is the same as the original contract. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $56,125.00. 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 09/27/93 Agenda Item Number • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ING C NUISANCE ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED DECLAR A PUBLI SANCE AND ORD TREES DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, irector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached • The attached resolution represents the official Council action required to expedite removal of the trees most recently marked by the City tree inspector, in accordance with approved procedures. It is anticipated that this resolution will be submitted for Council consideration each meeting during the summer and fall as new trees are marked. 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 09/27/93 ) 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, THEREFOR, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The diseased trees at the following addresses are hereby declared to be a public nuisance: TREE PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY ADDRESS NUMBER ---------------------- - - - - -- ----------------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- RICHARD & LINDA WEICH 5301 DUPONT AVE N 167 EDWARD DOLL 1201 57TH AVE N 168 MN /DOT WEST METRO OFFICE HWY 100 /FRANCE AVE 169 MN /DOT WEST METRO OFFICE SOO LINE RR TRACKS 170 TIMOTHY & PEGGY GORDON 4913 BEARD AVE N 171 LUWAYNE LAUGERMAN 6800 BRYANT AVE N 172 2. After twenty (20) days from the date of the notice, the property owner(s) will receive a second written notice providing five (5) business days in which to contest the determination of the City Council by requesting, in writing, a hearing. Said request shall be filed with the City Clerk. 3. After five (5) days, if the property owner fails to request a hearing, the tree(s) shall be removed by the City. All removal costs, including legal, financing, and administrative charges, shall be specially assessed against the property. Date Mayor ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting D., a Agenda Item Number /D y REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION s ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING A CUSTODIAN OF CITY INVESTMENTS DEPT. APPROVAL: K a Charles Hansen, Finance Director MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: 5 No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUABLARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) In the Annual Financial Report dated December 31, 1992, the City listed $23,260,000 of investments in Credit Risk Category 3. This was in contrast to past years when all investments were listed in the safer Credit Risk Category 1. The change occurred due to the issuance of the Implementation Guide to GASB Statement 3. The Auditors reviewed this area in light of the new pronouncement and found that the insurance of the custodian of City owned securities did not adequately protect the City in the event of bankruptcy of the custodian. To correct this condition, the City needs to enter into a custody arrangement with a bank trust department to hold the City's securities which will be separate from the banking unit through which we buy and trade investments. In such an arrangement with a trust department, the securities would be the City's no matter what happened to the bank. The City has been trading its investments through FBS Investment Services, Inc. Proposals were requested from First Trust and from Norwest Bank. While FBS Investment Services, Inc. and First Trust are both subsidiaries of First Bank System, First Trust has a separate Federal bank charter which qualifies it as a separate bank for our purposes. Both proposals were comprehensive and both banks appear to be fully qualified and capable of performing the necessary functions. First Trust's proposal quoted an annual cost of $2,821.00. Norwest's proposal quoted an annual cost of $3,360.00 with a first year discount of $1,000.00. Based only on the first year cost, Norwest would be the lower cost proposal. But since this is definitely NOT a relationship we want to change annually, I feel we should disregard Norwest's first year discount. I am recommending the designation of First Trust as custodian of City investments on the basis of their quote of $2,821.00 per year, compared to Norwest's quote of $3,360.00 per year. Both First Trust and Norwest Bank went on to propose a securities lending program. This is a variation of an investment transaction called a reverse repurchase agreement which the City has been able to do in the past. The securities lending program is made possible by the custody arrangement g ent and will generate additional investment earnings for the City. Both First Trust and Norwest Bank forecast that these earnings will exceed the cost of the custody arraignment. But because of the many variables involved, these forecasts are very speculative and I didn't consider them in selecting which bank to recommend to be custodian. First Trust's forecasted earnings were higher than Norwest's, so if they were considered, the outcome would be the same. The State Auditor has approved securities lending as an appropriate investment vehicle for cities. Cliff Hoffman, Partner of Deloitte & Touche, the City's auditors, also approves of securities lending, as long as it is done with a major bank, such as First Trust or Norwest Bank. I am also recommending the City enter into a securities lending program with First Trust. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Approval of the attached Resolution Designating a Custodian of City Investments. • oN Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING A CUSTODIAN OF CITY INVESTMENTS WHEREAS, Section 7.01 of the City Charter provides the City Council with authority over City funds, including the safekeeping and disbursement of public moneys; and WHEREAS, the City has until now held its investment instruments in safekeeping at the financial institution through which they were purchased; and WHEREAS, to meet the highest standards of public finance, it is necessary to have the investment instruments held in custody at a trust department separated from the financial institution through which they were purchased; and WHEREAS, the City has received viable proposals from two major banks holding the necessary charters as trust institutions; and WHEREAS, both proposals included a securities lending program which would provide additional investment earnings for the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. that First Trust National Association is hereby designated as the custodian of the investment instruments of the City of Brooklyn Center. 2. that First Trust National Association is hereby designated to conduct a securities lending program for the City of Brooklyn Center. 3. that the City Manager and City Treasurer are authorized and directed to execute the necessary contracts 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. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date September 27, 1993 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ******************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: A RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT FOR SCHOOL LIAISON AND D.A,R.E. OFFICER SERVICES BETWEEN THE ANOKA - HENNEPIN SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER ELEVEN AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER. DEPT. APPROV Trevor A. Hampton, Chief of olice MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached no) • The above named contract has been submitted to the City f Brooklyn Center formalizing tY Yn g an agreement between the City and the Anoka- Hennepin School District Number Eleven. The contract provides for the reimbursement of $699.00, payable in two parts, to the City for the D.A.R.E. officer(s) services at the Evergreen Park elementary school. The contract covers the 1993 -1994 school year. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION The City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into the Contract for School Liaison and D.A.R.E. Officer Services between the Anoka- Hennepin School District Number Eleven and the City of Brooklyn Center. 10i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT FOR SCHOOL LIAISON AND D.A.R.E. OFFICER SERVICES BETWEEN THE ANOKA - HENNEPIN SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER ELEVEN AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER. WHEREAS, the Anoka - Hennepin School District Number Eleven desires to enter into a contract with the City of Brooklyn Center for the provision of school liaison and D.A.R.E. officer services; and WHEREAS, the School Liaison Officers in the middle schools and high schools will serve students and staff primarily in the area of crime prevention, and Officers in the D.A.R.E. program in the elementary schools will present the approved prevention program which is a part of the fifth grade Health curriculum; and WHEREAS, the Police and City Administration recommend this program and the City Council agrees with this recommendation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into the Contract for School Liaison and D.A.R.E. Officer Services Between the Anoka - Hennepin School District Number Eleven and the City of Brooklyn Center. 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. Contract for School Liaison and D.A.R.E. Officer Services Between the Anoka- Hennepin School District No. 11 and the City of Brooklyn Center This contract by and between the City of Brooklyn Center (hereafter referred to as "City ") and Anoka- Hennepin Independent School District No. 11 (hereafter referred to as "District ") is entered into under Minnesota law. 1. DEFINITIONS. Police Officers working in the District will be engaged in two authorized programs. The School Liaison Officers in the middle schools and high schools will serve students and staff primarily in the area of crime prevention. Officers in the D.A.R.E. program in the elementary schools will present the approved prevention program which is a part of the fifth grade Health curriculum. 2. OFFICER EMPLOYED BY CITY. City shall employ (or assign) in accordance with applicable state statutes a police officer or officers to serve as D.A.R.E. officer(s) in District schools. The selection or assignment of such officers shall be done by City. City shall assume all obligations and payments with regard to officers' salaries and benefits including workers compensation, PERA, withholding taxes, etc. District will reimburse City as defined in Part 10 of this document. 3. TERM OF CONTRACT The term of this contract shall be July 1, 1993 to June 30, 1994, District fiscal year. 4. ADMINISTRATION RESPONSIBILITIES Law enforcement services rendered to District shall be at the sole direction of City. Standards of performance, discipline of the officer assigned, and other internal matters, shall be under the authority of City. If requested, District shall provide City with an appraisal of the services received. 5. LEVEL OF SERVICE The officer will respond to emergency calls within the boundaries of City and attend police training and special duties as assigned by City while fulfilling the requirements of this contract. Time spent on emergency calls, police training, etc. shall not be considered to be time spent as a D.A.R.E. officer. Time in excess of eight hours per day shall be paid according to the officers' contract, providing such additional time has been approved in advance by City and District. Blanket approvals will not be accepted. 6. DUTIES OF OFFICER The list of basic duties and work schedule of the officer(s) shall be cooperatively developed between City and District. 7. CLOTHING, EQUIPMENT, AND SUPPLIES City hall provide required ty p de any q red clothing, uniforms, vehicle, necessary equipment and supplies for officer to perform law enforcement duties. 8. SCHOOL CALENDAR District shall provide City with a school calendar. 9. TERMINATION Either party may terminate this agreement upon ninety (90) days written notice of such termination. All payment due hereunder shall be prorated in the event of such termination. 10. DURATION AND COST For and in consideration of the provision of D.A.R.E. Officer services in accordance with the terms of this contract, District shall pay City the sum of 50% of the levy allocation upon the preliminary notification by City that officer has been assigned and there is proof of service. This should be completed by October 1, 1993. The remaining amount shall be calculated and paid to City after January 1, 1994. Proof of service shall be considered to be the successful scheduling and implementation of the D.A.R.E. program in each of the schools listed in this contract. 11. SERVICE TO SCHOOLS The following elementary school shall receive D.A.R.E officer program services as a result of this contract: Evergreen Park 12. SCOPE It is agreed that the entire agreement of the parties is contained herein and that this agreement supersedes all oral and written agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunder to set their hands V City of Brooklyn Center Anoka- Hennepin School District No. 11 by: by: 0 its its Superintendent Date: Date: CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION FORM Contacts at the school district for the City of Brooklyn Park Contracted Administration: David A. Buck, Director of Business Services Anoka - Hennepin ISD #11 Educational Service Center 11299 Hanson Blvd NW Coon Rapids, MN 55433 -3799 Telephone No: 422 -5507 Program Administration: Kenneth Berg Evergreen Park Elementary 561 -0270 Payment Procedures: Pursuant to section 10 of the agreement, the City should submit a bill to the address above. Fifty percent will be paid after October 1, 1993 and the second half will be paid after January 1, 1994. r CRIME LEVY ALLOTMENT FOR FY 94 CITY OR COUNTY SCHOOL PROJ. ENR PROJ. ALLOC. BROOKLYN CENTER EVERGREEN PARK 93 TOTAL $699 r CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date September 27, 1993 Agenda Item Number /V REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION COMMENDING PHIL CARRUTHERS ON HIS APPOINTMENT AS HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER DEPT. APPROVAL: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Recommends council to approve resolution. �OJ Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION COMMENDING PHIL CARRUTHERS ON HIS APPOINTMENT AS HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER WHEREAS, State Representative Phil Carruthers who represents a portion of Brooklyn Center has served in the Minnesota Legislature since January, 1987; and WHEREAS, he was recently appointed Minnesota House Majority Leader effective immediately; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, that the appointment as House Majority Leader of State Representative Phil Carruthers be acknowledged and commended by the City of Brooklyn Center and that the City wishes him much success in his new endeavors. 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 Mewing Date 9/27/93 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES DEPT. APPROVAL: Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMAMNDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUNIlVIARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Attached is the list of licenses to be approved by the city council. • RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Approve licenses. ,Licenses to be approved by the City Council on September 27, 1993: MECHANICAL SYSTEMS P & D Mechanical Contracting Co. 4629 41st Ave. N. Building Official RENTAL DWELLINGS Renewals: J. G. Strand 5329 Penn Ave. N. Carin L. Rudolph 5318 Queen Ave. N. Casnur and Doris Stachowski 5329 Queen Ave. N. Anna Gullord 5337 -39 Queen Ave. N. Tom and Wendy Wurr 5422 72nd Circle N. 1 Director of Community Development GENERAL APPROVAL: Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk Licenses to be approved by the City Council on September 27, 1993: I RCHANICAL SYSTEMS Northwest Sheetmetal Co. of St. Paul 2136 Wabash Ave. P & D Mechanical Contracting Co. 4629 41st Ave. N. Building Official RENTAL DWELLINGS Renewals: I G. Strand 5329 Penn Ave. N. Carin L. Rudolph 5318 Queen Ave. N. Casmir and Doris Stachowski 5329 Queen Ave. N. Anna Gullord 5337 -39 Queen Ave. N. Tom and Wendy Wurr 5422 72nd Circle N. V� . .�"ArVU� Director of Community Development GENERAL APPROVAL: Jqal W, Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk