Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 09-13 CCP Regular Session �3 Uj� t . CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SEPTEMBER 13, 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. August 16, 1993 - Special Session b. August 23, 1993 - Regular Session 8. Public Hearings: (8 p.m.) a. Public Hearing Regarding Special Assessments for Diseased Shade Tree Removal Costs 1. Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Diseased Shade Tree Removal Costs to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls b. Public Hearing Regarding Special Assessment for a Delinquent Public Utility Repair Accounts 1. Resolution Certifying Special Assessment for a Delinquent Public Utility Repair Account to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls c. Public Hearing Regarding Special Assessments for Delinquent Public Utility Service Accounts 1. Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Delinquent Public Utility Service Accounts CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- September 13, 1993 d. Public Hearing Regarding Special Assessments for Weed Removal Costs 1. Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Weed Removal Costs to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls e. Public Hearing Regarding Special Assessments for 69th Avenue North Street Improvement Project No. 1990 -10 1. Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for 69th Avenue North Street Improvement Project No. 1990 -10 to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls 9. Planning Commission Item: (7:05 p.m.) a. 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. This application was considered by the Planning Commission on August 12 and August 26, 1993, and was recommended for denial. 10. Ordinances: (7:15 p.m.) a. An Ordinance Repealing Chapter 8, in Its Entirety, of the City Ordinances Regarding Food Sanitation Code -This ordinance was first read on August 9, 1993, published in the City's official newspaper on August 18, 1993, and is offered this evening for a public hearing and second reading. b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 18 of the City Ordinances Regarding Authority to Issue Citations -This ordinance was first read on August 9, 1993, published in the City's official newspaper on August 18, 1993, and is offered this evening for a public hearing and second reading. c. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances Relating to Signs for Multiple Family Dwellings -This ordinance was first read on August 23, 1993, published in the City's official newspaper on September 1, 1993, and is offered this evening for a public hearing and second reading. 11. Discussion Items: a. Status Report on Proposed 1994 Street Improvements -As directed by the City Council on 7/26/93, initial meetings have been held for the Northwest Area project and for the Humboldt Area project. Staff will present a report covering these two meetings. Staff also recommends adoption of the following three resolutions. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- September 13, 1993 1. Resolution Authorizing Development of Feasibility Studies for Improvement Projects in Two Areas 2. Resolution Accepting Proposal for Professional Services to Provide an Evaluation of Benefits Resulting from Proposed 1994 Street Improvement Projects, and Allocating Funds Therefor 3. Resolution Accepting Proposal for Professional Services to Evaluate Traffic on Humboldt Avenue North, Improvement Project No. 1994 -05, and Allocating Funds Therefor b. Staff Report Re: Establishment of Project for Improvements to Central Garage 1. Resolution Establishing Improvement Project No. 1993 -19, Improvements to Central Garage, Allocating Funding Therefor, and Authorizing Staff to Solicit a Proposal for Professional Services Relating Thereto c. Staff Report Re: Establishment of Central Garage Internal Service Fund 1. Resolution Creating a Central Garage Internal Service Fund d. 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 e. 1994 Preliminary et Levy, n ary g y, Budget Calendar 1. Resolution to Adopt the 1994 Preliminary Budget 2. Resolution to Authorize a Preliminary Tax Levy for 1994 Budget Appropriations for the General Fund and the E.D.A. Special Operating Fund 3. Resolution Approving a Proposed Tax Capacity Levy for the Purpose of Defraying the Cost of Operation, Providing Informational Service, and Relocation Assistance Pursuant to the Provisions of MSA 469.001 Through 469.047 of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center for the Year 1994 4. Final 1994 Budget Calendar a CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -4- September 13, 1993 12. Resolutions: * a. Calling for Public Hearing with Respect to Financing for facilities of Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc. and Center Park Senior Apartments, Inc. * b. Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of Patrick J. Boran for His Dedicated Public Service on the Financial Commission * c. Giving Final Approval to Year H of the Brooklyn Center Business Retention /Job Expansion Program * d. Authorizing Mayor and City Manager to Execute Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County for Year XIX Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program * e. Approving Purchase Agreement for Acquisition of Real Property for Storm Water Pond Improvement Project No. 1992 -29 -As authorized by the City Council on 6/28/93, Evergreen Land Services, Inc., has negotiated with the owners of the 4.1 acre vacant property in the southwest quadrant of the Brooklyn Boulevard /I -694 interchange and has submitted a purchase agreement, signed by the owners, for consideration by the City Council. * f. 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 - Funding for this work is included in the 1993 operating budget for the Government Buildings Division of the Public Works Department. Acceptance of the low bid submitted is recommended. * g. Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Diseased Trees (Order No. Dst 09/13/93) * h. Authorizing Issuance of a Lawful Gambling License to the Brooklyn Center Lions Club to Operate a Pull -Tab Booth at the Earle Brown Bowl * i. Authorizing Issuance of a Lawful Gambling License to the Brooklyn Center Lions Club to Operate a Pull -Tab Booth at the Lynbrook Bowl * 13. Licenses 14. Adjournment September 9, 1993 To: City Council, City of Brooklyn Center Fr s N From: Northeast Neighborhood Property Owners in number g p m' dZ, � Re: Petition in opposition to Special Use Permit Application # 93010 by Holiday Station Stores, Inc., to construct and operate a 24 hour gas station - convenience store- car wash located in the Southeast quadrant of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North. Whereas, the elected representatives of Brooklyn Center are the community governmental f guardians of the general welfare of residents and property owners as outlined under Section 35- 220 - -- Special Use Permits- - - - - "A special use permit may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met: (a) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. (b) The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property j in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. (c) The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district....." Whereas, the Northeast Neighborhood (bounded by the Mississippi River on the east, 694 on the south, Brooklyn Park City boundary on the north at 73rd Ave. N., and Hwy 252 on the west, with only two points of exit and entrance being 73rd Ave. N. and 66th Ave N.) is composed of approximately 188 owner occupied single family residences. In addition the area includes seven 12 -plex rental units, one vacant apartment building owned by the City, a motel, and the Premier Mechanical, Inc. building, the site of land for which Holiday seeks the special use permit. Whereas, the Northeast Neighborhood home owners have chosen Brooklyn Center and this particular neighborhood as the 'place they want to live with pride in a community that earned ALL AMERICAN CITY status, demonstrating their pride through care for, and improvements to their property, they now unite in citizenship against this application for special use that threatens their rights outlined in the above three criteria. Whereas, with a 24 hour gas station - convenience store (Super America) already existing in the southwest quadrant of 252 -66th Ave. N, Holiday has presented no evidence that the Neighborhood needs, desires, or would use their proposed business, the special use would pull its customers from people living north of Brooklyn Center to the detriment of Brooklyn Center residents. • Whereas, Hwy 252 is a major north -south traffic belt, Brooklyn Park has experienced a 24% population increase in the past 13 years and has added 2,618 single family homes in the past 5 years. Adding in the population growth in Champlin, Coon Rapids, Anoka and other communities the result is for 252 traffic flow increasing by the thousands of vehicles per day. According to Minnesota Depart. of Transportation ( MNDOT) the north - south daily traffic count south of 66th Ave N. increased from 44,000 in 1988 to 53,000 in 1990 - - -a 20% increase. 66th Ave. N traffic increased by 25% during that period. The Metro.Council and MNDOT project another 15% increase by the year 2000. Whereas, the east side access of 66th Ave. N, having been twice recently redesigned, has 32% narrower traffic lanes than the west side by Super America, has to northbound acceleration lane (separate from the MTC bus stop) to handle more right turners, is already given • the highest intersection congestion rating by MNDOT with only an 8 second green and a 2 second yellow for cars attempting to exit the Neighborhood. The addition of a gas station - store -car wash, or any other high traffic business, would create a gridlock at peak times depriving existing property owners of movement in, and out of the neighborhood. Neighborhood homeowners north of 66th Ave. would be negatively affected as cars drive up to the 73rd Ave exit to avoid congestion. Whereas, the east 66th Ave exit is already dangerous with the traffic volume, chronic red light runners and the short green lights for MTC and other pedestrians, school bus stop and turn- around, and bicyclists (new Trail System passes through), the increased traffic from Holiday's special use application would significantly endanger public safety. Whereas, single family residences are buffered from Super America by a ring of R 3 and R 5 land uses ranging from 1,920 to 540 feet (the closest homes are on Willow Lane), the proposed special use Holiday facility would be only 200 feet away from these Willow Lane homes. Even the applicant admits that it is not possible to protect these property owners from light glare. Add to this the noise and wind blown litter and these home owners will be negatively impacted to a significant degree. Whereas, the proposed special use will act as a magnet for social problems as it has at Super America (199 police calls 12 months prior to August 25, 1993 steady from the 191 police calls-12 months prior to October of 1991); further taxing our police force and exerting a negative influence on the Neighborhood. Whereas, all of the above cited negative results from the granting the special use permit would decrease the number of people interested in buying into the neighborhood, property values would decline and owners would stop upgrading their homes. Therefore, be it resolved, with criteria A, B, & C having not been met, the Council act in the rightful interests of the Neighborhood and the city by denying special use permit #93010. Be it also resolved, Council take a pro- active posture to seek a permanent solution to the interests of the Neighborhood and the owner of the land at issue. t • These signatures of Brooklyn Center property owners are in support the afore attached petition: POSITION OF OPPOSITION Special Use Application #93010 by Holiday Stations - Superstores Inc. for Reasons Above Signature Address Phone # Date ZF 31 0 JCI& _ A (N ,iii 7� l X- "-••- v 1 � f 1 i These signatures of Brooklyn Center property owners are in support the afore attached petition: POSITION Or OPPOSITION Special Use Application #93010 by Holiday Stations - Superstores Inc. for Reasons Above Signature Address Phone # Date p , ij - Mi'7 t f �r ( l `-cam Z� 0 ' U" J -C Zh� A&V LI . These signatures of Brooklyn Center property owners are in support the afore attached 4 petition: ; t POSITION OF OPPOSITION Special Use Application #93010 by Holiday Stations - Superstores Inc. for Reasons Above Signature Address Phone # Date 1 - &IC r J r 'D A L1 �t S �cP /''' ' O f - -71 k -IJ t 1 *These signatures of Brooklyn Center property owners are in support the afore attached t petition: POSITION OF OPPOSITION Special Use Application #93010 by Holiday Stations- Superstores Inc. for Reasons Above ' Signatu Address Phone # Date c Jr 3 i ' v 9o , •, X/�-) _ � (0a CO �� �Ok-„�- } These signatures of Brooklyn Center property owners are in support the afore attached petition: POSITION OF OPPOSITION Special Use Application #93010 by Holiday Stations- Superstores Inc. for Reasons Above i Si ature Address Phone # Date 1 ei &01L � v_ TV r � i t signatures of Brooklyn Center prop owners are in s u p port These sign yn p p y the afore attached . petition: POSITION OF OPPOSITION Special Use Application #93010 by Holiday Stations - Superstores Inc. for Reasons Above Signature Address Phone # Date �23 7V 9 i i A MA dI VIr 1 t 1 f c t • These signatures of Brooklyn Center property owners are in support the afore attached petition: i E POSITION OF OPPOSITION Special Use Application #93010 by Holiday Stations - Superstores Inc. for Reasons Above Signature Address Phone # Date ` - 7Qo b- �� / 6L r e0 1�11�GG19r -v� i I - 7Z3 - 7 ,� ref K7E 3'7 ; 40 4- y j ,z� y3 I I • These signatures of Brooklyn Center property owners are in support the afore attached petition: ' POSITION OF OPPOSITION Special Use Application #93010 by Holiday Stations- Superstores Inc. for Reasons Above { Signature Address Phone # Date /I�z D-Amoum, Its Who�IrLA�O�- A)O- ' -70 Caw- �LIM3 4 ` Q 3 kc Z�I&e-re 7z 1040&j WilZo � q %���j f f 1 support *These signatures of Brooklyn Center property own ers are in the afore attached petition: POSITION OF OPPOS[TION Special Use Application #93010 by Holiday Stations - Superstores Inc. for Reasons A bove , Signature Address Phone # Date r, 77 These signatures of Brooklyn Center property owners are in support the afore attached t petition: POSMON OF OPPOSMON Special Use Application #93010 by Holiday Stations - Superstores Inc. for Reasons Above Signature Address Phone # Date 733 WA�,q 47� all § P 11VLt; t a,- L � " 1 1 i These signatures of Brooklyn Center property owners are in support the afore attached t petition: POSITION OF OPPOSITION Special Use Application #93010 ! by Holiday Stations - Superstores Inc. for Reasons Above Signature Address Phone # Date A Lig t � - These signatures of Brooklyn Center property owners are in support the afore attached petition: POSITION OF OPPOSITION Special Use Application #93010 by Holiday Stations- Superstores Inc. for Reasons Above Signature Address Phone # Date At i c I These signatures of Brooklyn Center property owners are in support the afore attached petition: POSITION OF OPPOSITION Special Use Application #93010 by Holiday Stations- Superstores h for Reasons Above Signature Address Phone # Date 4 Irw i �-- _ y i F 0 These signatures of Brooklyn Center property owners are in support the afore attached petition: F f POSITION OF OPPOSITION Special Use Application #93010 , by Holiday Stations - Superstores Inc. for Reasons Above - , Address Phone # Date rz C� t- y� CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 9/13/93 Agenda Item Number — 7 ¢ b REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 16, 1993 - SPECIAL SESSION CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 23, 1993 - REGULAR SESSION DEPT. APPROVAL: Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONEWENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION 70-- 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 AUGUST 16, 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 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Todd Paulson, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Dave Rosene, and Barb Kalligher. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Finance Director Charlie Hansen, Director of Community Development Brad Hoffman, Chair of Financial Commission Donn Escher, City Assessor Mark Parish, Financial Commissioners Ned Storla, Ron Christensen, Denis Kelly and Council Secretary Debbie Wolfe. Resident Louie Larson appeared before the Council to discuss his issue of how the City Police handled an incident of damage to his property. Mr. Larson stated he has received no cooperation from the Police Chief and is seeking City Council action on the matter. Mayor Paulson suggested Mr. Larson seek the services of the North Hennepin Mediation Services which would involve a meeting between the Police Chief, Mr. Larson, and a mediator. Mayor Paulson explained to Mr. Larson the role of the mediator' and stated if the problem cannot be solved through mediation, Mr. Larson may wish to use arbitration. The City Manager stated he will contact the North Hennepin Mediation Services and schedule an appointment at the earliest convenience for the Police Chief and Mr. Larson, and would call Mr. Larson to advise him of the appointment. APPOINTMENT OF BROOKLYN BOULEVARD TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP The Director of Community Development reviewed the names of residents who have indicated a strong desire to serve on the Brooklyn Boulevard Task Force. Mayor Paulson presented a list of proposed Task Force Members as being: Dianne Reem, 6225 Chowen Avenue North Mark Holmes, 7207 Grimes Avenue North Bob Mickelson, 4006 Winchester Lane Bill Bartram, Brookdale Chrysler Dave Nelson, Uhde /Nelson 8/16/93 - 1 - Frank Slawson, Marquette Bank Janis Blumentals, Chamber of Commerce Dr. Duane Orn, Northport Medical Lee Cook, Jr., 5341 Brooklyn Boulevard Dr. David Monson, 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard Phyllis Owens, 6520 Brooklyn Boulevard Joan Gilbaugh, 5717 Brooklyn Boulevard Don Rosen, 6850 Brooklyn Boulevard Marty Iten, Iten Chevrolet Perry Watson, Brookdale Dodge Charles Gustafson, 3801 66th Avenue North Lee Anderson, 5344 North Lilac Drive Ron Christensen, 6101 June Avenue North Councilmember Scott asked the Community Development Director how many members should the task force have. The Community Development Director responded they had originally discussed 13 -15 members. Mayor Paulson suggested the group have an odd number of members to eliminate a vote tie situation. Councilmember Rosene stated he would be in favor of appointing all those who expressed an interest to the Task Force and does not see a need to limit the size of the group as probably all will not be in attendance at every meeting. Councilmember Scott stated an odd number does not matter since the Task Force will not be voting, only sending recommendations for Council approval. Mayor Paulson agreed all 19 should be appointed to the Task Force. Motion by Councilmember Scott, seconded by Councilmember Rosene to confirm the Mayor's appointment of 19 members to the Brooklyn Boulevard Task Force, as presented. Motion passed unanimously. PRESENTATION OF 1994 PRELIMINARY BUDGET The City Manager reviewed the 1994 Preliminary Budget for the Councilmembers and Financial Commissioners present. He stated the proposed property tax increase was due to: Budget Growth, Tax Base Decline, and Other Revenue Losses. The City Manager reviewed the Budget Growth Factors as being: ► Major increase in Capital Outlay (replacement equipment, delayed equipment purchases from previous years, and purchases of equipment for productivity improvement). 8/16/93 -2- ► Approximately 3 % inflation on City purchases. ► Continuing 6.5 % sales tax on City purchases. et abor, materials and contracts - no capital outlay) is u Operating Bud g � � P Y) P $112,878 (1.11 %) from 1993 level $10,178,000 to Preliminary 1994 level $10,291,000. The Tax Base Decline Factors are: ► Commercial /Industrial and Apartment values have declined shifting taxes to residential homesteads. ► Classification rate changes by legislature reduced some Commercial /Industrial and non - homestead residential tax capacity. The Other Revenue Loss Factors include: ► Fines and Forfeitures. ► Business Licenses. ► Lodging Tax. ► Recreation Fees. ► Estimated 2% property tax uncollectible. The City Manager noted most of the figures are still preliminary and the final numbers will not be available until September 15, 1993 or later; however, the budget and preliminary levy must be approved by the Council prior to September 15. The City Manager further reviewed the details of the preliminary budget and answered Councilmembers and Commissioners uestions in general. q g Councilmember Kalligher raised the issue of the revenue from the Pool and asked if there would be an increase in admission prices for next ear. The Finance Director responded the Y Po Y are anticipating a 25 or 50 cent increase per person. Councilmember Kalligher stated she would like to see the admission price decreased to allow the cost to be more affordable by the residents. Councilmember Scott suggested the area schools be contacted and advised the pool is available for rental use by the schools. The City Assessor reviewed the tax base for the City is broken down as follows: 93% Residential 4% Apartment 3% Commercial/Industrial 8/16/93 - 3 - These percentages are based on the number of parcels. Another viewpoint looked at was by market value which showed: 58% Residential 34% Commercial /Industrial 8% Apartment The City Assessor further explained the taxes in 1993 came from: 25.7% Residential 11.0% Apartment 63.3% Commercial /Industrial and the projections for 1994 are: 61.7% Commercial /Industrial 27.3% Residential 11.0% Apartment For property taxes, 1 - 2 % of value is paid by residential properties, while 6 % of value is paid by Commercial /Industrial. Financial Commissioner Kelly arrived at 8:05 p.m. The Financial Commission Chair suggested the City give consideration to no sal increases gg Y g �3' for City employees for a full year and asked what dollar amount would be saved for the year. The City Manager stated it would save approximately $35,000 for each 1/2% of salaries. The Councilmembers asked about detail on certain budget items and Mayor Paulson stated the Council will be provided with a breakdown of the budget in mid - October for their review. Councilmember Kalligher asked if the budget contained the two new Police Department officers. The City Manager responded no, it included an addition of two police officers when and if the City goes to County Dispatch. Councilmember Kalligher reminded the City Manager and Councilmembers that the residents were promised by the Council two officers would be added to the, Police Force. The City Manager responded if that is the Council's desire, the budget number would have to be increased $110,000 to allow for the addition of two police officers. Councilmember Kalligher stated she would like to see the Council give the residents something they asked for and were promised. Councilmember Scott asked the status of the conversion to County Dispatch. The City Manager responded more information is coming from the County and he will share it after confirming certain information. A presentation will be made to the Council at an upcoming Council Meeting. 8/16/93 -4- is i Resident Nancy Carlson stated the residents would rather see foot patrol officers than Sergeants sitting behind a desk. Ms. Carlson further questioned the amount for legal services and suggested the City hire an attorney to handle all legal matters. The City Manager responded the cost for legal services involves more than one attorney and one person hired by the City could not handle the workload. Ms. Carlson stated some of the social services the City handles is a duplication of County services and should be discontinued. The City Manager responded there is no duplication of services between the City and County. Mayor Paulson asked staff to prepare two options with dollar amounts, one for adding two officers, and another adding two officers plus two dispatchers. Mayor Paulson also requested a dollar savings if a salary freeze were possible. The City Manager agreed to prepare options detailing suggestions from the Council. The City Manager asked when the Council would like to vote on the Preliminary Budget and suggested the September 13, 1993, or last meeting in August. Councilmember Kalligher stated she will not be present at the August meeting. The City Manager suggested the item be put on the agenda for discussion only at the August meeting and the vote take place at the September 13, 1993, meeting. The Chair of the Financial Commission thanked the Council for allowing the Financial Commission to sit in on the Budget Review and announced that Pat Boran has recently resigned from the Finance Commission. Mayor Paulson read Pat Boran's letter of resignation. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Kalligher and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Debbie Wolfe Timesaver Off Site Secretarial 8/16/93 -5 - -1 b 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 AUGUST 23, 1993 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Todd Paulson at 7 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Todd Paulson, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Dave Ro�ene, and Kristen Mann. Councilmember Barb Kalligher was excused from tonight's meeting. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Finance Director Charlie Hansen, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, Director of Community Development Brad Hoffman, and Council Secretary Kathy Stratton. OPENING CEREMONIES Mr. Jim McCluskey offered the invocation. OPEN FORUM Mayor Paulson noted the Council had received no requests to use the open forum session this evening. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular agenda items. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Mann took this opportunity to declare her rejection of Resolution No. PP h' J 93 -126 titled "Declaring Disapproval of the Remarks of a Councilmember" passed by the Council on August 9, 1993, on the basis its passage suppressed her right of free speech and due rocess. She pointed n out i reference to her remarks at the June 28 1993 P P > Council meeting, that she was quoting from a public record, a court transcript, and violated no part of Resolution No. 93 -06. She urged the Council to rescind Resolution No. 93 -126 so as not to establish a precedent and added her belief that the public should be made aware of the resolution. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Paulson inquired if any Councilmember requested any items be removed from the consent agenda. There was no such request. 8/23/93 - 1 - APPROVAL OF MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1993 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve the minutes of August 9, 1993, regular session as printed. The motion passed unanimously. PROCLAMATION Member Celia Scott introduced the following proclamation and moved its adoption: PROCLAMATION DECLARING SEPTEMBER 17, 1993, AS CITIZENSHIP DAY AND SEPTEMBER 17 THROUGH 23, 1993, AS CONSTITUTION WEEK The motion for the adoption of the foregoing proclamation was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 93 -127 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIAL STORAGE CABINETS FOR USE AT CITY GARAGE, AND AMENDING THE 1993 BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS THEREFORE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 93 -128 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF EARLE BROWN NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS, BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER EMPLOYEES FOR THEIR WORK ON THE 1993 METRO PAINT- A -THON The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. 8/23/93 - 2 - RESOLUTION NO. 93 -129 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES (ORDER NO. DST 08/23/93) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve the following list of licenses: AMUSEMENT DEVICES - VENDOR D.V.M. Inc dba Dahlco 296 North Pascal GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLES Midwest Grease Buyers, Inc. P.O. Box 26 Nash and Sons Hauling 2301 93rd Way MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Ace Mechanical Services, Inc. 5217 190th Lane Minnesota Heating & A/C 10701 93rd Ave. N., Suite B. O'Brien Sheetmetal 144 Glenwood Avenue Residential Heating & Air, Inc. 19000 Easton Road RENTAL DWELLINGS Keith Nordby 5960 Brooklyn Blvd. George Shimshock 5900 Colfax Ave. N. Dale Wegner 5935 Dupont Ave. N. David Wagtskjold 6845 Willow Lane George McMullen 2401 -03 54th Ave. N. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - CONTINUED AUGUST 2, 1993 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Mann to approve the minutes of August 2, 1993, regular session as printed. The motion passed unanimously with Councilmember Rosene abstaining from voting. 8/23/93 -3 - ORDINANCES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING MULTI - FAMILY SIGNS The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances Regarding Multi - Family Signs. He stated this ordinance amendment is offered tonight for first reading. There was a motion made by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve first reading of An Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances Regarding Multi - Family Signs. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Paulson addressed the issue of aesthetics on signage and asked what the Council can do to make signs more pleasing. The City Manager answered there should be a standard, and the Planning Commission could be requested make a recommendation. Councilmember Scott suggested other cities with similar situations be contacted by City staff. The Director of Community Development stated it is currently the charge of the Planning Commission to look into setting standards on signage. The City Manager added research on signage is included in the Brooklyn Boulevard Study. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 27 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING ON- STREET SOLICITING AND VENDING BY CATERING FOOD VEHICLES The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 27 of the City Ordinances Regarding On- Street Soliciting and Vending by Catering Food Vehicles. He stated this ordinance was first read on July 26, 1993, was published in the City's official newspaper on August 4, 1993, and is offered tonight for a public hearing and second reading. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 27 of the City Ordinances Regarding On- Street Soliciting and Vending by Catering Food Vehicles at 7:13 p.m. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. No one appeared to do so. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. 8/23/93 -4 - ORDINANCE NO. 93 -07 Member Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 27 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING ON- STREET SOLICITING AND VENDING BY CATERING FOOD VEHICLES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEM 1994 PRELIMINARY LEVY AND BUDGET The City Manager presented the 1994 Preliminary Budget and Property Tax Levy Report and indicated new information has been received on fiscal disparities which will reduce property tax increase since the printing of the reports. He added the Council will be provided with updated reports including any further changes priot, to the next meeting and apologized for any confusion these changes may cause. He explained the report contained two versions of the budget; the first version provided for basically the current level of services, and the second version increases the level of services with the addition of two police officers. Councilmember Mann asked if there was office space to accommodate additional officers. The City Manager replied it might be a problem. Councilmember Mann stressed she would like to know how the citizens feel about the adding of police officers. Mayor Paulson asked if the Council has specific desires regarding the two possible versions of the budget to which the City Manager responded no action is necessary at this time. Councilmember Rosene expressed appreciation to Staff for the compilation of these reports for reviewal by the Council. Councilmember Scott communicated her desire to have as much information ahead of time as possible. The City Manager assured her staff would provide written reports. Mayor Paulson commented there should be a Council meeting addressing the impact of a salary freeze on the budget. The City Manager indicated this information would also be provided. RESOLUTIONS - CONTINUED The City Manager presented a Resolution Approving Amendment to Technical Services Agreement with Strgar Roscoe Fausch Relating to Storm Water Pond Improvement No. 1992 -29 and to the Proposed Park and Ride Facility; and Approving Supplemental Agreement with Metropolitan Transit Commission for the Reimbursement of Costs for Studies Relating to the Proposed Park and Ride Facility. 8/23/93 - 5 - I The Director of Public Works explained staff will need the assistance of MTC staff and Strgar Roscoe Fausch to provide the technical ability to deal with issues raised by citizens. He further explained the City's cost will be $3,575, with MTC paying the remaining $9,850. I Councilmember Scott asked why the wetland property had to be re- delineated. The City Manager explained the owner has challenged the City's initial determination because it has a profound effect on the value of the property. The Director of Public Works stated this work will only be done if the property owners continue to demand it noting that negotiations P are currently in process. RESOLUTION NO. 93 -130 Councilmember Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT TO TECHNICAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH STRGAR ROSCOE FAUSCH RELATING TO STORM WATER POND IMPROVEMENT NO. 1992 -29 AND TO THE PROPOSED PARK AND RIDE FACILITY; AND APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH METROPOLITAN TRANSIT COMMISSION FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS FOR STUDIES RELATING TO THE PROPOSED PARK AND RIDE FACILITY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene. The motion passed unanimously with Mayor Paulson abstaining from voting. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded 'by Councilmember Scott to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 7 :30 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Kathy Stratton TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial I I 8/23/93 - 6 - 0 I CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 913/93 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS REGARDING PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, hi ector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached YES The series of public hearings scheduled tonight are the annual hearings to . consider certification of proposed special assessments. The Council called for these public hearings at its July 26, 1993 regular Council meeting. All potentially affected property owners have been notified by certified mail of the date of the public hearing and the amount of the proposed assessment. Recommended Procedure Hold each hearing one at a time. 1 ) Request staff report 2) Council discussion 3) Open public hearing 4) Close public hearing 5) Council consideration of certification of levy roll As of September 8, no written objections to any proposed special assessments have been received. Should an objection be filed with the Clerk prior to the public hearing, or should any person appear at the hearing and object to the assessment, it is recommended that the Council: • refer any objections to staff for a report back to the Council at a continued hearing. The objector would be notified in advance of the date of that continued hearing, and • consider removing the objected -to assessment from the proposed levy roll and adopting the remaining proposed assessments. The following additional information may be helpful when considering adoption of the proposed special assessments. Objections and Appeals Chapter 429 of the Minnesota Statutes sets forth special assessment procedures and regulations. Statutes require a hearing at which time property owners may object to or contest their own assessment. The Council must consider both written or verbal objections at the hearing. If a property owner wishes to appeal the levy of a special assessment to district court, he or she must file a signed, written objection to the assessment either before or at the hearing. Objections The Council may wish to consider some objections at the hearing. However, in some cases the Council may wish to defer consideration of any substantive objections until a future meeting by continuing the public hearing as to that assessment. Substantive objections include those which would require further information and investigation, and any contested assessments. Appeals An owner may appeal an assessment to district court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the mayor or the clerk of the city within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the district court within ten days after service upon the mayor or clerk. Deferral for Senior Citizens and Disabled Persons Minnesota Statutes Sections 435.193 through 435.195 authorize municipalities to offer deferrals of special assessments certified to properties owned by qualifying senior citizens and persons retired due to total and permanent disability. No other types of deferrals, such as on the basis of income, are authorized. City policy allows qualified senior citizens and disabled persons to defer some or all of a special assessment. As amended in 1990, the following requirements apply: 1. The property must be homesteaded. 2. The property owner or spouse must be of at least 65 years of age or retired due to permanent and total disability. 3. Household income may not exceed $21,650. The policy states that the maximum annual payment that qualifying property owners would be required to make would be 1.5 percent of household income. In other words, if the household income was $10,000, the maximum annual payment on all special assessments would be $150. Special assessments levied for failure to pay, such as for delinquent public utility charges, or for non- compliance with City ordinances, such as for weed destruction, may not be considered for deferment. Interested persons may apply by contacting the City Engineering office. They will be asked to fill out two forms, one a City application and one a Hennepin County application, and to provide proof of income such as the previous year's income tax form. Staff will then calculate the maximum annual payment, determine the sum of annual payments on all outstanding special assessments on the property, and will calculate the amount of the deferral. The deferred portion of the assessment is certified to Hennepin County as a separate levy. The principle accrues interest until the deferred levy is paid, usually as a result of sale of the property. Payment Options Available to Property Owners Once an assessment roll is adopted by the Council, the owner of each property has the following payment options: 1. Pay P the entire amount of the special assessment without interest if payment is made within 30 days of the date of adoption by the Council. 2. If payment is made between the 30th day following adoption and November 30, pay the entire amount plus interest from October 1 to the date of the payment. 3. Payment on an installment basis, with the owner's annual property tax payments, including interest charges accrued to December 31 for each year in which payment is made. 4. After installment payments have begun, payment of the outstanding balance at any time prior to November 15 of any year, including interest on the outstanding balance accrued to December 31` of that year. The term of the installments varies, to reflect the anticipated life of the improvement. (Example: weed removal assessments are levied on a single- installment basis, whereas street improvements are levied on a 10 or 20 year basis.) The term of the levy is shown in the "Levy Information" section of each of the proposed assessment rolls. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Conduct each of the following hearings according to the process detailed in the first section above. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF :BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE: 569 -3300 C ENTER FAX: 569 -3494 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE August 11, 1993 911 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed are the following 3 documents: (1) an official Notice of Public Hearing on proposed special assessments affecting your property; (2) a copy of the proposed special assessment roll pertaining to your property; and (3) the levy roll information sheet. The public hearing on these special assessments has been scheduled for September 13, 1993 in City Hall. If you have any objections to the assessments, please follow the procedures outlined within the official Notice of Public Hearing. Special assessment charges for your property are highlighted on the enclosed proposed special assessment levy roll. The total principle will be payable in equal annual installments for the period stated on the levy roll information sheet. Interest is paid on the unpaid balance; the rate of interest is estimated to be 9 percent. (The actual interest rate will be determined by the City Council.) The total principle amount of special assessments may be re aid without interest to the City Treasurer P P Y within 30 days after the adoption by the City Council of the resolution levying the assessments. If the Council certifies your special assessment at the September 13 hearing, (you may pay the assessment in full, without interest, any time between September 14 and October 13, 1993). If payment is made on or after October 14 but before November 30, the total principle amount of the assessment may be prepaid with interest calculated from October 1, 1993 to the date of, the payment. The City cannot accept partial prepayments of assessments. If you choose to make installment payments with your property taxes, the first payment will be due with your taxes in 1994. The first installment will include 15 months interest, from October 1, 1993 to December 31, 1994. Interest for one year on the remaining balance will be added to each subsequent installment when due. If after making some installment payments you which to pay off the balance of your special assessment, you may do so prior to November 30 of any year. If you have any questions regarding the amount of this assessment, please contact the City Engineering Office at 569 -3340. If you have any questions regarding payment, please contact the City Assessor's Office at 569 -3310. IMPORTANT NOTE: please refer to the notice of public hearing for information regarding deferral of special assessments and auxiliary aids for handicapped persons. Sincerely, 19E6ALLAIOICACf1Y '� Diane F. Spector Public Works Coordinator CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ! Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, will meet at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, on Monday, September 13, 1993, at 8 P.M. local time, to hear and pass upon all objections, if any, to the proposed assessments for the following improvements: DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL COSTS It is proposed to assess the cost of diseased shade tree removal to those tracts or parcels where trees were removed during 1992 by written agreement with the property owner or by order of the City Council pursuant to City Ordinances, Section 19 -1501 through 19 -1506. DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY ACCOUNTS It is proposed to assess public utility charges to those tracts or parcels where such charges were delinquent as of July 1, 1993, and, after due notice to the property owner, remain unpaid. This assessment is made pursuant to City Ordinances, Sections 4 -105 and 16 -204. DELINQUENT WEED DESTRUCTION ACCOUNTS It is proposed to assess the cost of noxious weed destruction to those tracts or parcels where, pursuant to City Ordinance Section 19 -1601 through 19 -1604, noxious weeds were destroyed by order of the city Weed Inspector and the cost for such destruction, having been billed to the property owner, remains unpaid. PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIRS It is proposed to assess the cost of public utility repairs to those tracts or arcels where the property P_ P P Y owner did not undertake required utility repairs and said repairs were performed by or on behalf of the City, pursuant to City Ordinance, Section 4 -201, Subdivision 7. STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 90 -10 Street construction, including storm sewer improvements, including subgrade preparation, installation of concrete curb and gutter, and bituminous paving. The amount proposed to be assessed is $151,114.80. It is proposed to assess all properties which abut that part of 69th Avenue North from a point approximately 50 feet east of the centerline of June Avenue North to a point approximately 500 feet east of the NW corner of Section 35, Township 119, Range 21, which are not zoned R -1, or which are zoned R -1 and currently used for a non - single family residential purpose. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION FOR OBJECTIONS TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS - An owner may appeal an assessment to district court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or Clerk of the City within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the district court within ten days after service upon the Mayor or Clerk. No such appeal as to the amount of an assessment as to a specific parcel of land may be made unless the owner has filed a written objection to that assessment, signed by the affected property owner, with the City Clerk prior to the hearing or has presented such a written objection to the presiding officer at the hearing. These assessments are now on file at City Hall and open to public inspection. Written or oral objections to the proposed assessments will be considered at this meeting, but the City Council may consider any objection to the amount of a proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon such further notice to the affected property owners as it deems advisable. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION FOR DEFERRED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 435.193 to 435.195, the City Council may, at its discretion, defer the payment of some or all of this special assessment for any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older, or by a person retired due to permanent and total disability for whom it would be a hardship to make payment. The amount to be assessed is based on the applicant's income. The City Council has established the following qualifying conditions for applicants for deferred payment of special assessments: 1. Applicant or spouse must be 65 years of age or older, or retired due to permanent and total disability. 2. Annual household income may not exceed $21,650. 3. The aggregate total of previous special assessment installments plus the first year installment of the current levy must exceed one and one -half (1 -1/2) percent of the applicant's annual household income. The applicant will be required to pay a maximum of one and one -half (1 -112) percent of annual household income toward the special assessment; any excess can be deferred. 4. Special assessments levied due to a failure to pay charges for City services or failure to comply to City codes are not eligible for deferment and will not be included in calculating the aggregate total of annual special assessment installments. When deferment of special assessment terminates, for any reason provided in the law, all accumulated deferments plus applicable interest become due. Further information regarding deferred assessments and application forms are available at the City Engineering office, 569 -3340. Important Note: TO AL p QUALIFY FOR DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT APPLICATIONS MUST BE FILED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1, 1993. AUXILIARY AIDS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours (4 days) in advance of the hearing. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3350 to make arrangements. \1 K `Xmuj �y� Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk By order of the City Council Published in the Brooklyn Center Post on August 18, 1993. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 09/13/93 Agenda Item Numbe • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION *********************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL COSTS DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, 1514tor o blic Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: ' No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attar ed SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached YES On July 26, 1993 the City Council adopted Resolution 93 -119 providing for a public hearing regarding proposed assessments for tree removal costs. The purpose of this resolution is to certify these assessments to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls. All special assessments are for tree removal costs of trees declared a public nuisance in past City Council resolutions, and the trees have been removed by the City's tree contractor in accordance with the established policy. The special assessments recommended are to property owners who (1) have signed Tree Removal Agreements and requested that the costs be assessed to their taxes; (2) have been invoiced for but have failed to pay removal costs as agreed to in the before - mentioned agreements; or (3) have not responded to the City's order and have had trees removed in accordance with the procedure established when a property owner fails to respond to official notices (i.e. the public nuisance procedure). The amount to be assessed is computed as follows: $Removal Cost One -half the actual cost of removing the tree (i.e., the property owner's share of the cost charged by the City's tree contractor). If this tree is a forced removal of a private tree (i.e., the property owner did not comply with the order to remove the tree, and it was removed by the City's contractor), then this is the full cost of tree removal. • +$22 = One -half the administrative cost of removing the tree. +$30 = Special assessment administrative fee +$30 = Capitalized interest charge i.e. $ P i r g � , the interest the City charges for paying the cost of tree removal as much as 1' /2 years before the cost is assessed). All property owners have been duly notified by certified mail of this special assessment hearing. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Following the public hearing, the City Council should consider adoption of the attached resolution, which would certify the proposed special assessments for collection on the Hennepin County tax rolls. r ,. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL COSTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS WHEREAS, the Tree Inspector of the City of Brooklyn Center has caused the removal of trees on certain properties within the City during 1992 under the authority of Minnesota Statutes, Section 18.023 and by written agreement with the owners of such property; and WHEREAS, two assessment rolls, a copy of each of which are attached hereto and part hereof by reference, have been prepared by the City Clerk, one tabulating those properties where tree removal costs are less than $300 and one tabulating those properties where tree removal costs are greater than $300, together with the amounts proposed to be assessed to each property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for tree removal costs: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Said assessment rolls of tree removal costs are hereby adopted and certified as the following levies: Tree Removal costs less than or equal to $300: Levy No. 12804 Tree Removal costs greater than $300 Levy No. 12805 2. The assessments as adopted and confirmed shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of years as listed below. The first of the installments shall be payable with ad valorem taxes in 1994, and shall bear interest on the entire assessment from October 1, 1993 through December 31, 1994. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. a. Assessments less than or equal to $300.00 are payable in three annual installments. b. Assessments greater than $300.00 are payable in five annual installments. RESOLUTION N0, 3. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to the certification of the assessment to the County Auditor pay the whole of the assessment, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and he or she may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15, or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. 4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. 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 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL September 13, 1993 PROJECT INFORMATION LEVY INFORMATION Improvement Project No.: 1992 -10 Levy No.: 12804 Description: Cost of diseased tree removal to Fund /Code No.: 9017 -1370 those tracts or parcels where trees were removed in 1992, by written Levy Description: TREE REMOVAL 93 -3 agreement with the property owner or by order of the City Tree Inspector, at a total cost of less than $300 Levy runs three (3) years at an interest rate of nine Location: Various City Locations (9) percent. First payment, with property taxes payable in 1994 Improvement Hearing Date: N/A shall include fifteen (15) whole months' interest. I Improvement Ordered On: April 13, 1992 Date of Assessment Hearing: September 13, 1993 By Resolution No.: 92 -83 Adopted On: Assessment District: N/A By Resolution No.: Method of Apportionment: Direct cost , interest and administrative costs Corrections, Deletions, Or Deferments: Cost Summary From N/A Resolution No: TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COST: N/A Less Direct City Share: Less Other Payments: TOTAL TO BE ASSESSED: $1,281.50 City Property: Other Public Property: Private Property: $1,281.50 CITY OF BRSYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLL TREE REMOVAL 93 -3 MUNICIPAL CODE NO. 22 PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATION LEVY PROPERTY ADDN. Address Name Name NO. IDENTIFICATION NO. NO. AMOUNT Legal Description Mailing Address Mailinq Address 12804 03- 118 -21 -12 -0068 89667 $199.50 3612 Commodore Dr DEREK & CAROLE MONROE Lot 2, Block 6 3612 Commodore Dr PEARSON'S NORTHPORT 3RD ADDN Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12804 10- 118 -21 -14 -0027 89275 $222.00 4944 Zenith Ave N DONALD & PAULA MILLER Lot 12, Block 1 4944 Zenith Ave N BROOKLYN MANOR Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12804 33- 119 -21 -12 -0069 89628 $187.00 6819 Scott Ave N GEORGE STELMACK Lot 5, Block 2 6819 Scott Ave N NORDSTROM'S FIRST ADDITION Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12804 33- 119 -21 -13 -0005 89344 $132.00 5131 66th Ave N JACK & MARGARET TIMM Lot 7, Block 3 5131 66th Ave N DONNAYS BROOK LYN GARDENS 3RD ADDN Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12804 33- 119 -21 -41 -0052 89722 $132.00 6430 Perry Ave N ROBERT & DONNA CARLSON REGISTERED LAND SURVEY 6430 Perry Ave N NO. 0755, HENNEPIN COUNTY Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12804 34- 119 -21 -13 -0054 89265 $187.00 6512 Drew Ave N ANDREW & LISA HOCKERT Lot 11, Block 9 6512 Drew Ave N BROOKLANE Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12804 34- 119 -21 -44 -0002 89391 $222.00 3007 63rd Ave N ROBERT & GRACE GUILLE Lot 2, Block 2 3007 63rd Ave N GARDEN CITY 2ND ADDN Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 $1,281.50 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPECI L ASSESSMENT ROLL September 13, 1993 PROJECT INFORMATION LEVY INFORMATION Improvement Project No.: 1992 -10 Levy No.: 12805 Description: Cost of diseased tree removal to Fund /Code No.: 9017 -1370 those tracts or parcels where trees were removed in 1992, by written Levy Description: TREE REMOVAL 93 -5 agreement with the property owner or by order of the City Tree Inspector, at a total cost of greater than $300 Levy runs five (5) years at an interest rate of nine Location: Various City Locations (9) percent. First payment, with property taxes payable in 1994 Improvement Hearing Date: N/A shall include fifteen (15) whole months' interest. Improvement Ordered On: April 13, 1992 Date of Assessment Hearing: September 13, 1993 By Resolution No.: 92 -83 Adopted On: Assessment District: N/A By Resolution No.: Method of Apportionment: Direct cost , interest and administrative costs Corrections, Deletions, Or Deferments: Cost Summary From N/A Resolution No: TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COST: N/A Less Direct City Share: Less Other Payments: TOTAL TO BE ASSESSED: $6,876.40 City Property: Other Public Property: Private Property: $6,876.40 i CITY OF BROO ENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLL TREE REMOVAL 93 -5 MUNICIPAL CODE NO. 22 PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER ADDL NOTIFICATION LEVY PROPERTY ADDN. Address Name Name NO. IDENTIFICATION NO. NO. AMOUNT Legal Description Mailing Address Mailing Address 12805 01- 118 -21 -32 -0023 89001 $360.00 5616 Fremont Ave N JEFF & LONA PORTER UNPLATTED 01- 118 -21 5615 Fremont Ave N Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 12805 01- 118 -21 -33 -0106 89675 $614.00 5418 Fremont Ave N JEREMY BENVER Lot 25, Block 2 5418 Fremont Ave N N & E PERKINS ADDITION Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 TO MINNEAPOLIS 12805 01- 118 -21 -42 -0032 89395 $654.00 5614 Camden Ave N TERRY & LINDA BLUML Lot 37 5614 Camden Ave N GARCELON'S ADDITION Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 TO MINNEAPOLIS 12805 10- 118 -21 -14 -0012 89010 $754.00 4937 Brooklyn Blvd ROBERT NETTLE UNPLATTED 10- 118 -21 4937 Brooklyn Blvd Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12805 10- 118 -21 -14 -0028 89275 $615.40 4948 Zenith Ave N BLANCE RADIL Lot 13, Block 1 4948 Zenith Ave N BROOKLYN MANOR Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12805 33- 119 -21 -11 -0017 90015 $929.00 6831 Orchard Ave N RICKIE & MARY MORRIS Lot 2, Block 2 6831 Orchard Ave N H. SMILDEN'S ADDITION Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12805 33- 119 -21 -44 -0011 90086 $1,523.00 4921 63rd Ave N DONALD MILES /DEANA JOHNSON Lot 1, Block 1 4921 63rd Ave N WAITE'S ADDITION Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12805 34- 119 -21 -13 -0009 89100 $479.00 6520 Brooklyn Blvd PHYLLIS OWENS Lot 8 6520 Brooklyn Blvd AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 NO. 025, HENNEPIN COUNTY 12805 35- 119 -21 -44 -0012 03299 $569.00 6100 Summit Dr EARLE BROWN COMMONS LTD. REGISTERED LAND SURVEY 6100 Summit Dr. NO. 1603 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 CITY OF BROO*ENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLL TREE REMOVAL 93 -5 MUNICIPAL CODE NO. 22 PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER ADDL NOTIFICATION LEVY PROPERTY ADDN. Address Name Name NO. IDENTIFICATION NO. NO. AMOUNT Legal Description Mailing Address Mailing Address 12805 36- 119 -21 -32 -0045 89432 $379.00 6440 Humboldt Ave N DEANNA KIMBLE Lot 7, Block 2 6440 Humboldt Ave N HALEK'S 4TH ADDITION Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 $6,876.40 I CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 09/13/93 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR A DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIR ACCOUNT DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached YES ) On July 26, 1993 the City Council adopted Resolution 93 -119 providing for a public hearing regarding proposed assessment for a delinquent public utility repair account. The purpose of this resolution is to certify this assessment to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls. According to City ordinances, property owners are responsible for their water and sanitary sewer service lines: On occasion the Public Utility Supervisor notifies property owners of repair work which is needed, such as repairing a leaking service or replacing a curb stop. Public utility repair accounts are generated when the property owner elects not to have the work done, or fails to respond to the order, and the City either makes the repair or contracts with a private firm to effect the repair. The owner is then billed for the cost of this repair. The property owner has been notified of the delinquent status of his public utility repair account, in accordance with City ordinances. The property owner has been duly notified by certified mail of this special assessment hearing. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Following the public hearing, the City Council should consider adoption of the attached resolution, which would certify the proposed special assessment for collection in the Hennepin County tax rolls. 0 Bb Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR A DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIR ACCOUNT TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS WHEREAS, the records of the Finance Department list a certain public utility repair account delinquent as of August 1, 1993; and WHEREAS, the owner of record of the property benefitting from the utility repair has been notified of the delinquency according to legal requirements; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 444.075 and City Ordinances, Section 4 -105 authorize certification of such delinquent account to the County tax rolls for collection; and WHEREAS, an assessment roll, a copy of which is attached hereto and part hereof by reference, has been prepared by the City Clerk, tabulating the property where a delinquent public utility repair account is to be assessed with the amount, including service charges, to be assessed; and WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the delinquent public utility repair account. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Said assessment roll of delinquent public utility repair account is hereby adopted and certified as Levy No. 12808. 2. The assessment as adopted and confirmed shall be payable with ad valorem taxes in 1994, in one annual installment with interest thereon at nine (9) percent per annum, for a period of fifteen months from October 1, 1993 through December 31, 1994. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to the certification of the assessment to the County Auditor pay the whole of the assessment, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and he or she may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15, or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. RESOLUTION NO. 4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessment shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. 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 SPECI L ASSESSMENT ROLL September 13, 1993 PROJECT INFORMATION LEVY INFORMATION Improvement Project No.: N/A Levy No.: 12808 Description: City's cost of water service or Fund /Code No.: 9056 -1370 other utility repairs which are the property owners' responsibilty but Levy Description: UTILITY REPAIR 93 which the City performed Levy runs one (1) year at an interest rate of nine Location: Various City Locations (9) percent. First payment, with property taxes payable in 1994 Improvement Hearing Date: N/A shall include fifteen (15) whole months' interest. Improvement Ordered On: N/A Date of Assessment Hearing: September 13, 1993 By Resolution No.: N/A Adopted On: Assessment District: N/A By Resolution No.: Method of Apportionment: Direct cost and administrative costs Corrections, Deletions, Or Deferments: Cost Summary From N/A Resolution No: TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COST: N/A Less Direct City Share: Less Other Payments: TOTAL TO BE ASSESSED: $335.30 City Property: Other Public Property: Private Property: $335.30 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLL UTILITY REPAIR 93 MUNICIPAL CODE NO. 22 PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATION LEVY PROPERTY ADDN. Address Name Name NO. IDENTIFICATION NO. NO. AMOUNT Legal Description Mailing Address Mailing Address 12808 03- 118 -21 -11 -0010 89417 $335.30 3118 61st Ave N MICHAEL & DARLENE DALY Lot 9, Block 2 3118 61 st Ave N GREENLAWN Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 $335.30 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 09»3/93 Agenda Item Number l� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION *********************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, D' ector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attac ed SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached YES ) On Jul 26, 1993 the City Council adopted Resolution 93 -119 providing for a July Y P P g public hearing regarding proposed assessments for delinquent public utility service accounts. The purpose of this resolution is to certify these assessments to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls. These property owners have been notified of the delinquent status of their public utility service account, in accordance with City ordinances. All property owners have been duly notified by certified mail of this special assessment hearing. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Following the public hearing, the City Council should consider adoption of the attached resolution, which would certify the proposed special assessments for collection on the Hennepin County tax rolls. �c Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS WHEREAS, the records of the Public Utilities Department list certain accounts delinquent as of August 1, 1993; and WHEREAS, the owners of record of the properties served by each delinquent account have been notified of the delinquency according to legal requirements; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 444.075 and City Ordinances, Sections 4 -105 and 16 -204 authorize certification of such delinquent accounts to the County tax rolls for collection; and WHEREAS, an assessment roll, a copy of which is attached hereto and part hereof by reference, has been prepared by the City Clerk, tabulating those properties where a delinquent public utility service account is to be assessed with the amount, including interest and service charges, to be assessed; and WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for delinquent public utility accounts: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Said assessment roll of delinquent public utility service accounts is hereby adopted and certified as Levy No. 12807. 2. The assessments as adopted and confirmed shall be payable with ad valorem taxes in 1994, in one annual installment with interest thereon at nine (9) percent per annum, for a period of fifteen months from October 1, 1993 through December 31, 1994. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to the certification of the assessment to the County Auditor pay the whole of the assessment, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and he or she may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15, or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. RESOLUTION N0, 4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. 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. 0 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL September 13, 1993 PROJECT INFORMATION LEVY INFORMATION Improvement Project No.: N/A Levy No.: 12807 Description: Delinquent public utility service Fund /Code No.: 9056 -1370 charges Levy Description: DELINQUENT PUB UTIL 93 Levy runs one (1) year at an interest rate of nine Location: Various City Locations (9) percent. First payment, with property taxes payable in 1994 Improvement Hearing Date: N/A shall include fifteen (15) whole months' interest. Improvement Ordered On: N/A Date of Assessment Hearing: September 13, 1993 By Resolution No.: N/A Adopted On: Assessment District: N/A By Resolution No.: Method of Apportionment: Direct cost and administrative costs Corrections, Deletions, Or Deferments: Cost Summary From N/A Resolution No: TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COST: N/A Less Direct City Share: Less Other Payments: TOTAL TO BE ASSESSED: $20,847.32 City Property: Other Public Property: Private Property: $20,847.32 1 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLL DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITIES 93 MUNICIPAL CODE NO. 22 PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATION LEVY PROPERTY ADDN. Address Name Name NO. IDENTIFICATION NO. NO. AMOUNT Legal Description Mailing Address Mailing Address 12807 01- 118 -21 -13 -0032 89560 $354.04 5821 Lyndale Ave N LEONARD & JUDITH SCHOLLEN Lot 14 R. R. 2, Box 100 LYNDALE RIVERSIDE ACRES LeSueur, MN 56058 -9626 12807 01- 118 -21 -31 -0108 90050 $157.16 5621 Camden Ave N THOMAS & MARY CHAPMAN Lot 1 5621 Camden Ave N SUPER'S ADDITION Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 12807 01- 118 -21 -34 -0057 89225 $179.80 5405 Bryant Ave N MICHAEL & JODY SCHMAEDEKA Lot 4, Block 4 5405 Bryant Ave N BELLVUE ACRES Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 12807 02- 118 -21-41 -0075 89580 $105.71 5603 Knox Ave N FRANK & PATRICIA KREISER Lot 8, Block 3 6212 Sandpiper Court MEADOWLARK GARDENS Edina, MN 55436 12807 02- 118 -21-41 -0076 89580 $293.02 5602 Logan Ave N RICHARD ARMSTRONG Lot 9, Block 3 5602 Logan Ave N MEADOWLARK GARDENS Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 12807 02- 118 -21-44 -0133 89961 $293.02 5419 Humboldt Ave N LAWRENCE & PATRICIA MICKELSON Lot 2, Block 1 5419 Humboldt Ave N ROCKWELL'S SECOND ADDITION Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 12807 03- 118 -21 -11 -0010 89417 $180.57 3118 61st Ave N MICHAEL & DARLENE DALY Lot 9, Block 2 3118 61 st Ave N GREENLAWN Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12807 03- 118 -21 -21 -0119 90090 $261.95 4207 61st Ave N MARGARET M. EIDE Lot 4, Block 3 4207 61 st Ave N WANGSTAD'S BROOKLYN TERRACE Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 I 12807 10- 118 -21 -13 -0003 89010 $166.36 5001 Drew Ave N R & F APARTMENTS UNPLATTED 10- 118 -21 AKA D &B Enterprises 5182 W. Broadway Brooklyn Park, MN 55429 12807 10- 118 -21 -13 -0003 89010 $38.35 5001 Drew Ave N R & F APARTMENTS UNPLATTED 10- 118 -21 AKA D &B Enterprises 5182 W. Broadway Brooklyn Park, MN 55429 0 1 0 0 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLL DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITIES 93 MUNICIPAL CODE NO. 22 PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATION LEVY PROPERTY ADDN. Address Name Name NO. IDENTIFICATION NO. NO. AMOUNT Legal Description Mailing Address Mailing Address 12807 10- 118 -21-42 -0038 89963 $3,610.09 3401 47th Ave N RYAN LAKE PARTNERS -MN RYAN LAKE TERRACE 1660 Hwy. 100 S., Ste. 322 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 -1531 12807 28- 119 -21-43 -0053 90059 $53.28 6924 Unity Ave N MARGARITA GAMBOA Lot 7, Block 1 803 W 11th St THE PONDS Roswell, MN 88201 12807 33- 119 -21-41 -0060 89722 $147.66 6330 Perry Ave N JOYCE DOYLE (ESTATE) REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 0755 6330 Perry Ave N Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12807 34- 119 -21 -13 -0053 89265 $48.08 6506 Drew Ave N EARL A. LEE Lot 10, Block 9 6506 Drew Ave N BROOKLANE Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12807 35- 119 -21 -23 -0015 01424 $95.48 2812 67th Lane N THERESE MATTHEWS Lot 4, Block 1 2812 67th Lane N EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES 2ND ADDN Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 12807 35- 119 -21 -32 -0116 00963 $166.83 2801 66th Ave N DONALD & RACHEL KROGH Lot 6, Block 1 2801 66th Ave N EARLE BROWN 1ST ADDITION Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 12807 35- 119 -21-41 -0003 00259 $11,451.46 1501 Freeway Blvd INNCO REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1477 1501 Freeway Blvd. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 12807 35- 119 -21-41 -0003 00259 $51.47 1501 Freeway Blvd INNCO REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1477 1501 Freeway Blvd. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 12807 36- 119 -21 -21 -0116 89612 $42.62 6811 Colfax Ave N DAVID MILLER/JULIE NORMAN Lot 6, Block 1 6811 Colfax Ave N MORNINGSIDE ESTATES 2ND ADDN Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 12807 36- 119 -21 -22 -0047 89767 $2,478.84 6800 Humboldt Ave N ROBERT & ALICE FOLEY REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1312 216 S Dunlap St St. Paul, MN 55105 12807 36- 119 -21 -33 -0014 89621 $602.10 6120 Lilac Dr N ASSOCIATED FINANCIAL SERVICES Lot 24 REO Dept. EDWIN E. NELSON'S 2ND ADDITION 105 Decker Ct., #700 Irving, TX 75062 0 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLL DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITIES 93 MUNICIPAL CODE NO. 22 PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATION LEVY PROPERTY ADDN. Address Name Name NO. IDENTIFICATION NO. NO. AMOUNT Legal Description Mailing Address Mailing Address 12807 36 -119 -21-42 -0016 01417 $69.43 6357 Lilac Dr N LYN BROOK PARTNERS Lot 2, Block 1 850 Decatur Ave N LYNBROOK BOWL ADDITION Golden Valley, MN 55427 $20,847.32 I II, CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 09/1 • Agenda Item Number U� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION *********************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: , PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR WEED REMOVAL COSTS DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, erector of'Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /atta ed SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached YES ) i On July 26, 1993 the City Council adopted Resolution 93 -119 providing for a public hearing regarding proposed assessments for weed destruction accounts. The purpose of this resolution is to certify these assessments to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls. The property owners whose weed destruction accounts which are being certified due to nonpayment have received notice of their delinquent account in accordance with established collection policy and have not made payment. The amount to be assessed is computed as follows: $Weed cutter charge = The actual cost of weed cutting. The rate is $35 per hour, with a one hour minimum. +$50 = Inspection fee. This fee is only charged when a property is cited a second or subsequent time. +$30 = Special assessment administrative fee. +$10 Capitalized interest charge (i.e., the interest the City charges for paying the cost of weed destruction as much as 1' /2 years before the cost is assessed.) 40 All property owners have been duly notified by certified mail of this special assessment hearing. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Following the public hearing, the City Council should consider adoption of the attached resolution, which would certify the proposed special assessments for collection on the Hennepin County tax rolls. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR WEED REMOVAL COSTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS WHEREAS, the Weed Inspector of the City of Brooklyn Center has caused noxious weeds to be cut down on certain properties within the City under the authority of Minnesota Statutes, Section 18.271; and WHEREAS, the owners of record of such properties were notified in writing of the work done, and the costs and expenses involved, at least 30 days prior to September 13, 1993 in accordance with individual notice provisions of Subdivision 4 of Section 18.271; and WHEREAS, on August 1, 1993 there remained unpaid certain of these weed destruction accounts; and WHEREAS, assessment rolls for unpaid accounts from 1992, copies of which are attached hereto and part hereof by reference, have been prepared by the City Clerk, tabulating those properties where an unpaid weed destruction account is to be assessed with the amount to be assessed; and WHEREAS, said statute authorizes the certification of delinquent weed destruction accounts to the County tax rolls for collection; and WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for weed destruction costs: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Said assessment rolls of unpaid weed destruction accounts are hereby adopted and certified as Levy No. 12806. 2. The assessments as adopted and confirmed shall be payable with ad valorem taxes in 1994, in one annual installment with interest thereon at nine (9) percent per annum, for a period of fifteen months from October 1, 1993 through December 31, 1994. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to the certification of the assessment to the County Auditor pay the whole of the assessment, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and he or she may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in RESOLUTION NO. which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15, or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. 4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. 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. 1 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL September 13, 1993 PROJECT INFORMATION LEVY INFORMATION Improvement Project No.: N/A Levy No.: 12806 Description: Weed Removal Costs Fund /Code No.: 9001 -1370 Levy Description: WEED DESTRUCTION 93 Levy runs one (1) year at an interest rate of nine Location: Various City Locations (9) percent. First payment, with property taxes payable in 1994 Improvement Hearing Date: N/A shall include fifteen (15) whole months' interest. Improvement Ordered On: N/A Date of Assessment Hearing: September 13, 1993 By Resolution No.: N/A Adopted On: Assessment District: N/A By Resolution No.: Method of Apportionment: Direct cost and administrative costs Corrections, Deletions, Or Deferments: Cost Summary From N/A Resolution No: TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COST: N/A Less Direct City Share: Less Other Payments: TOTAL TO BE ASSESSED: $ 1,226.25 City Property: Other Public Property: Private Property: $ 1,226.25 1 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLL WEED DESTRUCTION 93 MUNICIPAL CODE NO. 22 PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATION LEVY PROPERTY ADDN. Address Name Name NO. IDENTIFICATION NO. NO. AMOUNT Legal Description Mailing Address Mailing Address 12806 02- 118 -21 -11 -0007 03299 $160.00 6000 Summit Dr. EVERGREEN DEVELOPMENT GROUP REG. LAND SURVEY #1603 P.O. BOX 10326 FARGO, ND 58106 -0326 12806 02- 118 -21 -31 -0029 90002 $267.50 2319 Brookview Dr MCGLYNN STEVEN C Block 2, Lot 2 2319 Brookview Dr. RYDEN'S THIRD ADDITION Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 12806 25- 119 -21 -41 -0020 89639 $125.00 7109 Willow Lane MARION CARLSON Lot 4, Block 3 7109 Willow Lane NORTH RIVER ESTATES Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 12806 27- 119 -21 -33 -0098 03111 $83.75 7100 Brooklyn Blvd LID CONTRACTING, INC. Lot 2, Block 1 3825 85th Ave. N. 7100 CORPORATE PLAZA 2ND ADDITION Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 12806 27- 119 -21 -34 -0052 89661 $160.00 7031 France Ave N SCOTT & CAROL BURNES Lot 3, Block 1 7031 France Ave N PALMER LAKE TERRACE 4TH ADDITION Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12806 33- 119 -21 -42 -0115 89343 $90.00 6318 Unity Ave N ABED & KHADRAH WAZWAZ Lot 10, Block 5 6318 Unity Ave N DONNAYS BROOK LYN GARDEN 2ND ADDITION Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12806 34- 119 -21 -11 -0076 89356 $125.00 3113 68th Ave N STEVEN & MYRNA CODDON Lot 5, Block 3 P.O. Box 175 ELSEN'S CITY VIEW 2ND ADDITION Mound, MN 55364 12806 34- 119 -21 -13 -0009 89100 $125.00 6520 Brooklyn Blvd PHYLLIS OWENS Lot 8 6520 Brooklyn Blvd AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 025 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12806 35- 119 -21 -32 -0116 00963 $90.00 2801 66th Ave N DONALD & RACHEL KROGH Lot 6, Block 1 2801 66th Ave N EARLE BROWN 1ST ADDITION Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 $1,226.25 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 09/13;93 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION *********************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR 69TH AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 DEPT. APPROVAL: fZ Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOM IENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attac ed SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached YES ) • On Jul 26 1993 the City Council adopted Resolution 93 -119 providing for public July � y P P g P hearing regarding proposed assessments for Street Improvement Project No. 1990- 10. The purpose of this resolution is to certify special assessments for this project to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls. All property owners have been duly notified by certified mail of this special assessment hearing. Improvement Project No. 1990 -10, (69th Avenue North Street Improvement Project), is a street reconstruction project and includes storm sewer improvements, sanitary sewer replacement, water main replacement, subgrade preparation, regrading, installation of concrete curb and gutter, bituminous paving, and construction of sidewalks and bikeways. A public hearing was held on March 26, 1990, and the improvement was ordered on March 26, 1990 by resolution 90 -66. The special assessments are intended to relate only to that portion of the project specifically relating to street construction, i.e., subgrade preparation, curb and gutter, and paving. Assessment Rates Unlike some street construction projects, the special assessments for this project are not intended to recapture a certain portion of the cost of the project. Rather, the rates used in calculating assessments are a combination of standard rates (per unit or per front foot) and commercial rates levied on similar projects, adjusted for inflation. • Properties Zoned R -1 Many of the R -1 properties along the project route are corner properties. Under City policy, these property owners are not assessed for street improvements on both sides. Property owners are allowed to choose which side they wish to be assessed for. At the time the 69th Avenue project was established, the Council by motion declared that, especially since so many of the properties which could be assessed were corner properties, R -1 zoned single family residential properties would not be assessed for the project. The proposed assessment roll does include one R -1 zoned property. The owner of this property, which is on the corner of Ewing and 68th, requested that since the street in front of his house was within the construction limits and was being reconstructed, that curb and gutter be installed in front of his house on Ewing, and that he be assessed at this time. When the City reconstructs Ewing Avenue, this property would not be assessed for improvements. He has agreed to pay the R -1 unit rate in effect at the time the project was established. Properties Zoned R -3 Under City policy, properties zoned R -3 (townhouses) are assessed at a per foot rate. That total assessment is then divided by the total number of units in the development, and levied equally to all the units. The 22 units of the Earle Brown Townhouses share the cost of the assessment for the 330 feet of frontage on 69th Avenue. Each townhouse is assessed 330 feet divided by 22 units times $21 per foot = $315.00 There are six properties west of France Avenue which are zoned R -3; one of those properties is owned by the City. These six properties are charged the rate of $21 times the front footage on 69th. Mound Cemetery, although zoned R -1, is proposed to be assessed at the R -3 (or per front foot) rate. Properties Zoned Commercial or Industrial These are three commercial properties proposed to be assessed. The proposed assessment method is the same as that employed on other street improvement projects. Two "zones of benefit" are proposed; Zone A is that area of the property which lies within 200 feet of the improved street. Zone B is the remaining area of parcels which abut the street which is improved. The assessments are calculated using an A zone benefit of $0.45 per square foot, and a B zone benefit of $0.20 per square foot. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Following the public hearing, the City Council should consider adoption of the attached resolution, which would certify the proposed special assessments for collection on the Hennepin County tax rolls. �e Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR 69TH AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed Special Assessment Levy No. 12809 for the following improvement: 69TH AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 WHEREAS, an assessment roll, a copy of which is attached hereto and part hereof by reference, has been prepared by the City Clerk, tabulating those properties where a street improvement account is to be assessed with the amount, including interest and service charges, be assessed; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Such proposed assessment, Special Assessment Levy 12809, made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of ten (10) years as indicated on the assessment roll. The first of the installments to be payable with ad valorem taxes in 1994, and shall bear interest at the rate of nine (9) percent per annum for a period of fifteen months from October 1, 1993 through December 31, 1994. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to the certification of the assessment to the County Auditor pay the whole of the assessment, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and he or she may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15, or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. RESOLUTION N0, 4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. 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 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL September 13, 1993 PROJECT INFORMATION LEVY INFORMATION Improvement Project No.: 1990 -10 Levy No.: 12809 Description: Reconstruction of 69th Ave N Fund /Code No.: 9027 -1370 Levy Description: 69TH AVE N. 90 -10 Levy runs ten (10) years at an interest rate of nine Location: 69th Avenue from Brooklyn Boulevard (9) percent. to Shingle Creek Parkway First payment, with property taxes payable in 1994 Improvement Hearing Date: March 26, 1990 shall include fifteen (1 5) whole months' interest. Improvement Ordered On: March 26, 1990 Date of Assessment Hearing: September 13, 1993 By Resolution No.: 90 -66 Adopted On: Assessment District: By Resolution No.: Method of Apportionment: Corrections Deletions Or Deferments: Cost Summary From Resolution No: 92 -286 TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COST: $7,645,920 Less Direct City Share: $ Less Other Payments: $ TOTAL TO BE ASSESSED: $151,1114.80 City Property: $3,157.14 Other Public Property: Private Property: $147,957.66 CITY OF BROJ CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLL 69TH AVE. N. (90 -10) MUNICIP CODE NO. 22 PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATION LEVY PROPERTY ADDN. Address Name Name NO. IDENTIFICATION NO. NO. AMOUNT Legal Description Mailing Address Mailing Address 12809 34- 119 -21 -11 -0011 892281 $315.00 6843 York Place BRUCE SALINE Lot 9, Block 1 6843 York Place EARLE BROWN FARM TOWNHOUSES Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12809 34- 119 -21 -11 -0012 89281 $315.00 6845 York Place DONALD & KATHLEEN WINN Lot 10, Block 1 6845 York Place EARLE BROWN FARM TOWNHOUSES Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12809 34- 119 -21 -11 -0013 89281 $315.00 6839 York Place IRENE MEIER Lot 11, Block 1 6839 York Place EARLE BROWN FARM TOWNHOUSES Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12809 34119 -21- 11-0014 89281 $315.00 6837 York Place KRAIG KUTZ DONALD KUTZ Lot 12, Block 1 6837 York Place 13005 55th Ave. N. EARLE BROWN FARM TOWNHOUSES Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Plymouth, MN 55442 12809 34119 -21 -11 -0015 89281 $315.00 6831 York Place ROBIN WARE -AVERY Lot 13, Block 1 6831 York Place EARLE BROWN FARM TOWNHOUSES Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12809 34119 -21 -11 -0016 89281 $315.00 6833 York Place MARION SANDERSON Lot 14, Block 1 6833 York Place EARLE BROWN FARM TOWNHOUSES Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12809 34119 -21 -11 -0017 89281 $315.00 6827 York Place BETTY ANDERSON Lot 15, Block 1 6827 York Place EARLE BROWN FARM TOWNHOUSES Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12809 34119 -21 -11 -0018 89281 $315.00 6825 York Place WILLIAM MESENBRINK Lot 16, Block 1 PATRICIA CRANDAL EARLE BROWN FARM TOWNHOUSES 6825 York Place Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12809 34119 -21 -11 -0019 89281 $315.00 6808 York Place J.C. STEWARD TRUST DBA Lot 17, Block 1 RODNEY E. BERNU TRUST EARLE BROWN FARM TOWNHOUSES 6808 York Place Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12809 34119 -21 -11 -0020 89281 $315.00 6812 York Place BRUCE & MARJORIE WICKLAND Lot 18, Block 1 6812 York Place EARLE BROWN FARM TOWNHOUSES Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 1 CITY OF BROO CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLL 69TH AVE. N. (90 -10) MUNICIPAL CODE NO. 22 PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATION LEVY PROPERTY ADDN. Address Name Name NO. IDENTIFICATION NO. NO. AMOUNT Legal Description Mailing Address Mailing Address 12809 34119 -21 -11 -0021 89281 $315.00 6814 York Place SHIRLEY WERRONEN Lot 19, Block 1 6814 York Place EARLE BROWN FARM TOWNHOUSES Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12809 34119 -21 -11 -0022 89281 $315.00 6810 York Place MARQUERITE RICKSON Lot 20, Block 1 6810 York Place EARLE BROWN FARM TOWNHOUSES Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12809 34119 -21 -11 -0023 89281 $315.00 6813 York Place HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX FORFEIT Lot 21, Block 1 Government Service Center EARLE BROWN FARM TOWNHOUSES 300 South 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55487 12809 34119 -21 -11 -0024 89281 $315.00 6811 York Place HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX FORFEIT Lot 22, Block 1 Government Service Center EARLE BROWN FARM TOWNHOUSES 300 South 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55487 12809 34119 -21- 11-0025 89281 $315.00 6809 York Place HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX FORFEIT Lot 23, Block 1 Government Service Center EARLE BROWN FARM TOWNHOUSES 300 South 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55487 12809 34119 -21 -11 -0026 89281 $315.00 6805 York Place HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX FORFEIT Lot 24, Block 1 Government Service Center EARL BROWN FARM TOWNHOUSES 300 South 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55487 12809 34119 -21 -11 -0027 89281 $315.00 6803 York Place HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX FORFEIT Lot 25, Block 1 Government Service Center EARLE BROWN FARM TOWNHOUSES 300 South 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55487 12809 34119 -21 -11 -0028 89281 $315.00 6819 York Place HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX FORFEIT Lot 26, Block 1 Government Service Center EARLE BROWN FARM TOWNHOUSES 300 South 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55487 12809 34119 -21 -11 -0029 89281 $315.00 6817 York Place HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX FORFEIT Lot 27, Block 1 Government Service Center EARLE BROWN FARM TOWNHOUSES 300 South 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55487 CITY OF BRO1 CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLL 69TH AVE. N. (90 -10) MUNICIPAL CODE NO. 22 PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATION LEVY PROPERTY ADDN. Address Name Name NO. IDENTIFICATION NO. NO. AMOUNT Legal Description Mailing Address Mailing Address 12809 34- 119 -21 -11 -0030 89281 $315.00 6801 York Place HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX FORFEIT Lot 28, Block 1 Government Service Center EARLE BROWN FARM TOWNHOUSES 300 South 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55487 12809 34119 -21 -12 -0002 89100 $9,636.48 3515 69th Ave N MOUND CEMETERY AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 025 11850 Mississippi Dr. Champlin, MN 55445 12809 34119- 21 -12- 0038 90010 $1,415.00 6836 Ewing Ave N GORDON & JOANNE SANDAHL Lot 1, Block 2 6836 Ewing Ave N SANDAHL ADDITION Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12809 34119 -21 -21 -0003 89100 $3,157.14 6831 France Ave N CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Lot 3 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 025 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 12809 34119 -21 -21 -0004 89100 $1,578.57 4001 69th Ave N CHRISTOPHER JOELSON Lot 3, 4001 69th Ave N AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 025 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12809 34119 -21 -21 -0005 89100 $3,157.35 4101 69th Ave N GUMPERT & JOYCE GRUENKE Lot 3 4101 69th Ave N AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 025 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12809 34119 -21- 2140006 89100 $3,157.14 4011 69th Ave N HAZEL DAWSON Lot 3 4011 69th Ave N AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 025 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12809 34119 -21 -21 -0007 89100 $3,157.14 3955 69th Ave N RICHARD DAWSON Lot 3 3955 69th Ave N AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 025 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12809 34119 -21 -21 -0008 89323 $22,111.50 4215 69th Ave N LUTHER CO. LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Lot 1, Block 1 c/o Motors Management CHRYSLER REALTY ADDITION 5353 Wayzata Blvd. Suite 204 Minneapolis, MN 55416 12809 34119 -21 -21 -0009 89323 $60,824.20 6800 Brooklyn Blvd BRI -MAR CO. INC. Lot 2, Block 1 Attn: J. Abramovitz CHRYSLER REALTY ADDITION 7625 Metro Blvd. Edina, MN 55435 CITY OF BR* CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLL 69TH AVE. N. (90 -10) MUNICIPAL CODE NO. 22 PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATION LEVY PROPERTY ADDN. Address Name Name NO. IDENTIFICATION NO. NO. AMOUNT Legal Description Mailing Address Mailing Address 12809 34- 119 -21 -21 -0029 89726 $1,578.57 4007 69th Ave N TRUMAN & JEAN HANSEN REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 0806 4007 69th Ave N Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 12809 35- 119 -21 -22 -0010 00584 $35,041.71 Shingle Creek & 69th Ave TOMORROW FOODS, INC. REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1499 3033 Excelsior Blvd. #475 Minneapolis, MN 55416 $151,114.80 I CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER c�;l Wai g LAte 9' 13 Agana Item Nmbmr REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission No. 93010 - Holiday Stationstores, Inc. ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: �J op%-0- 4 LV - - . { RONALD A. WARREN, PLANNING-AND ZONING SPECIALIST MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report . Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attache Planning Commission Application No. 93010 is a request for site and building plan and special use • permit approval to construct a 3,600 s.f. gas station /convenience store and a 1,320 s.f. attached car wash to be located at the southeast quadrant of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North. The property under consideration is addressed 6550 West River Road and is currently owned by Mr. Howard Atkins. This application was first considered by the Planning Commission at its August 12, 1993 meeting. Following the review of the application and the closing of a public hearing on this matter, the Commission considered a motion recommending denial of the application on the grounds that certain standards for special use permit were not met. The vote on the motion was 2 in favor and 2 opposed, resulting in a tie. The Commission then went on to unanimously vote to table further consideration of the application until its meeting to be held on August 26, 1993. The Planning Commission then reconsidered this application at its meeting on August 26, 1993 at which time the Commission, on a vote of 6 in favor and 1 opposed, recommended denial of this application on the basis that standards A, B and C of the special use permit standards were not met. Standard A of the special use permit standards generally requires that the use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. Standard B of the special use standards generally requires that the special use will not be injurious to property in the immediate vicinity nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. Standard C of the special permit standards generally requires that the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding property for uses already permitted in the district. Attached for the Council's review are the portions of the Planning Commission minutes from the August 12, 1993 and August 26, 1993 Commission meetings and the accompanying Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application No. 93010. Also attached for the Council's review Request for Council Consideration ® Application No. 93010 Page 2 are letters received from Claus A. Pierach, M.D., Gary Brown and Dawn K. Wolter expressing their opinions regarding the application. All other pertinent information presented to the Planning Commission including a map of the area, previous site plans and the site and building plans for the current application, a copy of City Council resolution no. 91 -267, a memorandum dated August 5, 1993 from City Engineer, Mark Maloney, a copy of a proposed realignment of the access to Willow Lane and finally a copy of Section 35 -220, Subdivision 2, the standards for special use permits. Recommendation The Planning Commission has recommended denial of Application 93010 on the basis that standards A, B, and C of the special use permit standards have not been met. The staff had recommended approval of this application subject to 13 conditions which can be found on pages 5 and 6 of the August 12, 1993 Planning Commission Information Sheet. If the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission's recommendation, I would recommend that the staff be directed to prepare a resolution outlining the history of the application and the grounds for denial which would be brought back at the next City Council meeting for consideration. If, on the other hand, the Council chooses to approve Application No. 93010, I would recommend that they do so subject to the 12 conditions listed with an additional condition, or conditions, to be added indicating the responsibility of the applicant to plant and maintain the trees that are proposed for screening, but located on the Atkins property to the east. Also, the species of said trees should be changed to acknowledge a coniferous tree, such as an evergreen or spruce which will not lose its foliage during the winter. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission for Application No. 93010. Informational notices of the Council's consideration have also been sent to all of those persons receiving a notice of the Planning Commission's consideration and those expressing an interest in this application. MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1N THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION AUGUST 26, 1993 STALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairperson Sander at 7;30 p.m. Chairperson Ella Sander, Commissioners Bertil Johnson, Mark Holmes, Robert Mickelson, Dianne Reem, Uebra Hilstrom and Tim Willson. Also present were the Secretary to the P Iannin Commission mission nd Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren and Pl Planning g p arming Commission Recording Secretary Kathy Stratton, APPROVAL OF MINDS - Aj7GUST 12 1993 There was a motion by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Willson to approve the minutes of the August 12, 1993, Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting n favor; $ Commissioners Hilstrom, Holmes, Johnson, and Willson, Abstaining: Chairperson Sander, Commissioners Reem and Mickelson, The motion p assed. CHAIRP RSON'S EXPLANATION Chairperson Sander explained that the Planning Cuininission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters, AEPLICATION NO 93010 (HOLIDAY STATYONSI'ORES INC.) Chairperson Sander introduced the first item of business, a request from Holiday Stationstores, Inc, for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a gasoline station/convenience store /car wash at 6550 West River Road. She indicated this item had been tailed at the August 12, 1993 meeting due to a split vote. The Secretary explained information regarding this application had been reviewed in detail at the last meeting, and copies of the report were attached, therefore, he would not gu over the report again. He -also explained that a public hearing had been opened and closed so the Commission had ample opportunity to hear and read about the thoughts of community members, He reviewed the contents of the staff report prepared for this meeting (see Planning Commission Informaton sheet for Application No. 93010, attached). 8 -26 -93 1 The Secretary circulated copies of a letter from Mr. Gary Brown indicating his support of the lan for the Holiday Sta "on as a new convenience and safe fe atur e for residents and P ti fe children who would not have to cross Hig 252 to et as or oceries, Sh Y $ g �' The Secretary also pointed out a letter included with the staff report from Claus A. Pierach, MD, urging the Commission not to recommend approval of the Holiday Station, Chairperson Sander asked the three Commissioners who were not present at the last meeting regarding the Holiday Station if they had any questions, Commissioner Mickelson responded his concerns were about the negative input from citizens. Commissioner Reem acknowledged the number of people who had come forward at the public hearing and expressed her concern for thorn as well as for the property owner, mr, Atkins' desire to sell. Chairperson Sander indicated she lives close to the site and drives in the area often and is very concerned about additional traffic, especially since she has seen many pedestrians running through the stoplight. She also stated her experience as a real cstatc agent makes her opinion the Holiday Station would lower property values of nearby homes. She noted one of the standards for special use permits is that a new application should not be injurious to other property. She stated she thought the Holiday Station would be. She added that even though Mr. Atkins has a right to sell, the many homeowners also have a right to a quiet residential neighborhood. She concluded she could not support the application based on points A, B, and C of the Special Use Permit and would have to vote against the application. Commissioner Willson circulated a report he had compiled which detailed the specifics of the Special Use Permit and his opinions as to why the conditions of the permit are not met by the Holiday Station proposal. He. read the report in its entirety, and requested that it be included in the minutes. A co is attached. E copy ) Chairperson Sander thanked Commissioner Willson for his report and asked if there were any responses to it. Mr. Jerry Jensen, representative of Holiday Companies, Inc., came forward at this time to answer questions. Commissioner Hilstrom asked if it would be possible to limit the operating hours of the car wash to eliminate night -rime headlight glare. Mr. Jensen explained the car wash would be open in the same fashion as the store and that it would be difficult to close the car wash at nine or ten o'clock, 8 -26 -93 2 Commissioner Hilstrom also expressed her concern that the back section of the store would not be visible for any employees and questioned the lighting as well as the screening along the back wall. Mr. Jensen responded light is adequate from Highway 252 and if someone was looking for a place to conduct illegal business there certainly were better places. He also indicated that any variety of trees the City desires could be planted along the back wall. Mr. Jensen responded to the report circulated by Commissioner Willson by saying he believes Holiday has complied fully with the City's Ordinanw and did not agree with Commissioner Willson's analysis, He further stated his hope the Commission would give favorable recommendation to the City Council regarding this application, Chairperson Sander responded the application meets the Ordinance, but not the Special Use Permit standards, The Secretary spoke in clarification of Commissioner Willson's report regarding section 35- 412 on access to the station. He said this section would only apply if access were from Willow Lane, which it is not. He further explained the Minnesota Department of Transportation is concerned about access to the site and had indicated the application met their requirements. He also explained that traffic should be encouraged to gain access at 66th Avenue, where the a shared access is located rather than to go around the block and create more traffic in the residential area. He said screening would be more the responsibility of future developers of the C -1 property than it would be of Holiday, and the application by Holiday does address screening as much as possible. Commissioner Holmes acknowledged the emotional nature of this issue after hearing it addressed three times and said he would not be surprised if the City Council approves the application because most of the negative feedback on property value, etc., is hearsay. He indicated he still has concerns with traffic and the 24 -hour nature of the business, and would therefore vote to recommend denial of the application. ACTION REGARDING APPLICATION NQ 93010 (HOLIDAY STATIONSTQRES 1 There was a motion by Commissioner Willson and seconded by Commissioner Holmes to recommend denial of Application No, 93010 submitted by Holiday Stationstores, Inc, for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a gasoline station/convenience stare %ar. wash at 6550 West River Road, on the basis that points A, B, and C of the Special Lase Permit standards are not met. Voting in favor: Chairperson Sander, Commissioners Reem, Holmes, Mickelson, Hilstrom, and Willson. Voting against, Commissioner Johnson. The motion passed. The Secretary explained that this item will be referred to the City Council on their September 13 meeting, and that notices would be sent to all residents within 350 feet of the site as well as the applicant and anyone else who expressed a desire to be notified. 8 -26 -93 3 The Planning Commission recessed at 8 :10 p.m. and resumed their meeting at 8:20 p.m. I BR CHRYSLER PL ;�N N 9 I1 � � I�AL CH SL YMOUTH) Chairperson Sander introduced the second item of business, a request to rezone the Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth property at 6121 Brooklyn Boulevard and the property immediately to the south at 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard to PUD /C2 and to approve a planned unit development proposal for an expansion of the car dealership. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 93011, attached). The Secretary reviewed the location of the site by showing an overhead transparency as well as pointing out neighboring properties that would be affected. He shared topics of the detailed report with members of the public in the audience and explained the need for re- zoning for expansion to take place. He also pointed out a letter from Mr. Bill Bartram, owner of Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth, reviewed a list of guidelines required in rezoning, and read detailed responses of staff and the applicant to these guidelines. Commissioner Holmes asked if the C -1 site to the south is currently a business. The Secretary answered that it is currently a single family residence and a potential concern. Commissioner Hilstrom expressed concern about the proposed wall to the west of the site and maintenance of the strip of property outside the wall She also asked about the height of lighting in back of the building that could affect the row of residences along 61st Avenue. The Secretary then reviewed and answered questions on access and parking, drainage /gradinglutilities, landscapingiscreening, the building itself, liglhting/trash, and explained the procedure for reviewing this application, which includes notifying the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. Commissioner Mickelson was pointed out as the liaison from the Planning Commission to the neighborhood advisory group. Commissioner Willson commented he liked the format of staff and applicant responding to requirements as listed in the report. Commissioner Johnson said it should be noted that "what kept portions of the area along Brooklyn Boulevard from developing were deed restrictions and restrictive covenants preventing commercial use of this property. The Secretary commented the purpose of this item being on this evening's agenda is mostly to take public testimony and take a first look at the plans. He continued since there are some variations to the Ordinance proposed in the plan, what would the applicant offer if a planned unit development proposal was being pursued. He mentioned that perhaps other properties should be included in any rezoning and repeated the concern of the corner property and what it could be used for since it is less than one acre. 8 -26 -93 4 Commissioner Holmes questioned if there were plans for further development along that section of Brooklyn Boulevard to which the Secretary responded there were not. He also asked if there were existing covenants that would prevent this proposed plan. The Secretary explained covenants do not pre -empt the ability of the City to zone property. He noted the covenants referred to were private covenants and were left to the parties concerned for enforcement. Commissioner Holmes also expressed concern that many landscaping requirements are not met with this proposal. The Secretary explained there is some flexibility allowed in the PUD process. Commissioner Willson suggested, since there are so many issues involved in this proposal, that meetings be combined with the Neighborhood Advisory and discussions regarding amending the Comprehensive Plan and replatting the property. The Secretary agreed combining would take place wherever possible to expedite the matter. Mr. Dave Phillips appeared on behalf of Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth to answer any questions and apologized for the fact that Mr. bill Bartram could not be in attendance. He explained that Mr. Bartxam was in Detroit. In response to questions from Commissioner Mstrom, Mr. Phillips explained the nature of the proposed building addition in regards to handicap accessibility as well as explaining pan of the new addition includes a play room so parents can bring children along while their car is being serviced. Mr. Phillips clarified how a part of the new addition would be for quick service and possible oil c hange/lube and light maintenance, and how since the existing write -up area is inadequate, all cars in for service write -ups would be directed to the new addition and then moved via the driveway at the back of the building. Commissioner Holmes questioned whether Mr. Bartram is considering further expansion and looking at acquiring additional property. Mr. Phillips responded that this is being considered, but is difficult because of multiple owners, and unless all of them wanted to sell, purchasing one or two lots would not be enough property to make an addition. PUBLIC HBARING (APPLICATION NQ. 901 �� Chairperson Sanders opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on request for rezoning of the Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth property at 6121 Brooklyn Boulevard and the property immediately to the south at 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard to PUD /C2 and to approve a planned unit development proposal for an expansion of the car dealership at 9:52 p.m. She inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Commission, and several City residents appeared with comments as follow: 8 -26 -93 5 Mr. Pernell Reitan of 6049 Ewing Avenue N. commented that Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth has always been a nuisance and would become an even greater one with the addition. He expressed that allowing the addition would be making one more mistake on top of others that have been made. Commissioner Mickelson asked who had been notified of this proposed change and the Secretary responded all residents within 350 feet from any point of the property. Mr. Jerry Tacheny of 3606 61st Avenue N., a resident of that property for 36 years, thanked the Commission for giving property owners a chance to give their opinion. He said when Jim Christy was the owner there was a promotion every Saturday and very late night hours. He said he could read in his kitchen, bedroom and living room without any lights on because of the lights from the dealership. When there had been a problem in the past with lights it took two years for it to be fixed. He expressed concern about the narrow driveway at the back of the building and hopes that the buffer area of grass behind the wall is maintained. He explained in the past there was an agreement with Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth to maintain the buffer "in a park -like manner" which had not bedh done under former ownership but which has improved since Bill Bartram has been the owner. Mr. Jim Buesko of 3600 61st Avenue N. questioned what type of traffic would be using the driveway at the back of the new addition. Mr. Phillips explained that traffic would be. heaviest in the morning between 7:00 a.m. and. 10.00 a.m. while the business is accepting cars for service write -ups. Mr. Bucsko explained he had been living there for 21 years and to say something positive, the situation has improved tinder new ownership. He expressed concern about how complaints had been handled in the past. He then asked what took place at the neighborhood meetings. The Secretary explained the neighborhood meeting would be another chance for residents to express their feelings and introduced Ms. Pat Weitzel who sits on the West Central Neighborhood Advisory committee. He said this meeting will take place in the next 30 days and anyone who is interested can attend, Commissioner Hilstrom asked that everyone on the Planning Commission be notified of the meeting. Commissioner Mickelson commented on how cases like this are poor business practice and said at lease the situation has been better recently with Bill Bartram as owner. Mr. Doug Vang of 6101 Brooklyn Boulevard, the corner lot adjacent to the proposed addition site, stepped forward to explain he had bought his house three years ago not knowing that something like this would happen. He expressed concern if the dealership expands too close to his property there might be too much light and noise. 8 -26 -93 6 Commissioner Hilstrom asked Mr. Vang if the owner of Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth had approached him about soiling his property. Mr. Vang said he had not. Chairperson Sander asked Mr. Vang if he would consider selling. Mr. Vang said he did not know, She then asked the representative of the applicant, Mr. Phillips, if the car dealership had considered buying property all the way to the corner. Mr. Phillips explained the difficulty of buying land in small pieces because it is never known if what you acquire will be useful. He continued that if a mutually beneficial arrangement could be made for all parties, it was probably a possibility, but the dealership wants to apply no pressure. He stated in this case each property owner would have to request rezoning of his own property. Mr. Phillips explained the expense of trying to acquire additional land in portions and that Mr. Bartram will already have invested $25- 30,000 in this current proposal before it even goes to City Council, He further explained how the house that is owned by Mr. Bartram cannot even be, used currently for anything to do with the business, so he has been renting it out Commissioner Holmes commented this change would certainly seem to lower Mr. Vang's Property value. The Secretary responded, however, that is not necessarily true since the property is zoned C-1, and a single family use of the property can continue. He mentioned the City's ability to use its condemnation rights if it were to the benefit of the public and concluded the Commission and Council need to realize how many things are affected by this proposal and be careful to consider them all before making any decision. ACTION ARDIN APPLICA N NO. 9 BROb ALE CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH Therc was a motion by Commissioner Miekelson and seconded by Commissioner RGem to table further consideration of Application No. 93011 submitted by Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth and refer -the matter to -the West Central Neighborhood Advisory for their review and comment and to continue the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS Commissioner Rccm brought up the topic of the proposed Park and Ride and questioned why it had not been brought before the Planning Commission. The Secretary explained the matter had been before the City Council because a public hearing was required to acquire land. He noted that it was his understanding the development of the plans for a Park and Ride would be brought before the Planning Commission at a later date. The Secretary told the Commission its next meeting is in 3 weeks on September 16th. Commissioner Re em said she will be out of town September 16th. 8 -26 -93 7 ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Mickelson and seconded by Commissioner Holmes to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Chairperson Recorded and transcribed by: Kathy Stratton TimeSaver Off Site Sccrctarial 8 -26 -93 8 PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No: 93010 Applicant: Holiday Stationstores, Inc. Location: 6550 West River Road Avenue Request: Special Use Permit/Site and Building Plan Approval The applicant is seeking site and building plan approval and a special use permit to construct a 3,600 s. f. gas station /convenience store and a 1,320 s. f. attached car wash at the southeast quadrant of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North. The property in question is 51,353 s. f. (1.18 acres) in area, is addressed 6550 West River Road and currently contains the Atkins Mechanical building. The property is zoned C -2 and is bounded on the north by 66th Avenue; on the east by vacant C -1 zoned land which abuts along its east side with Willow Lane; on the south by the Brookdale Motel; and on the west by the West River Road frontage road with Highway 252 lying further to the west. Gas stations and car washes are special uses in the C -2 zoning district while a retail grocery or convenience store is a permitted use in this zoning district. This application was considered by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on August 12, 1993. Following the closing of the public hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission considered a motion recommending denial of this application on the grounds that points A, B and C in the special use permit standards contained in the zoning ordinance were not met. The vote on this motion was 2 in favor and 2 opposed, resulting in a tie. The Planning Commission then went on to unanimously vote to table further consideration of this application until the Planning Commission meeting to be held on August 26, 1993 at which time it was expected that Commission members unable to attend the August 12, 1993 meeting would be present. Attached for the Planning Commission's review is a copy of the Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 93010 as well as all of the attachments which were considered as part of the report made to the Planning Commission on August 12. Also attached is a letter to the Planning Commission which was received on August 16, 1993 from Claus A. Pierach, MD relative to this application. It is recommended that the Planning Commission again consider this application and make a recommendation to the City Council. If the Commission wishes to recommend in favor of the application, I would suggest that an additional condition or conditions be added indicating the responsibility of the applicant to plant and maintain the trees that are proposed for screening but would be located on the Atkins property to the east. Also, I'd suggest that the species of these trees be changed to acknowledge a coniferous tree, such as an evergreefi or spruce which will not lose its foliage during the winter. The following review of city Zoning Ordinances - Chapter 35, Sections 35- 220,35 -412, 35 -414, and Section 35 -712 in regards to application -0 93010 has been prepared by Commissioner Willson for discussion before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Copies have been provided for inclusion into the minutes, Commissioners Present, City Staff and for the Public. Application * 93010 , 6550 West River Road, request for Special use permit /site and building plan approval does not meet the criteria in Section 35 -220 S pecial Use Permits Under paragraph 2, Standards for Special Use Permits, sections A -C. A). The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort. 1n my opinion this application for special use will not promote or enhance the general welfare and will endanger public safety and or comfort. The estimated increase in traffic to this neighborhood, will effectively shut off residential traffic to the southern cul -de -sac in addition to stressing traffic patterns in the northern neighborhood up to and including 73rd Avenue. The over flow from the return access point at 66th Avenue to State Highway 252 will overfolw north on West River Road to 73rd Avenue an alternative access point to State Highway 252. It should be pointed out that these are the only two entrance or exit points for this neighborhood and that this overall increase in traffic will be detrrmental to the comfort and may endanger the public from within this neighborhood. B). The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. This application's request for Special Usage appears to not be injurious to the immediate neighborhood, although the inadequate screening schema does appear to impair and /or diminish property values. The two screening schema's are not guranteed by the applicant and in both cases the applicant does not have ownership of the properites where the screening will be placed. The two screening schema's are 1 i sted as B 1 and 82. B1). This staff recommended screening deals with the city of Brooklyn Center preparing a "node" along Willow Lane just north of the C1 property and Borth and East of the applicants property. Upon this constructed city "node" a 6 foot berm would be placed to provide screening for the immediate residential neighborhood. Staff figures of from $20,000 to $40,000 would be required to bulid this "node" at some future time to provide screening for this application. The usage of city staff, public land, and tax payer dollars to provide some future screening for this application is not an acceptable solution. 132). The second applicant screening schema is for the North East corner of the C t property, and along its eastern border to the south a number of trees will be planted to provide screening for the applicants site. Here again the applicant does not own the adjacent C1 property and can not insure proper screening. Given the land topology of this area adquate screening on the East property line is essential to maintaining property values, comfort, and enjoyment of the residents residing along Willow Lane. The applicants property sits higher than its Eastern neighbors and in particular the sweeping headlight glare from vehicles enteri ng, or vehicles leaving the pump area turning about to return to the car wash area will directly shine in and along the 2nd story windows of the properties located along Willow Lane. In addition to the above are at teat two recognizable concerns that may diminish or impair the property values in the neighborhood. These being the increased noise levels from this gas station /convieniece store /car wash and the fact that operations will be ongoing 24 hours a day. C). The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surronding property for uses permitted in the district. The establishment of this special use may indeed impede normal and orderly residential development and improvements. The declining home values for the neighborhood in the southern cul -de -sac over time and succOsion of owners may in time force the city to use EDA funding in this neighborhood as a redevelopment effort. Section 35 -412 Special Requirements in C2 Districts Paragraph 6). Access from a local street intended primarily to serve the residential development may only be allowed upon a finding by the city council that such access will not negatively affect the residential character of that neighborhood. Clearly the increased traffic to and from the applicants site, will negatively affect the character of the neighborhood and the residents residing within the cul -de -sac, along with affecting the neighborhood up to the second State Highway 252 access point at 73rd Avenue. Section 35 -414 Special Requirements for Automobile Service Stations as referenced from Section 35 -322 C2 Commerence District, paragraph 3 Special Uses, a. Gasoline Service Stations (see section 35- 414)... Note Paragraphs 7 and 8. 7). Lighting surrounding automobile service stations must meet the provisions of Section 35 -712 Lighting design must be submitted to the planning Commission for recommendations to the City Council and all lighting shall conform to drawings and specifications approved by the City Council. This requirement had not been fully met as of the August 12, 1993 Planning and Zoning meeting. 8). Any required buffer or screening area shall be so constructed and maintained as to keep the beam of automobile headlights from shining into abutting properties. The Willow Lane properties do not directly abutt this applicant's property, although givien the land topology for this area adequate screening will not be constructed nor maintained to keep the beams of automobile headlights from directly shining into the windows of the Willow Lane properties. Perhaps a solution to the adquate screening for this applicant would be to extend the East 6 foot screening wall from its 175 foot length to encompass all of the Eastern property line. This could be ready completed by removing the Eastern most row of gasoline pumps leaving two rows of gasoline pumps and-by moving the 2nd or East 66th Avenue access point to within the applicants property lines. I n this fashion the applicant would be able to maintain and provide screening without city expense. It should also be noted that this appl i cati ns 80 ft. by 45 ft. building with an attached 60 ft by 22 ft. car wash is the largest building plan of the three most recent applications. The other two being PDQ' Food Stores, inc. appiication *91018 and Fina Oil and Chemical Company *89012. Both of these building and site plans showed facilities built within the confines of the property at 6550 West River Road with the noted exceptions along the East property line. Application "89012, Fina Oil and Chemical Company, shows an access point from 66th Avenue inline with exsisting city streets but almost immediatly turning onto the 6550 West River Road property with a left hand turn thus providing a maximum amount of residential screening with a constructed wall almost the entire length of the Eastern side of the 6550 West River Road property. Application *91018 PDQ Food Stores, Inc. building and site plan also shows an access point from 66th avenue on the CI property with again a left had turn onto the property, approximatly in the center of the East property line, with a constructed wall providing the maximum amount of screening along the Eastern side of the property. The 66th Avenue Eastern most access point does appear to be problematic given the construction of the city center media and U turn or left hand turn onto West River Road from 66th Avenue as one is traveling East on 66th to go North on West River Road. The center media extends past the 6550 West River Road properties East property,line and requires that an access point to the property must be constructed on the adjacent C1 property. At this point the city has not funded any improvments to the streets in this area and should require the applicant '93010, Holiday Stationstores, inc., to meet the ordinances minimum requirements for a special use permit in regards to the redevelopment of this C2 property. PLANNING COMT'IISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No: 93011 Applicant: Bill Bartram on behalf of Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth Location: 6121 Brooklyn Boulevard and 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Rezoning /Site and Building Plan - PUD /C2 The applicant is requesting rezoning and site and building plan approval for a commerce planned unit development proposal on two parcels of land, one containing the Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth dealership addressed as 6121 Brooklyn Boulevard and the other the property immediately to the south that currently has a single family home located on it and is addressed as 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard. The purpose of the proposed action is to combine the two parcels of land, demolish the existing single family home and expand the Brookdale Chrysler dealership. The expansion would consist of a two story building addition attached to the south side of the current Chrysler Plymouth building to provide for customer repair write -up space, car preparation or oil change stalls, customer lounge, restrooms, general office space and records and parts storage. REZONING A planned unit development proposal involves a rezoning of land to the PUD designation followed by an alphanumeric designation of the underlying zoning district. This underlying zoning district which then provides the regulations governing uses and structures within the planned unit development. In this specific case the applicant is seeking C2 (commerce) as the underlying zoning designation. The rules and regulations governing that district would, therefore, apply to the development proposal. Under the planned unit development procedure, regulations governing uses and structures may be modified by conditions imposed by the City Couricil to the extent necessary to comply with the development plan submitted. One of the purposes of the PUD district is to give the City Council the needed flexibility in addressing redevelopment problems. The Commission's attention is directed to Section 35 -355 which addresses Planned Unit Developments (attached). As mentioned the PUD process involves a rezoning of land and, therefore, is subject to the rezoning procedures outlined in Section 35 -210 of the zoning ordinance as well as the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's zoning ordinance. The policy and review guidelines are attached for the Commission's review. The current zoning of the Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth property (6121 Brooklyn Boulevard) is C2 (commerce) while the property to the south at 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard is currently zoned Cl (service /office). Automobile sales and service are special uses in the C2 zoning district but are not comprehended as acknowledged uses in the C1 zoning district thus the need for rezoning in order to accomplish the proposed expansion by Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth. The applicant, Mr. Bill Bartram, the owner of Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth and 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard has submitted a -letter (attached) regarding the proposal in which he outlines the proposed expansion and addresses the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35 -208. A review of those guidelines, the applicant's arguments and the staff response follows: PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 93011 a. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? Applicant Mr. Bartram notes that their customers are entitled to quality facilities to serve them. He cites the Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study prepared for the City by Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban (DST) which acknowledges a need to consolidate small parcels along Brooklyn Boulevard. He notes that their plan is to close an existing driveway on the dealership site with access to the addition to be gained from a driveway on the consolidated site resulting in a reduction of curb cuts on Brooklyn Boulevard. He believes this will be a benefit to the public. He also notes that they will incorporate any streetscape recommendations that will come out of the current Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenity Study and that the improvement and expansion of a local employer, additional jobs in the community and substantial investment in upgrading the Boulevard are all further public benefits. Staff All of the points mentioned by the applicant can be considered public benefits. Redevelopment along Brooklyn Boulevard has been acknowledged as important in a number of studies conducted by the City. The important element is that the redevelopment meet City needs and is consistent with the redevelopment policies. b. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? Applicant "The zoning would be the same as the largest parcel adjacent to the subject property. If the owner of 6101 wished to change the zoning on that parcel also the entire block facing the Boulevard would be consistent. The compatibility of the C2 and the Rl parcel to the west is a question. However, an effective screening would be placed to miniroize the impact on the Rl parcel. It should be noted that the Rl parcel abuts C2 property currently." Staff C2 and Rl zoned property are allowed under the City's zoning ordinance to abut each other, however, certain buffer and set backs requirements are imposed on the commercially zoned property. The sale of motor vehicles is a special use in the C2 zone and automobile repair and service is also a special use in this zone but this aspect of the business is not allowed to abut Rl, R2 or R3 zoned property at a property line. The DSU Brooklyn Boulevard Study recommends that this aspect of the zoning ordinance be modified so Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth would have the opportunity to expand. A PUD proposal would allow such a development to be comprehended by the City. c. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Applicant No comment. Staff All of the permitted uses and proposed uses could be comprehended for development in the proposed zoning district if this PUD proposal is accepted. 8 -26 -93 2 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 93011 d. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? Ap In icant : No comment Staff: There have been no substantial physical or zoning classification changes made in this area since the Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth property was zoned C2 in the early sixties. The property at 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard was zoned C1 in 1968. The studies by DSU of the Brooklyn Boulevard area and the Maxfield commercial and industrial study in 1991 indicate considerations should be given to expanding the C2 zone in this area. e. In the case of City initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? Applicant: No comment Staff Not applicable f. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? Applicant: No comment Staff. The subject property should bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the PUD /C2 proposal based on findings made by the City Council and a development agreement between the City and the developer which will address any and all issues raised and acknowledge an approved site plan as part of that development agreement. g. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? Ap licant: "The subject property is zoned Cl. Current requirements for developing a Cl parcel require a minimum lot size of one acre. The subject property is approximately .7 acres and is not developable unless it is combined with an adjacent parcel. The study recommends focusing on three acres or larger parcels for economic development (page 50). The combination of these parcels will result in a five acre parcel. " Staff: The City's Zoning Ordinance does indeed require one acre sites for service/office land uses, and this site, by itself cannot be developed under its current zoning. It must be combined with other property for development purposes. The Maxfield commercial and industrial study conducted in 1991 does make note of the soft market for service/office developments over the next few years, and the likelihood of this type of development being undertaken in the immediate future is very remote. 8 -26 -93 3 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 93011 h. Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1. Comprehensive planning; 2. Lack of developable land in a purposed zoning districts; 3. The best interests of the community? A licant: "The requested rezoning would result in an expansion of the C2 zoning district which I believe is warranted by the (a) lack of developable land in the zoning district and (b) the best interest of the community. I believe the communities interest is served by development on the Boulevard, and improved "streetscape" along both parcels on the Boulevard and providing for expansion of the existing business and local employer. The study lists as one of the recommended goals (page 13) to "provide for the expansion needs of individual businesses ", the community benefits when our local businesses are successful and growing. Staff The applicants comments are correct regarding the DSU Study. The study does encourage the expansion of Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth and to provide for the expansion needs of individual businesses. However, it should be noted that the existing comprehensive plan under the land use revisions map recommends the Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth property, and the C1 property to the south be used for either service /office or mid density residential uses. The Brooklyn Boulevard Study with the comprehensive plan and the neighborhood policy plan for the west central neighborhood also notes this area to be suitable for service /office uses. The DSU Study and the Maxfield Commercial and Industrial Study which acknowledges the viability of the Brooklyn Boulevard car dealerships, recommends that the expansion be allowed. A comprehensive plan amendment would have to be accomplished in order for the proposal to go forward. Such an amendment is in line with the recommendations of these two recent plans and is a good planning basis for such an amendment. t i. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interest of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Applican t : "I believe the rezoning will serve the community interest as well as those of our business as discussed above ". Staff The proposal appears to have merit beyond only the interests of the particular property owner if it can be concluded that this will lead to additional jobs in the community, a substantial upgrading in the site and the upgrading of the physical character of Brooklyn Boulevard as well. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL The proposed plan calls for an approximate 9,800 s. f. addition to the south side of the existing Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth building. It is a two story addition with about 4,900 s. f. per floor. The ground floor level will include access from the existing showroom to a customer lounge, vending, restroom and cashier area. A service write -up area would be served by two overhead doors leading into the area from the east side, exiting via two overhead doors on the west side of the building. A third overhead door on both east and west sides of the building would access lube- bays or a car preparation area. The second floor of the proposed expansion would include an upper lobby, office space and parts and file storage. 8 -26 -93 4 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 93011 ACCESS /PARKING Access to the entire expanded site would be limited to two accesses along Brooklyn Boulevard as well as three existing accesses off 62nd Avenue North. The northerly access on Brooklyn Boulevard would remain in the same location as it currently exists. The existing south access would be closed and a new one opened further to the south to serve the proposed addition. Forty - four new parking spaces would be provided along the south property line, the south side of the building addition and along the Brooklyn Boulevard greenstrip. The building addition would require 38 additional parking spaces based on 1,320 s. f. of additional retail type space on the lower level (5.5 spaces per thousand equals seven spaces), two service bays (three per bay equals six), and 4,916 s. f. of second story office and storage (one per 200 s. f. of gross floor area equals 25). It should be noted, if the entire lower level were considered retail and the entire upper level office space, 52 parking spaces would be required. The combined site is over five acres and numerous arkin spaces exist on the site. An evaluation P g P of parking should be done to assure enough available parking for employees, customers, and vehicles being serviced with adequate access to these parking spaces. The remainder of parking spaces on the site can be used for display or storage of inventory (new and used cars). Adequately sized driveways service the proposed new parking spaces (24 -26' wide). They propose a new driveway, only 20 feet wide, around the southwest corner of the existing building leading to the service area. This encroaches into a required 35' buffer set -back area. They propose to offset this encroachment with additional landscaping and a six foot high masonry wall. We would recommend an eight foot high masonry wall, consistent with DSU's recommendations and the existing ordinance if this intrusion is allowed as part of the PUD plan. s DRAINAGE /GRADING /UTILITIES This aspect of the proposal is being reviewed by the City Engineer and further analysis will be forthcoming. It is my understanding that this proposal will be required to be reviewed by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. Compliance with their recommendations would be required. LANDS CAPING /SCREENING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan indicating a variety of plantings including shade trees, decorative trees, coniferous trees, shrubs and flowers. Most of the landscaping is proposed in the area to the west of the proposed addition and along an area to the southwest of the existing building where a new six foot high masonry wall is anticipated. They are also proposing a combination berm with 15 Colorado Blue Spruce trees and a keystone wall that will be between three to five feet in height along the west property line for screening purposes. This is in lieu of the required 8' wall and a 35' greenstrip. No landscaping is indicated along the Brooklyn Boulevard greenstrip, however, they have indicated they will comply with the Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenity Study currently being conducted. The Brooklyn Boulevard greenstrip scales only 10'. A 15' greenstrip is required in this zoning district. It should be noted that it appears that a 10' greenstrip has been provided and is existing along Brooklyn Boulevard on the remainder of the site as well as along 62nd Avenue North. A 10' greenstrip will have to be acknowledged as part of the PUD process. 8 -26 -93 5 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 93011 BUILDING The building elevations indicate the exterior of the addition to be a rock-faced block with stucco fascia to match the existing building exterior. I assume this would be carried around the rest of the building. Only the east and south elevations are shown with the plans. The west elevation should also be provided. LIGHTING/TRASH New lights are proposed along the south greenstrip at two locations. These lights would have two heads. Two lights are proposed for south of the new southerly access and two more lights to match existing lights are proposed north of the new access. These are 1000 watt metal halide lights. No height of these lights has been provided. Two wall mounted 400 watt lights are to be located ed at the southwest t co er of the existing building. A trash enclosure is not yet indicated on the plan. The plans are not totally complete but are certainly sufficient to begin the,PUD process. Further discussion and consideration of the entire site is in order. If this proposal is to be accomplished the applicant will also need to replat the property to combine the two parcels into one. PROCEDURE This PUD /C2 proposal, as previously mentioned, is'a rezoning with a specific development plan. As such, it must go through the normal rezoning process. This means that following the Planning Commission's public hearing the rezoning proposal and the site and building plan should be referred to the appropriate neighborhood advisory group for review and comment. In this case it should be referred to the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group. We will attempt to schedule a meeting of that neighborhood advisory group within the next 30 days for that purpose. Persons receiving notice of the Planning Commission's public hearing (property owners within 350' of the property) and anyone else who desires to be notified would be informed of the date, time, etc. of the meeting. Members of the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group have been invited to attend the Planning Commission meeting for background information. The Commission should discuss the proposal, open the public hearing and then table the application and refer it to the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group for additional review and comment. The Commission may wish to comment on the plans, discuss the fate of the existing property in the area if the proposal goes forward and to give direction regarding establishing a public hearing on a possible Comprehensive Plan amendment. I 8 -26 -93 6 qa- PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No: 93010 Applicant: Holiday Stationstores, Inc. Location: 6550 West River Road Avenue Request: Special Use Permit/Site and Building Plan Approval The applicant is seeking site and building plan approval and a special use permit to construct a 3,600 s. L gas station /convenience store and a 1,320 s. f. attached car wash at the southeast quadrant of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North. The property in question is 51,353 s. f. (1.18 acres) in area, is addressed 6550 West River Road and currently contains the Atkins Mechanical building. The property is zoned C -2 and is bounded on the north by 66th Avenue; on the east by vacant C -1 zoned land which abuts along its east side with Willow Lane; on the south by the Brookdale Motel; and on the west by the West River Road frontage road with Highway 252 lying further to the west. Gas stations and car washes are special uses in the C -2 zoning district while a retail grocery or convenience store is a permitted use in this zoning district. This application was considered by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on August 12, 1993. Following the closing of the public hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission considered a motion recommending denial of this application on the grounds that points A, B and C in the special use permit standards contained in the zoning ordinance were not met. The vote on this motion was 2 in favor and 2 opposed, resulting in a tie. The Planning Commission then went on to unanimously vote to table further consideration of this application until the Planning Commission meeting to be held on August 26, 1993 at which time it was expected that Commission members unable to attend the August 12 1993 meeting would be resent. g g P Attached for the Planning Commission's review is a copy of the Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 93010 as well as all of the attachments which were considered as part of the report made to the Planning Commission on August 12. Also attached is a letter to the Planning Commission which was received on August 16, 1993 from Claus A. Pierach, MD relative to this application. It is recommended that the Planning Commission again consider this application and make a recommendation to the City ouncil. If the Commission wishes recommend y s to in favor of the application, I would suggest that an additional condition or conditions be added indicating the responsibility of the applicant to plant and maintain the trees that are proposed for screening but would be located on the Atkins property to the east. Also, I'd suggest that the species of these trees be changed to acknowledge a coniferous tree, such as an evergreen or spruce which will not lose its foliage during the winter. l 1 1 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1N THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION AUGUST 26, 1993 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairperson Sander at 7:30 p.m. Chairperson Ella Sander, Commissioners Bertil Johnson, Mark Holmes, Robert Mickelson, Dianne Reem, Uebra Hilstrom and Tim Willson. Also present were the Secretary to the Planning Commission Planning and Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Kathy Stratton, APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 12 1993 There was a motion by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Willson to approve the minutes of the August 12, 1993, Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor; Commissioners Hilstrom, Holmes, Johnson, and Willson. Abstaining: Chairperson Sander, Commissioners Reem and Mickelson. The motion passed. CHAIRPERSON'S EXPLANATION Chairperson Sander explained that the Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. AEPLICATION NO 93010 (HOLIDAY STATIONSTORES INC. Chairperson Sander introduced the first item of business, a request from Holiday Stationstores, Inc, for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a gasoline station/convenience store /car wash at 6550 West River Road. She indicated this item had been tabled at the August 12, 1993 meeting due to a split vote. The Secretary explained information regarding this application had been reviewed in detail at the last meeting, and copies of the report were attached, therefore, he would not Vu over the report again. He also explained that a public hearing had been opened and closed so the Commission had ample opportunity to hear and read about the thoughts of community members. He reviewed the contents of the staff report prepared for this meeting (see Planning Commission Informaton sheet for Application No. 93010, attached). 8 -26 -93 1 l The Secretary circulated copies of a letter from Mr. Gary Brown indicating his support of the plan for the Holiday Station as a new convenience and safety feature for residents and children who would not have to cross Highway 252 to get gas or groceries, The Secretary also pointed out a letter included with the staff report from Claus A. Pierach, MU, urging the Commission not to recommend approval of the Holiday Station, Chairperson Sander asked the three Commissioners who were not present at the last meeting regarding the Holiday Station if they had any questions. Commissioner Mickelson responded his concerns were about the negative input from citizens. Commissioner 12eem acknowledged the number of people who had come forward at the public hearing and expressed her concern for them as well as for the property owner, Mr, Atkins' desire to sell. Chairperson Sander indicated she lives close to the site and drives in the area often and is very concerned about additional traffic, especially since she has seen many pedestrians running through the stoplight. She also stated her experience as a real estate agent makes her opinion the Holiday Station would lower property values of nearby homes. She noted one of the standards for special use permits is that a new application should not be injurious to other property. She stated she thought the Holiday Station would be. She added that even though Mr. Atkins has a right to sell, the many homeowners also have a right to a quiet residential neighborhood. She concluded she could not support the application based on points A, B, and C of the Special Use Permit and would have to vote against the application. Commissioner Willson circulated a report he had compiled which detailed the specifics of the Special Use Permit and his opinions as to why the conditions of the permit are not met by the Holiday Station proposal. He read the report in its entirety, and requested that it be included in the minutes. (A copy is attached.) Chairperson Sander thanked Commissioner Willson for his report and asked if there were any responses to it. Mr. Jerry Jensen, representative of Holiday Companies, Inc., came forward at this time to answer questions. Commissioner Hilstrom asked if it would be possible to limit the operating hours of the car wash to eliminate night -time headlight glare. Mr. Jensen explained the car wash would be open in the same fashion as the store and that it would be difficult to close the car wash at nine or ten o'clock. 8 -26 -93 2 Commissioner Hilstrom also expressed her concern that the back section of the store would not be visible for any employees and questioned the lighting as well as the screening along the back wall. Mr. Jensen responded light is adequate from Highway 252 and if someone was looking for a place to conduct illegal business there certainly were better places. He also indicated that any variety of trees the City desires could be planted along the back wall. Mr. Jensen responded to the report circulated by Commissioner Willson by saying he believes Holiday has complied fully with the City's Ordinanw and did not agree with Commissioner Willson's analysis, He further stated his hope the Commission would give favorable recommendation to the City Council regarding this application, Chairperson Sander responded the application meets the Ordinance, but not the Special Use Permit standards, The Secretary spoke in clarification of Commissioner Willson's report regarding section 35- 412 on access to the station. He said this section would only apply if access were from Willow Lane, which it is not. He further explained the Minnesota Department of Transportation is concerned about access to the site and had indicated the application met their requirements. He also explained that traffic should be encouraged to gain access at 66th Avenue, where the a shared access is located rather than to go around the block and create more traffic in the residential area. He said screening would be more the responsibility of future developers of the C -1 property than it would be of Holiday, and the application by Holiday does address screening as much as possible. Commissioner Holmes acknowledged the emotional nature of this issue after hearing it addressed three times and said he would not be surprised if the City Council approves the application because most of the negative feedback on property value, etc., is hearsay. He indicated he still has concerns with traffic and the 24 -hour nature of the business, and would therefore vote to recommend denial of the application. ACTION REGARDING APPLICATION NQ 93010 (HOLIDAY STATIONSTORES There was a motion by Commissioner Willson and seconded by Commissioner Holmes to recommend denial of Application No, 93010 submitted by Holiday Stationstores, Inc. for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a gasoline station /convenience store /Car wash at 6550 West River Road, on the basis that points A, B, and C of the Special Use Permit standards are not met. Voting in favor: Chairperson Sander, Commissioners Reem, Holmes, Mickelson, Hilstrom, and Willson. Voting against, Commissioner Johnson. The motion passed. The Secretary explained that this item will be referred to the City Council on their September 13 meeting, and that notices would be sent to all residents within 350 feet of the site as well as the applicant and anyone else who expressed a desire to be notified. 8 -26- 93 3 PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No: 93010 Applicant: Holiday Stationstores, Inc. Location: 6550 West River Road Avenue Request: Special Use Permit/Site and Building Plan Approval The applicant is seeking site and building plan approval and a special use permit to construct a 3,600 s.f. gas station /convenience store and a 1,320 s.f. attached car wash at the southeast quadrant of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North. The property in question is 51,353 s.f. (1.18 acres) in area, is addressed 6550 West River Road and currently contains the Atkins Mechanical building. The property is zoned C -2 and is bounded on the north by 66th Avenue; on the east by vacant C -1 zoned land which abuts along it's east side with Willow Lane; on the south by the Brookdale Motel; and on the west by the West River Road frontage road with Highway 252 lying further to the west. Gas stations and car washes are special uses in the C -2 zoning district while a retail grocery or convenience store is a permitted use in this zoning district. This site has been the subject of a number of proposed developments over the past few years. Two proposals were similar to the current application and involved the use of the site as a gas station /convenience store /car wash. One of those proposals was submitted by Fina Oil and Chemical Company (Planning Commission Application No. 89012) in 1989. After a moratorium, a traffic analysis and a land use study, the City Council had directed the preparation to of a resolution that would grant approval of a site plan and special use permit for the project, however, Fina Oil and Chemical Company decided not to exercise it's option on the property and proceed with it's development proposal. The other proposal involved PDQ Food Stores, Inc. (Planning Commission Application No. 91018) which was denied by the City Council on November 18, 1991 through City Council Resolution No. 91 -267. This denial was because PDQ was not willing to revise it's site plans to be in conformance with applicable regulations in the zoning ordinance for the district for which they were located. Specifically, one of the accesses to the site was more than 30' in width and the two accesses were closer than 50' to each other. The lighting in the canopy was not consistent with the zoning ordinance requirement that lighting shall be provided with lenses, reflectors or shades to concentrate illumination on the property and not create light glare. The plans were also incomplete and inconsistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance and the inclusion of a 6" illuminated lexon band on the canopy was inconsistent with the sign ordinance provisions regarding canopy signs and attention attracting devices. Attached for the Commission's review is a copy of City Council Resolution No. 91 -267 and copies of the approved site plan for Fina and the rejected site plan for PDQ. ACCESS /PARKING The site plan proposed by Holidaystation Stores, Inc. proposes two 30' wide accesses serving the site from the West River Road frontage road which are approximately 90' apart from each other. The northerly of the two accesses leads toward the front (north side) of the building and to the pump island area which is covered by a 52' x 95' canopy that is approximately 19' high. C` r i Planning Commission Application No. 93010 The southerly ccess leads to a parking area along the south property line and Y P g g p p y a trash enclosure at the southeast corner of the site. A third access to the site is located off 66th Avenue and is actually constructed on the neighboring property to the east. This access is also 30' wide and is to line up directly with the median opening on 66th Avenue. This driveway will become a joint access, and the only access, to serve the parcel to the east when it is developed for a service /office use in the future. A joint access agreement, if not already executed between the two properties, will be needed to assure that this access arrangement will be continued in the future. Access to the proposed 22' x 60' car wash which is attached to the south side of the building is gained in a clockwise manner around the convenience store. A 15' one -way car wash drive is located to the east of the store and also serves as stacking space for the drive -thru car wash. It appears that there is enough space for 6 cars to be waiting in the drive -up line. Parking provided on the site comes to 27 designated spaces including one handicap space. Fourteen parking spaces are located along the south side of a 24' wide drive lane. These spaces are set back 10' from the south property line. Five spaces are located along the west side of the building and eight spaces are located along the north side (or front) of the building. Twenty parking spaces are required to meet the retail parking formula of 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 s.f. of gross floor area. The additional seven parking spaces should handle any parking demands for the car wash. (Note: The 27 total parking spaces would be adequate even if the car wash were devoted to a retail use). The plans also indicate 12 additional parking spaces at the pump islands. Parking, driving, stacking and circulation around the site appear to be adequate. GRADING /DRAINAGE /UTILITIES B612 curb and gutter is to be provided around all driving and parking areas. Drainage is generally away from the building and will be collected in catch basins located south of the building, along the frontage road greenstrip by the two entrances to the site, at the northwesterly and northeasterly portions of the site as well as two locations on either side of the 66th Avenue shared access. The Commission's attention is directed to the City Engineer's August 5, 1993. memo regarding his review of the Holiday plans. Of particular interest are his comments about access to the site which was of significant concern during our review of the PDQ proposal. PDQ's failure to address the access issues, particularly their insistence on having an access closer to 66th than what is currently existing and the need for wider and closer together accesses than allowed by ordinance r we e a major reason for or the denial of that particular plan. Also of interest are the City Engineer's comments relative to the visual impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood. The applicants propose a 6' high masonry wall to match the building exterior along the south 175' of their east property line to block out primarily headlight glare from automobiles into the residential area east of Willow Lane. The applicant has provided site line drawings to show how headlight glare will be screened. Amur Maple and Norway Maple trees are proposed to be 8 -12 -93 2 , MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION AUGUST 12, 1993 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chair Pro Tem Holmes at 7:36 p.m. Chair Pro Tem Mark Holmes, Commissioners Bertil Johnson, Debra Hilstrom and Tim Willson. Also present were the Secretary to the Planning Commission Planning and Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren, City Engineer Mark Maloney, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Kathy Stratton. Chairperson Sander, Commissioners Reem and Mickelson had indicated they would be unable to attend this evening's meeting and were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 29 1993 There was a motion by Commissioner Hilstrom and seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve the minutes of the July 29, 1993, Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chair Pro Tem Holmes, Commissioners Hilstrom, Johnson, and Willson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. CHAIRPERSON'S EXPLANATION Chair Pro Tem Holmes explained the Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. APPLICATION NO. 93010 (HOLIDAY STATIONSTORES, INC Chair Pro Tem Holmes introduced the first item of business, a request from Holiday Stationstores, Inc. for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a gasoline station/convenience store /car wash at 6550 West River Road. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 93010, attached) using numerous overhead slides. He also provided a detailed explanation of sight lines from the residential properties on Willow Lane to show plans that have been made for screening of headlights and other activities at the site. He also pointed out this site is not considered one that abuts residential property. 8 -12 -93 1 While reviewing the Landscaping/Screening section of his report, the Secretary explained trees proposed for screening were a type that lose their leaves in winter, and perhaps a better choice of trees would be coniferous trees that provide screening year- round. The Secretary reviewed the contents of a letter from Phillip and Margaret Dahlen of 6518 Willow Lane. The Dahlens could not be present but expressed, via their letter, their opposition to the Holiday Stationstore. The Secretary read portions of their letter which indicated their concerns about noise, air, light and ground pollution, traffic, ground water from the car wash draining to the Mississippi River, and additional traffic. The Dahlens asked for a reply and /or copy of the minutes of this meeting. The Secretary assured the Commission the City would provide the Dahlens with such information. The Secretary also mentioned his discussion earlier that day with Chairperson Sanders who expressed her concerns about outside storage on the walkways in front of the station. The Secretary explained at least 4 feet should be required for a sidewalk to function as a walkway. The Ordinance limits displays to within 4 feet of a building. If the applicants propose to have displays they should consider widening the walkway. The City Engineer reviewed the contents of his memorandum dated August 5, 1993, regarding his review of the Holiday Stationstore site plan. This report included the possible construction of a "node" adjacent to the site and to Willow Lane. He also used several overhead transparencies to illustrate. In response to Commissioner Hilstrom's question as to how construction of a "node" would be paid for, the City Engineer explained payment could come from dither the City's available discretionary funds, from possible State aid to build the sidewalk and trails, or from special assessments. Chair Pro Tern Holmes asked the City Engineer why the brick wall could not be extended any further. The City Engineer explained it could not be extended because of the grade needed by the driveway for access to the adjacent vacant site. Commissioner Willson suggested the applicant take on the cost of the "node ", to which the City Engineer responded this could not be required since the construction would take place off the property that would be purchased for the station. He added, however, that a special assessment could occur after construction. Commissioner Willson pointed out another sight line that had not been addressed which he called a "D" sight line involving the northeast corner. He added the homes in the sight line diagram shown were one -story, while most of the homes on Willow Lane are actually two - story. He further expressed concern there is no guarantee the applicant can control this sight line because of the adjacent vacant lot. He further questioned if some condition could be placed on any future applicant for development of the adjacent lot to provide screening to the homes on Willow Lane. The Secretary responded it probably could be a condition of acceptance of a future site plan. 8 -12 -93 2 r t Commissioner Hilstrom expressed concern about who would maintain the trees that were not actually on the Holiday site. Commissioner Willson inquired about the height and strength of lights. The Secretary explained the applicant has attempted to solve the problem by having lights inside the canopy directed downward. He added the light spill should be much less than that of the neighboring SA station. The Secretary expressed he did not think the City was in a position to deny the site plan over headlight sweep, which is a hard problem to correct. In response to a question about water drainage by Commissioner Holmes, the City Engineer explained barring any hazardous material spills, there is no requirement specific for gas stations. He added the car wash has special construction features to prevent any drainage into the nearby river. Commissioner Hilstrom expressed concern about fog near the car wash exit. The Secretary explained the City does not require anything specific of the applicant in regard to that issue. Commissioner Willson asked if signs could be placed to discourage cars from going into the residential area. The Secretary explained it was definitely a possibility, and the City Engineer added signs would have to be on the actual property site. Commissioner Holmes expressed concern about the marketability of the adjacent C -1 vacant site because of joint access. The Secretary explained the owner of the property had previously provided the City with a site plan showing how an office building could be situated on the vacant C -1 property and make use of a shared access. Commissioner Willson asked who currently owns the property. The Secretary provided him with the owner's name: Howard Atkins. Chair Pro Tem Holmes declared a 10 minute recess at 9:11 p.m. Upon reconvening at 9:20 p.m. Mr. Jerry Jenson of Holiday Companies, Inc., introduced himself and three others from his company. He explained his presence was to answer any questions. He complimented the Staff on the thoroughly prepared report, and mentioned how Holiday and Brooklyn Center City staff have worked extensively to try to address the concerns of the neighborhood which had been expressed in the past. He pointed out extra landscaping points h p g p s t at were not required and even some off -site landscaping were included in their site plan. He explained Holiday has "dotted every i and crossed every V to comply with the wishes of the City. PUBLIC HEARING (APPLICATION NO. 93010 Chair Pro Tem Holmes opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a gasoline 8 -12 -93 3 i , Y station/convenience store /car wash at 6550 West River Road at 9:25 p.m. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Commission, and several City residents appeared with comments as follow: Mr. Richard Cameron of 6620 Willow Lane was first to voice his opposition to the plan and asserted it would be a "24 -hour nuisance." He also expressed his dislike of the late -night activities at SuperAmerica with people sitting and just waiting in cars. He thought the Holiday station would add more of this activity. He stated he was opposed to the reconfiguration of the roadway which would bring all traffic by his property. Mr. Bill Elsholtz of 6546 Willow Lane expressed he thought SA should just expand across the road if the area needed another gas station and reiterated his concern about a certain "bad element" in the evening hours. He was also concerned no screening is provided when cars turn around to go into the car wash. He stated his opposition to the plan. Mr. Phil Carruthers, State Representative for Brooklyn Center, spoke of the neighborhood being strongly opposed to this development and -how the neighborhood should be protected so it is as liveable as possible. He stated while being sensitive to the desire of Mr. Atkins to sell the property, this proposal is not pro- neighborhood and interferes with the desire of the community. He continued he thought the City should see this as an opportunity to develop the whole area into a residential area, and urged the Commission to see this as an opportunity to fight for Brooklyn Center. Mr. Howard Atkins, owner of the property in question, urged the Commission to accept the applicant's proposal since the developer has the right to develop as they see fit. He continued Holiday has cooperated in addressing any issues of concern. Mr. Fred Schilling of 6858 Willow Lane agreed with Representative Carruthers that Holiday would be bad for the community and expressed additional concern about increased crime in the area. He was opposed to the plan. Mr. Charles Stutz of 7001 Willow Lane expressed his opposition to the Holiday station and read a letter from Lawrence and Jackie Lindquist of 7008 and 6940 Willow Lane which stated their opinions a Holiday station would further crime and weaken the community. Mr. Rod Snyder of 6408 Willow Lane said he appreciated the opportunity to address the Commission and commented in his opinion Holiday had not addressed important issues to the community. He also indicated the people of Brooklyn Center are not the ones who would use the station so they do not want it. He said perhaps when the ordinances were adopted, 24 hours businesses were not part of culture. He complimented Commissioner Willson for his insight and urged the Commission not to "red stamp" staffs recommendation. Mr. Klaus Pierach of 6930 Willow Lane stated any development should be an improvement to the community and a Holiday would not be an improvement. He believed such a development would only lead to disintegration in the residential neighborhood. 8 -12 -93 4 Mr. Greg Schuster of 7023 Willow Lane agreed with all points of others before him in opposition to the station and added the area did not need another gas station as several others in the area are not even operating at their desired capacity. He also considered his neighborhood to be very beautiful and said it is worth preserving. He said he thought this development would lead to a slow decline in property values and to people leaving. Mr. Bill Hannay of 6432 Willow Lane agreed with those opposed to Holiday and added his concern about the length of time cars currently wait in the stoplight on Highway 252. He asserted Holiday would add to this problem. - Ms. Lori Duncan of 6900 Dallas Road agreed traffic would be a problem and said maybe the stoplight should be regulated to stay green longer. She explained for those who live in the area there are only two accesses to Highway 252 and more traffic would make it harder for the residents. Ms. Vicki Snyder of 6408 Willow Lane stated construction of the "node" would be the third time in six years the area has been re- engineered. She expressed concern about decreasing of home values and thought maybe the solution is to re -zone the site. Mr. LeRoy Funk of 7125 Willow Lane noted there had never been a successful gas station on the corner in question and asked if there had been a count of how many cars it would take to run a successful gas business on this site. He expressed additional concern about traffic. Mr. Schuster spoke again with the suggestion that nothing should be done for Brooklyn Center unless it is good, right, and needed, and unless it promotes strong neighborhoods. He added once the City commits to this project it severely limits any other options like park land or residential land. Mr. Tom Kouri of 6416 Willow Lane also disagreed with the Holiday plan and stressed the community needs to look to the future for a safer place for its children. He explained having a Holiday station there would make him less likely to allow his kids to ride bikes. This development does not produce benefits to the community and will be a problem instead. Ms. Duncan added the Holiday site is adjacent to a bus stop for children. Ms. Alice Kuutti expressed her fear to take walks at night as she used to and said Holiday would add to her fear. She stated her opposition to the plan. Mr. Schilling again spoke of his concern about more asphalt and drainage into the Mississippi River and mentioned a newspaper article about an area that could not handle all the development it took on. He said an environmental study should be made. 8 -12 -93 5 Mr. Mike Rasnak, Minneapolis Zone Manager for SuperAmerica stated because of its high visibility, the SA at Highway 252 has become a meeting place for people on the north end, both "unsavory types and normal people ". He clarified the Erickson family does not own SuperAmerica. Ms. Snyder again spoke of her mother's recent move to Brooklyn Center to get away from a neighborhood she was afraid of. She added two years ago in Brooklyn Center her yard was used as a police stake -out which has caused her to fear she may have to move again. She said the community should have concern for safety for the elderly. There was some discussion about the number of notices sent out and concern by citizens that not enough people were notified. The Secretary explained the Ordinance requires people within 350 feet of the site must be notified. He added no one is barred from public hearings and all are welcome, even those beyond the 350 feet notification area. He further explained 36 addresses had been notified. Mr. Carruthers presented an idea that those who are interested in being informed about developments in the area should notify the City. He added the City is there to serve citizens and would hopefully cooperate. Commissioner Willson suggested a sheet of paper be provided for any to sign their names and addresses to receive pertinent information about the approval process for the site. A member of the audience said there would be no reason to notify people if the Commission and Council were going to deny the application to Holiday. Chair Pro Tem Holmes explained the Planning Commission only recommends action to the City Council, which then makes any decisions. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner Hilstrom and seconded by Commissioner Willson to close the public hearing at 10:29 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Jensen, representative of Holiday Companies, Inc., expressed the opinion that all concerns of the neighborhood had been addressed. He noted the site is zoned C -2 which would allow this type of development with a special use permit. He reminded the group that by law the use they are applying for is permissible. He added Holiday has in every way abided by the rules of "play" that the City itself came up with. He then asked if there were any further questions. In answer to Commissioner Hilstrom's questions, Mr. Jensen explained the car wash would operate 24 hours a day, and a problem with fog only exists with certain types of equipment. He further explained Holiday has not yet made the decision on their equipment. He added there should be no safety problem with people walking by the car wash from parking spaces as there was plenty of room. 8 -12 -93 6 r , ' Chair Pro Tem Holmes asked Mr. Jensen if he knew the number of cars that would be expected per day and the estimated sales. Mr. Jensen explained this information is hard to provide, but the traffic study that had been conducted indicated no problem with accommodating the traffic for the business. The Secretary agreed. Commissioner Hilstrom asked the applicant if they would be willing to maintain the trees used for screening that are not on the property. Mr. Jensen responded they would plant trees and procure a guarantee from the nursery as to their staying alive. He added they will provide any type of trees that would satisfy the Commission and community. In response to questions by Chair Pro Tem Holmes, the City Engineer explained run -off from rain and snow on the site and waste from the car wash are two separate issues. He further explained the car wash water is recycled and re -used and there is a trap for sediment disposal. He added the drainage construction proposed more than adequately provides for the run -off and the site is not close enough to the River to require any special arrangements. An unidentified audience member asked why he City s soliciting business that the b Y s e u he tY g P does not want. He also wondered why the public had to come and hear all this again when they had been through it two times before. The Secretary explained the ordinance requires consideration of the application because it is new application i i i pp a e with modifications ons to what had previously been submitted. He noted that the City had not solicited its application. It had been brought forward by a potential property owner. Commissioner Johnson commented on the need to accept applications for permitted uses. He explained to the audience that perhaps they should be taking their concerns to the City Council, who can actually make a decision on this issue. Commissioner Willson expressed his appreciation to staff for their work in reviewing this material, but said he did not think the problem of sight lines had been adequately solved. He explained in this case the applicant has applied for a special use permit which the City is not required to grant. He read certain conditions from Standards for Special Use Permits and commented on how in his opinion the Holiday station would not fulfill the conditions required in points a, b, & c of number 2 in section 35 -220 on special use permits. He further stated his opinion that because of the standards, the application should be denied and he urged the Commission to make such a recommendation to the Council. Chair Pro Tem Holmes commented on the compelling story from the community and asked if Mr. Atkins had any other offers for his property other than a gas station. The Secretary explained one proposal had been considered which used the whole area for an office building. He added economics did not allow pursuit of the project. He continued to explain a study had been done on the proposed Holiday site that prevented any development until its completion. He said conclusions from that study indicated since the site is .so close to Highway 252, it naturally lended itself to a business like a gas station or convenience store, so at that time the zoning was not changed because the land seemed to 8 -12 -93 7 be zoned properly. He said that a traffic study also indicated there was no doubt the roadways around the site could handle the traffic it would generate. He continued if the City denies this permit it would have to be on the basis that the special use standards were not met. The final conclusion reached to this point was that the proposal does meet all necessary standards in spite of opposition from people in the area. He further explained access points were the only problem with PDQ. He noted even group homes, following studies, were determined not to have a substantially negative impact on surrounding property. Therefore, he said in order to deny the proposal from Holiday, the burden would be on the City to show that Holiday would have a substantially detrimental impact on the neighboring property. He concluded, if the Commission feels the special use standards are not met, they should go forward with that recommendation to the Council. He added the bottom line is that to preserve this area in a manner that the residents would like, the City may have to acquire the property itself. Commissioner Willson repeated he did not feel the special use permit standards were met and urged the Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council to deny the proposal. The City Engineer recommended in fairness to the applicant who has adequately answered all concerns, and to the staff, the Commission not refer the matter back to staff. There was some discussion on different options open to the Commission at this point. Commissioner Johnson expressed concern the City either approve this proposal or ask the Council never to allow anything in that site. He also pointed out it was a different Council currently than the one that accepted the former proposals for a gas station /convenience store. Commissioner Hilstrom said she thought is was the best proposal they've seen and if the issue of the trees for screening could be solved, she would vote in favor of the proposal. Chair Pro Tem Holmes asked what would happen in the event of a split vote since only four Commission members were present. The Secretary explained it could be referred to the City Council without a recommendation or be put on the agenda of the next Planning Commission meeting in two weeks. He added the Commission has 60 days to give the City Council a recommendation. He clarified in the event of a split vote, the Commission would not have decided anything. ACTION REGARDING APPLICATION NO. 93010 (HOLIDAY STATIONSTORES, INC. There was a motion by Commissioner Willson to deny Application No. 93010 submitted by Holiday Stationstores, Inc. for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a gasoline station/convenience store /car wash at 6550 West River Road, on the basis that points a, b, and c in the special use standards are not being met. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Johnson only for the purpose of obtaining a vote. 8 -12 -93 8 t r ' i Vote: 2 aye, 2 nay. The motion did not pass. Voting aye: Commissioner Willson and Chair Pro Tem Holmes. Voting nay: Commissioners Johnson and Hilstrom. There was a motion by Commissioner Willson and seconded by Commissioner Hilstrom to table this item until the next Planning Commission meeting on August 26, 1993. The motion to table passed unanimously. Commissioner Hilstrom asked if in discussing Application 90310 at the next meeting they would be required to hold another public hearing. The Secretary explained it would not be required but would be the option of the Commission. He again recommended a list be circulated among the public in attendance to receive notice of the next meeting. Mr. Jensen stated he regretted very much the Commission had not referred this directly to the City Council especially since nothing would, change in two week's time. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Hilstrom and seconded by Commissioner Holmes to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:34 p.m. 0 Chairperson Recorded and transcribed by: Kathy Stratton TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial 8 -12 -93 9 INS ■�► II 111 ��,� _ ��,�.�� -- - ,. + ��_ ■■ , � 1118 �SEEN Ilk MINES MEMO SO •ru•i•�n� *mot•+ ■111 �� ` 1 .� �� _•' rr 11. ■ ■!■ /■ 1111111 1111 /t/ 1 r 1 /111;. 11 �� • �. -._�. .,....� 111111:. �� ; : 111111 i1 1 1111 �� � ��� �► � ♦ � ■ 111111 11111■ � � . 11 � I I ... :..111 '►� ®�� � ; ��� � 111 .. /11; � 111 11 1 ........ ���ur MIN � :� ♦ � 1111111 111■ � .. ■ _ .!!11111 © ►...•� ■I 1 ��►�•���������i� 111 11 ( 11 ■ol ■ 11 ' 11 In .� .1111111. 1111111��1 ■ 111111 �I� ►�������������� 1 _ ,. ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■�■ ■ ■ ■. i■11111 ■ %,,• ► - -; , ►����� ; ���j�j� -111 11 . '11 ■!IIM11■I �IIIfR71 ,. - j ► ►�������������� ■ ... i 1111 ��� o n .11'u L J L JL JL J SCNACl. IQY ~ Tws r +w u sM M Rn p I � 1 667H ,Vs. If. ., y 1 II i 1 I I J LJ 1 t SIGNAGE LAYOUT b k, I - I t � I t f i'I 1 I I ..gym,• A 1 � 1 - - -- 4d 'L -- NptTt � =ms `J1E ru.4 — EIROOKLYN CENTER, NI NF 0, DALE CHANCE BV Holida Companies ti SNEE, moo- im, y PLAN SCALE DRAWN BY DATE DNAWNG NO C.31-or Ana ue� r _ e vr 9� \ ssra itl � 2� __— t %c1. (NNL it ��• �I r � G] _ 11 - - -- -- '/ - - - I IN I b I 1 l uvdr rtr+1 1 � ' Holiday Companies SceAnoN BROOKLYN CENTER, (1V GRADE PLAN 7 r' N0. DATE CHANCE BY �� �• -� sHCer nn t PLAN HoNaay SE&I ORAYAH BY DATE DRA / 1; fl(1, A6{7 M[ET bM ETAQT YHHW MINNCSOTA E ('�}I.Q •IOG /lA6 )/N/Q /��- /) r � `A �l T DEMJ�OUS vfE PLANTING DETAIL NO SCALE N, r I _ I i x - I I I I 111 I n 11 u I 1 1 LJA -JLJ J I Cc)rlllRCU S TRTT AND SPUDS PLANTING DETAIL q NO scs<E o - --- I s t4 1 ,_ I .I I 1 9 3 !. 'T S AT I I r•.. v.cci M .u.. (p , � " •.•r _ - -__ I I I A ., - pe ire n+iA¢.�, •. •- rwv�i..rz nc a I I - m n r�i. n +r•L U;ii r1Cll 9 1 I i' 1 1 � rirrm tonne.. ronu. -n I ,.uaslxi_. I A 4 �`2Aro�._ 1[TiSy _ I I I ____ I - nMn•4 ri rU Out Q R:.'Yp •i [.OI L _ -�� 4> (➢tiJLY TJ �Kil></ 4ID Q l_ _ _ - -.� R c nu uI a ni . Iu� ,vrr m AT x x v rrxc*u. •v�vA « ,w`m•c,a v.0 n•.a r tor.cim - WIf:N2 COtiN.Lia Yu• ¢IOrrt M •Qt 0'�Qi TT YO LTtLi1D •OP Ia fANA %/f vA �a wua rsn w ton �nr - u++l,.vT �I.evc+a n lyraat ra ya..c MTwi vun .Ir mx,err, nvn an;incnx i - � •,v.r, r< �i•fIIl a auT� Cum mw ma (�rour (U - fMMT �,n.AC+a ro Ni.rL nAV vwu. ra.w Nai,o r. rt.wiN4 Inn - v»< nn t,i.c r•rtii MfAi •If ro tt IM..rm )uaDR iwDl roUUV•rt Na1',1'Ni 1'I,V, LOW YL MD M A h UrtA KF4 v/ ail xA Iy:uv cwl urtR o w .n ro WIllM w,l MA: LOCA 1, �.I�� '7�� t I. Nt TION:_ ED OOKLYN CLI 'AIL -13 if ,r'/�� /./� N0. DATE C/1ANCC 13Y ED Holiday C ompanies �� ® � 'y SHEET n E_ LANDSCAPE PLAN NfY.q li I SCALE I DRAWN DT DATF' DN�iA MI NO ' fM7 T �OTN YIN ffAPCKJS MINNMT0i ... .,. ., i . ..., �. __.. e I i i I i NORTH EIF/ATION r r — EAST ELEVATION ^ - S OUTH ELEVATION ELEVATIO ND. DAIS CHANCE ev LOCATION. BROOKO'N CTR, MN _ y 1jI�W� h s.1EeT nnc_ EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS H ol iday C ompanies �- /� ® 110 SOA E DRAKN DY DA E DR AVANT, N0 -.. A96] !10TH TR T 41NN NINN iA ♦ 7 AS 11q(fl .IpC ]�� 1 J ^e A li i r � `;.SST Etr'�dAT�ON a» I )OUT11 1- 1FVA11ON \A'51 Il rVATION _. _ . — - -- A I_ANGE LocATlorx 13ROOKLTN CENTER, MN N0. DATE CMAN4ti BY Holld(ly Companies - S �-- CANOPY LILVA11CN5 NMrr —� / Holdaf SCALE DRAWN AY DAT DNAMMC Nt] SSA] HEST EOTN STREET MINNEA OUS. —NMTA SS.JT nn �.�.. n w.«w... o ....... w..., .n .......•.... �..,..... ...� ,..... ... w. i... -. .., .....�....,....n .o.....n.v..r....n Af 10® JA4 l/JSA. . j ( -- -- -'- ----- ---- ---- -- - - - - - -- - - - -_ II ELEVATION A am - u , ELEVATION B I ELEVATION C talc WrnVt SUIL J / ^' -1'(f HWONTAL SC LE VAM5, a 3M MA4 MA"GS 4RM1 AT NPRMIATE 11A11.2 Mn" R!qN LocAnoN: BROOKLYN C�JTfR, MN. N0. DT ��ANCE BY GRACE 5E Holid(lyC ompanies [ti] f °" ( � — - 4"`T �tt IMIn ® � MOINIR) SCALE DRANK PY DAt[ DRAMING N0. o � V, �:u C) 0 Pi Zorn 0 � Grp V = F- : �� C� a Oz 0 c� LL 2'-81/4"12" LL 4' -9" 5 -11 1/2" z 4" 4 4" 24' - 0" 8 D p ANN PROP05ED 51GNAGE Holiday Companies As Dated q C yT M Engineering Department H o 1 d Dre.n by .AD. �i. D°te a� ]8 93 UROk � \L � I � CENTER, ' IN 1567 Weet ODN SVeel, NO�e., M ", 554J7 �� 612- 67D -8P86 rr ■■ h 1 5 3/8" 11' -6 1/2" — 1 1/2" 2 5 16 5/8" (( G c 6 9 3/8" 9 3/8" 2 5/8' 1 1/2" I (V PROPOSED CANOPY /DUILDIN G SI GNA GE AND STRIPING SCALE 1/4 " =1' -0" 07/18/93 NOTE: DRAMNG REFLECTS STRIPING FOR CANOPY AND A CONDINATON OF STRIPING AND SIGN CAN ON BUILDING o.y b•. 5u+acE P,oi «1 : L —tlo� Holida Co ne i +ocea PROPOSED SIGNAGE Y P �® BROOKLYN CENTER, MN Engineering Department li d a•... er dD. G. o•a 07 18 93 IJ67 Weei OON Street, Mob.. MM. 3 1 1.. 1 612 -010 -8886 r Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 91 -267 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 91018 SUBMITTED BY POO FOOD STORE'S INC WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 91018 was submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc. seeking site and building plan and special use permit approval to build a gas station/ convenience store /car wash at the southwest quadrant of T. H. 252 and 66th Avenue North; and WHEREAS, Section 35 -220, Subdivision 2 of the Zoning Ordinance states that a special use permit may ,be granted by the City Council. after demonstration by evidence that all of the five standards for special use permits listed in said section of the ordinance are met; and WHEREAS, this application was considered by the Planning Commission at its September 12, 1991 regular meeting during which a public hearing was held and testimony regarding the request was received; and WHEREAS, the majority of the Planning believed it was necessary to revise the plans submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc. as a means of meeting the standards for special use permits; and WHEREAS, the applicant, during the public hearing, indicated it was not willing to revise the site and building plans in accordance with the Planning Commission's recommendations; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission directed the City staff to prepare a resolution recommending to the City Council the denial of Planning Commission Application No. 91018 on the grounds that the standards for special use permits were not met; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at a duly called meeting held on September 26, 1991 adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 91 -5 recommending the denial of Planning Commission Application No. 91018 submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc.; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center first considered said application at a duly called City Council meeting on October 7, 1991; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed all of the materials submitted, the record of the Planning Commission's review of this matter, and information supplied and testimony presented by the applicants and their representatives, as well as information and testimony presented by other interested parties; and RESOLUTION NO. 9I -26 WHEREAS, the City received a letter from the Minnesota Department of Transportation reviewing the PDQ plan as it relates to T. H. 252 indicating traffic congestion concerns and the need to keep the first entrance from the frontage road set back from 66t1h Avenue North as far as possible; and WHEREAS, the City Council on October 7, 1991, determined the applicant's plans that were then being considered could not meet the standards for special use permits without various revisions; and WHEREAS, the City Council on October 7, 1991 directed the staff to prepare a resolution denying this application on the grounds that the standards for special use permits were not met in this situation for their consideration at the .next City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, a resolution denying Planning Commission Application No. 91013 was prepared and presented to the City Council for consideration on October 21, 1991; and WHEREAS, the applicant on October 21, 1991 submitted a letter and a sketch of a revised plan indicating some willingness to revise their plan although it still did not meet. all of the site plan concerns previously P ressed t �. o the applicants; �P ants pp and WHEREAS, at the October 21, 1991 City Council meeting Mr. Shelton, President of PDQ, indicated that they wished the.Council to table consideration of the denial of this application for another two weeks so that a revised plan could be pursued; and WHEREAS, the City Council did table further consideration of this application for two weeks and directed the staff to notify neighboring property owners of the Council's reconsideration to be held on November 4, 1991; and WHEREAS, on November 4, 1991 the City Council considered • revised sketch plan submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc. along with • report from the staff regarding this plan's compliance with the zoning ordinance provisions and the standards for special use permits; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the plans before them were not consistent with all of the provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance and, therefore, also not consistent with the standards for special use permits contained in Section 35 -220, Subdivision 2 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. r RESOLUTION NO. 91 -26 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to deny Planning Commission Application No. 91013 submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc. on the grounds that the plans submitted do not demonstrate that the standards for special use permits contained in Section 35 -220 Subdivision 2 of the City Ordinances have been met. Specifically, the City Council finds that standard ( e) regarding conformance to applicable regulations of the district in which a use is located is not met on the basis of the following; I. The northerly driveway accessing the site exceeds 30' in width and has a separation of less than 50' from the southerly access to the site. This is at variance with Section 35 -414, Subdivision 4 of the City Ordinances which states that the maximum right angle width of any driveway shall be 30' at the property line, and that no driveway shall be located within 50' of another driveway at the Property line on the same use site and also Section 35 -703 which states that access to off - street areas shall be restricted to driveways 30' or less in width, and no two driveways on any single parcel of land in a business or industrial district shall be oc less than 50' apart. 2• The plans showing dropped lighting in the canopy for the service station are not consistent and are at variance with Section 35 -414, Subdivision 7 and Section 35 -712 of the City Ordinances which states that all exterior lighting shall be provided with lenses, reflectors, or shades, so as to concentrate illumination on the property of the owner or operator of said illumination devices, and that no glare shall emanate from or be visible beyond the boundaries of the illuminated premises. 3. The plans submitted thus far for screening, lighting, land elevations, drainage and landscaping are not complete and consistent with the requirements for site and building plan approval contained in Section 35 -230, Subdivision 2 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 4. The 6" illuminated lexon band proposed on the canopy is inconsistent and at variance with provisions in the City's Sign Ordinance regarding canopy signs and attention attracting devices. C RESOLUTION NO. 91 -267 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that any future revisions or modifications to the Proposed plans shall be subject to the resubmission' of a new Planning Commission Application consistent with the provisions of Sections 35 - 220 and 35 - 230 of the City Ordinances regarding Special use Permits and Plan Approves November 18, 1991 Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: a D The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Dave Rosene , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Todd Paulson, Celia Scott, Dave Rosene, and Philip Cohen; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. o Section 35 -220. SPECIAL USE PERMITS 2. Standards for Special Use Permits A special use permit may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met: (a) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. (b) The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values Within the neighborhood. (c) The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. (d) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. (e) The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may impose such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location, construction, maintenance and operation of the special use as deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest and to secure compliance with requirements specified in this ord- inance. In all cases in which special use permits are granted, the City Council may require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary as part of the conditions stipulated in connec- tion therewith. 4. Resubmission No application for a special use permit which has been denied by the City Council shall be resubmitted for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of the final determination by the City Council; except that the applicant may set forth in writing newly discovered evidence of change of condition upon which he relies to gain the consent of the City Council for resubmission at an earlier time. 5. Revocation and Extension of Special Use Permits When a special use permit has been issued pursuant to the pro- visions of this ordinance, such permit shall expire without further action by the Planning Commission or the City Council unless the applicant or his assignee or successor commences work upon the sub- . ject property within one year of the date the special use permit is granted, or unless before the expiration of the one year period the applicant shall apply for an extension thereof by filling out and submitting to the Secretary of the Planning Commission a "Special Use Permit" application requesting such extension and paying an additional fee of $15.00. Special use permits granted pursuant to the provisions of a prior ordinance of Brooklyn Center shall expire within one year of the effective date of this ordinance if construction upon the sub- ject property pursuant to such special use permit has not commenced within that time. In any instance where an existing and established special use is abandoned for a period of one year, the special use permit re- lated thereto shall expire one year following the date of abandon- ment. �UCq 1TE. ; V4LA Al ' /�t,sl.,� '/tc:c a oN i��.us�•ti / I 1 1 � � 1 + 40 ' X 60 1 ► I !1 � o ! ►i ` 1 r CONVENIENCE II i Ili I sTOR I 1 1 1 ! I "C 3 STALLS 14 I .I Vol ry low i • � ~~`'�-- -......', `mow....+. - I W. t'nM'T •r W T"fTMC DATA t I :.....ww.w. - F:,�- 66 TH. AVENUE I } 16' POLE LIGHT Z NO SCALE Q w Q N I + __ —e• — — - - - 4SL+ wL1lu7 .� ...o .« ....... U 1 I KI QATA. .. = U) i W i � � s ..w s m....a.s. •. K 1 Z o o Rt�r� /try Q <N ¢ N �r r- � ��b��11 z j / / / Z Q = x I I H W r c:ts• I I m Q L F- / I • II • II • I • `ti' I JOB NUMBER: / / ,l °Jl °Jl °). ,. •A,. � _ -L- . . 1116 RECESSED CANOPY LIGHT ISSUE DATE: 3 -12-90 rw — m NO SCALE I G ae , ao �- I I REVISIONS: unv[•u.cr Timor. PROPOSED SITE PLAN 4-2 -90 I -- SCALE: 1'.20' -0' IS � 8 c � -•4 �° r I I ....•. ..... ..'.. — i I - ' KEY: SITE PLAN/ i 1 PROPOSED A -1 OF 9 y MEMORANDUM DATE: August 5, 1993 TO: Brad Hoffman, Director of Community Development File - Holiday Companies (Willow Lane & 66th Ave. No.) FROM: Mark J. Maloney, City Engineer RE: Site Plan for Holiday Companies I have reviewed the recently submitted plans for the above proposed improvement, drawings dated July 29, 1993, and offer the following comments and /or recommendations: 1) Because of the potential impact on the intersection of 66th Ave. No. with State Trunk Highway 252, I had previously forwarded a copy of the site plan for this proposed development to MnDOT for their review and comment. A copy of their response is attached for your reference. Their concerns with any development at this location can be summarized as a) a determination for the need for any entrance or access permits from State right -of -way, and b) a review of the existing and proposed drainage patterns adjacent to the highway. In both cases MnDOT, has found the plan proposed by Holiday Companies acceptable with regard to their concerns. 2) At a previous meeting, we (City Staff and developer) discussed the importance to the City of a proposed driveway /access configuration which allowed for well defined internal circulation patterns while not creating any obvious conflicts along the existing public right -of -ways (66th Ave. or Frontage Road). The plan which I have reviewed has incorporated staff's requests for a) an entrance /exit drive to 66th Ave. which is located as far as possible from the intersection with TH 252 and configured so that it will also serve as future access to the undeveloped commercial parcel adjacent to Willow Lane, and b) entrance /exit drives to the Frontage Road which are located at least as far south of 66th Ave. No. as the existing drive. The plan from Holiday Companies recognizes these access issues and indicates modifications to the internal circulation patterns to accommodate these requests by the City. 3) A very important issue that has been discussed regards visual impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood, and how adequate screening could be accomplished. The plan submitted contains sight line drawings from various angles, which attempt to show what would be visible from the residences along the east side of Willow Lane. The applicant has proposed a 6' high masonry wall along the south 175 feet of their east property line. It appears that this proposed wall would be effective in blocking direct headlight glare from the site which would have been directed toward the houses at 6536 and 6546 Willow Lane. Given the on -site circulation pattern, the property at 6552 Willow Lane would appear to be adequately screened by the proposed landscape materials. These landscaping materials shown on the east side of the adjacent commercial property will provide a minimal amount of screening for the properties at 6600 and 6620 Willow Lane, but will not offer much protection from the sweep of direct headlight glare due to the existing and proposed on -site movement of vehicles. Given the vertical grades which must be accommodated by the driveway to 66th Ave., and the need to locate it as far as possible from a potential conflict with TH 252, the driveway configuration appears to be the best possible fit; I don't think the applicant can substantially improve the sight lines for the properties at 6600 or 6620 within 0 the confines of his (or the adjacent commercial) property. Accordingly, staff has developed a conceptual plan which would create an opportunity for substantial screening for the above affected properties. I have attached a sketch of this concept for your reference. This concept consists of moving the connection of Willow Lane to 66th Ave. north approximately 125 feet, and aligning it with the recently reconstructed westbound lane of 66th Ave. The purpose for this realignment would be for the creation of a "node" on City-owned property which could be used for screening. The dimensions of this node are such that, with normal boulevards, it could easily accommodate a 6 foot high berm with additional plantings or fencing. The resulting configuration would create an opportunity for effective screening for the properties at 6600 and 6620 Willow Lane. Staff has not had the chance to discuss the above concept with the applicant, nor the adjacent residents. The amount and distribution of costs for any such improvements on City-owned ro ert have yet to be developed, P P Y how Y ever, I would expect the costs for street utility ty and landscaping improvements to be in the range of $20,000 - $40,000. As a coincidence, one of the "candidate projects" for the proposed 1994 Street Improvement Program is this segment of Willow Lane. The street has been identified by Public Works staff as needing pavement rehabilitation/reconstruction and drainage improvements, as well as providing the connection of the trailway system between West River Road and the I -694 bridge. It would now seem appropriate to discuss this chance to substantially reduce conflicts between the residences along Willow Lane and the commercially zoned properties under consideration in the context of a street reconstruction project. 4) The on -site storm drainage needs have been addressed by the proposed plan, however, I would recommend that a) one or ossibl both of the proposed catch basins P Y P P located at the entrance to 66th Ave. be constructed as "sump" structures, so that there exists a place for sand, grit and other sediments to be collected (and subsequently removed) prior to their discharge into the River, and b) the applicant may wish to examine the feasibility of providing heating elements in the trench drains which are proposed at either end of the car wash. With regard to the sump structures, it will be required that the applicant enter into ail agreement with the City for the provision of maintenance and sediment removal from these catch basins. Because the majority of the sediment collected would be directly attributed to the activities of the proposed Holiday station/store, we would require that, at least once a year Holiday remove the sediment from these structures and dispose of it properly. In the event that Holiday does not perform the required maintenance, the agreement shall enable the City to perform the maintenance and charge the developer for all time and materials, plus reasonable mark -up. This Storm Sewer Agreement could in fact be in the form of an amendment to the Utility Maintenance and Easement Agreement that will be entered into for the provision of maintenance of the other on -site utilities such as sewer and water services. Regarding the trench drains, on other recent applications for approval of car washes we have Is noted that the proximity of the trench drains to the public right -of -way required that they be designed so as not to create an ice hazard in the winter. In the case of this application, the proposed trench drains are located sufficiently far from the public right -of -way (Frontage Road); we don't need to require heating elements. However, the applicant may wish to look into it for his own maintenance or operational reasons. 5) The sewer and water service connections have been addressed on the plan via the notations "final location to be determined ". These are fairly minor issues and through my analysis of previous applications for uses of this property, I am comfortable that we will be able to resolve the utility service problems prior to issuance building permits. As noted above, the Utility and Maintenance Agreement will need to be developed so as to provide an understanding of the applicant's responsibilities. In addition, if the sewer and water service connections are in fact to extend across the adjacent commercial cial parcel, easements will need to be conveyed prior to plan approval. 6) The construction of the sanitary sewer, water main and storm sewer should conform to Brooklyn Center's Standard Details and Specifications, which are published and available in my office. 7) Detailed records will need to be kept during construction so that a proper asbuilt can be produced. Just a reminder - it is the applicant's responsibility to keep these detailed records of sewer and water connection locations /elevations, storm sewer locations, clean - outs, and valves, and provide the City with an asbuilt prior to release of any performance guarantee. Please contact me if you need further clarification of any of these concerns or recommendations. attachments e 7� 3 y -d Cvttft �a 66T$ AVE- rT. R 2f) ft 6'CP mct r IQrr srxo I I ) ff ocsr. 1 I I — OA_�FULT— —� R r t I• I I 1 I i s"�cz T� I ♦ y k 1 1 , 1 I I I i it II I I r 1 MMM AMMOACH 1 I / I r- o• I 40'- / 1 ur+Pr roomc (es) r 9 rFQ ❑tANVG r r R VAr W - CM S 1 1 I 1 10,R 31f (fo � SST 4 1 I 11 ag —u• 1 1 I I I 1 W �' 1 I S7ATK7�S�S I 1 CL t I Id L5 � I I � I I � ITAOWG LAM 6518 Willow Lane Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 -1637 8 August 1993 City of Brooklyn Center Planning Commission 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 To Whom It May Concern: We received notice of the public hearing to be held on Thursday, August 12. Neither of us can be available that evening but we wished to ask some questions about the petition of Special Use Permit by Holiday Stationstores, Inc. What is different about this petition than the previous ones by Fina and by Holiday Stationstores, Inc.? We have had hearings and meetings in the past by petitioners for the same kinds of facilities as those now being proposed. The same problems of excess noise, air, and ground pollution seem to exist. This proposed station is closer to residential areas that the SuperAmerica station. Noise and light pollution will affect the nearby single family homes to a greater extent. The extra traffic that will be generated will affect the re area. The proposed car wash will create increased ground water pollution that will naturally run off into an already endangered Mississippi River. In addition, there will be an increased danger of ice buildup on the local residential streets in cold weather. The other factor discussed previously was increased traffic on a portion of residential roadway that was not designed for nor built to withstand increased traffic that would be enerated b g Y such a station - store. We would appreciate having you address these concerns and sending us a reply and/or a copy of the minutes of the public hearing. Thank you. r Phillip and Margaret Da n 13 August 1993 u c+ ` City of Brooklyn Center Ate G F,`cS Planning Commission - Chairman - : ^ 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway 4? BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 RE Application 93010 Dear Mr. Chairman, It was good for us living in Brooklyn Center to hear last night's frank discussions about the above application. Your commission and your staff did a superb job in looking at this application from all angles and it is quite reassuring for us to sense that our concerns are in good hands with you. You sensed that there was no support whatsoever from within the neighborhood. All of us present seemed to be adamantly opposed to this project and some of us were quite outspoken about our very negative feelings. I would like to underscore what Rep. Carruthers said: that the governing board of our city and that includes your commission and your staff are here to serve us and nobody else. You are not here to help any single citizen who might not reap great profits unless he can sell his property, but you have to keep the wellbeing of the majority of your constituents in mind. The many reasons for rejection of this application as worded by you and by Commissioner Wilson seemed very sound: even after all the revisions that application does not merit approval since there is no benefit whatsoever for our neighborhood. There are only two parties that would profit from an approval of this plan: the current owner of the property and the developer. I urge you to see to it that this application will not be approved. Respectfully yours, p Claus A.Pierach, MD 6930 Willow Lane Brooklyn Center MN 55430 CC Rep. P. Carruthers Post -it' brand fax transmittal memo 7671 # of Pe9ea r Ta From co Co. pePt• Phone # August 25, 2993 Mr. Ron Warren Planning Commission Secretary City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55430 Subject: Holiday Station Dear Nix. Warren: I am new to the area lying between the Mississippi River and T.H. 252. I recently received a notice illegally placed into my mailbox from one of my neighbors, which 1 have attached to this letter, relating to the NIMBY (Not in my back yard) syndrome. I have personally witnessed young children attempting to cross T.H. 252 and shuddered at the thought of just one of 40,000 cars a. day blowing a red light at that particular moment. I personally use the Super America Station at least once a week for a movie, groceries, or for gasoline. I am sure, had you asked the neighbors in my subdivision and in the subdivision across T.H. 252 at the time that the Super America was being proposed, they too would have carried around letters like the one attached. I believe that the SA runs a good store and I have seen other Holiday Stations do the same. Since it is several miles to a grocery store, I believe another store in the neighborhood will provide excellent competition and be an asset to our community. Furthermore; Operating a convenience /gas station does not now nor did it 30 years ago constitute "a place for crime to breed. - " • Y don't see how a store such as this could conceivably produce any more noise than T.H. 252. • If anything, home values will probably increase since we won't have to cross T.H. 252. I would encourage the Planning Commission to recommend approval of this proposed convenience to me and my neighbors, which I believe will be ultimately more safe than the situation that we now have. sincerely yours, Gary rown 7012 Wallow bane Brooklyn Center, Mnn. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PLANNING CQMMISSION 6303 Shingle Creek Parkway 569 --3330 NQT-TCF-S OF PUBLIC HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Please take notice that the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center will hold a public hearing on Thursda A st 12, 1993, at approximately 7:30 p . m ., at the City�� 6 IN tW �'re any tsco 91 the petition deadribed below: Auxiliary aids for persons with disabi.li.tiea are availabl4 upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Pleasa contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to arrangements. TYPE OF REQUEST: Spec rmi.t PETITIONER: Holiday Stationstores, Inc. PROPERTY NAMED IN THE PETITION: Southeast quadrant of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 1, E & H Properties Addition, City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin: county, Minnesota BRIEF STATEMENT OF CONTENTS OF PETITION: Request for special use permit approval to construct a gas station /oonvenience store /car wash. Respectfully, Cif.. Ronald A. A. Warren Plann Commission. Secretary Rs Ga-!- S�4ion Convvnivrvc-� (SA-Cwt.. Cajrk, 4'0 Q : ) j '0Ayj -. CNznac Y)" rn6'v-t... A--- a.W\C- nv,.r V� CNV _t'- ... \-s 03 u- v'iM <--1 'c0 'd ZS9 -1 Ai ]Ud NA d0 1,l I 0 : WO b6V 6996 :Ol OT : bT 26, S? gnu T60 2'6b a s r August 28, 1993 Dear Mr. Warren, This letter is being written out of concern about the construction of a "gas station/ convenience store/car wash" on the southeast quadrant of Highway 252 & 66th Ave North. I am adamantly opposed to this type of construction in that location for several reasons. Firstly, this intersection cannot handle any more traffic than it currently does. This intersection is extremely congested during peak traffic hours making changes into the east- ern most north bound lane almost impossible for residents. Secondly, this type of construction would undermine numerous efforts that the City of Brooklyn Center has made to maintain the desirability of this neighborhood. These efforts include the purchase of 2 apartment buildings, the construction of bike pathways and the reconstruction of streets to discourage non - resident traffic. Thirdly, this construction would have a negative impact on the resident property values. The Willow Lane area is a very desirable executive neighborhood in Brooklyn Center. In order to attract solid, long term residents, the city government should strive to ensure the preservation of this area. Lastly, this type of business would not serve the local residents. Rather, it would be merely a convenience for commuters. Super America already caters to the local residents and commuters on the Southwest quadrant of 252 & 66th Ave. There are also a number of assorted convenience stores & gas stations within a mile of this location. While a certain number are necessary, most do not co -exist in areas where single family homes are predominant. It is for these reasons that I urge you to deny Holiday Station Stores' request for a special use permit. The local resident would not be served if you were to do otherwise. Sincerely, Dawn K. Wolter 6807 Willow Lane Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 561 -5267 (home) 667 -7418 (work) ,J �/7��3 August 28, 1993 CZ�_ 6U Dear Mr. Warren, This letter is being written out of concern about the construction of a "gas station/ convenience store /car wash" on the southeast quadrant of Highway 252 & 66th Ave North. I am adamantly opposed to this type of construction in that location for several reasons. Firstly, this intersection cannot handle any more traffic than it currently does. This intersection is extremely congested during peak traffic hours making changes into the east- ern most north bound lane almost impossible for residents. Secondly, this type of construction would undermine numerous efforts that the City of Brooklyn Center has made to maintain the desirability of this neighborhood. These efforts include the purchase of 2 apartment buildings, the construction of bike pathways and the reconstruction of streets to discourage non - resident traffic. Thirdly, this construction would have a negative impact on the resident property values. The Willow Lane area is a very desirable executive neighborhood in Brooklyn Center. In order to attract solid, long term residents, the city government should strive to ensure the preservation of this area. Lastly, this type of business would not serve the local residents. Rather, it would be merely a convenience for commuters. Super America already caters to the local residents and commuters on the Southwest quadrant of 252 & 66th Ave. There are also a number of assorted convenience stores & gas stations within a mile of this location. While a certain number are necessary, most do not co -exist in areas where single family homes are predominant. It is for these reasons that I urge you to deny Holiday Station Stores' request for a special use permit. The local resident would not be served if you were to do otherwise. Sincerely, Dawn K. Wolter 6807 Willow Lane Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 561 -5267 (home) 667 -7418 (work) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date September 13, 1993 Agenda Item Number Q a-* b REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 8, IN ITS ENTIRETY, OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING FOOD SANITATION CODE AND AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDINF AUTHORITY TO ISSUE CITATIONS ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: • No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) to a CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 13th day of September 1993, at 7:15 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance repealing Chapter 8, in its entirety, of the City Ordinances regarding food sanitation code. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 8, IN ITS ENTIRETY, OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING FOOD SANITATION CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 8, in its entirety, of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby repealed. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1993. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) job CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 13th day of September 1993, at 7:15 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 18 of the City Ordinances regarding authority to issue citations. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING AUTHORITY TO ISSUE CITATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 18 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 18 -102. AUTHORITY TO ISSUE CITATIONS. The following employees of the City of Brooklyn Center[,] are authorized to issue citations in the specified circumstances. A. Code Enforcement Officers. These employees, if designated by the city manager, under the direct supervision of the police department, are authorized to issue citations for: 3. Violations of the City's sign ordinance at the request of the director of [planning & inspections] community development or his designee; 4. Violations of the City's building code, at the request of the director of [planning & inspections] community development or his designee; 5. Violations of the City's housing maintenance and occupation ordinance at the request of the director of [planning & inspections] community development or his designee; 9. Violations of the City's zoning ordinance at the request of the director of [planning & inspections] community development or his designee; ORDINANCE NO. 11. Violations of the City's garbage and [food] sanitation ordinance[s] at the request of the director of [planning & inspections] community development or his designee. [B. Health Department Employees. Employees of the health department, if designated by the city manager, are authorized to issue citations for any violations of State Statute or City Ordinance related to: 1. Public health; 2. Garbage and sanitation; and 3. Food sanitation.] [C]B. Building Inspectors. Inspectors working under the direct supervision of the director of [planning and inspections] community development if designated by the city manager, are authorized to issue citations for: Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 1993. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date September 13, 1993 Agenda Item Number 10 C REQUES T FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATING TO SIGNS FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Brad Hoffman, D for of Community Developm MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: �� /✓ No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached • SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 10c, Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 13th day of September 1993, at 7:15 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Sign Ordinance. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATING TO SIGNS FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 34 -140. PERMITTED SIGNS 3. Permitted Signs Requiring a Permit C. Residential (R1 through R7) Districts 3. Cluster developments or complexes in R3 through R7 districts involving [three or more buildings and] not less than 36 dwelling units shall be entitled to one of the following options at each major entrance not to exceed a total of two entrances: a. One freestanding sign no greater than 36 square feet in area and extending not more than 10 feet above ground level. b. Two identical freestanding signs located at opposite sides of the entrance each not greater than 18 square feet in area and each not more than five feet above ground level. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1993 Todd Paulson, son a Y ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 9/13193 Agenda Item Number I t a 40 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: STATUS REPORT ON PROPOSED 1994 STREET IMPROVEMENTS DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Dir ctor of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMAlENDATION: X;X� U� No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes As directed by the City Council on 7/26/93, initial meetings have been held regarding two of the six improvement project areas for 1994. Following is a • summary of these meetings. "Northwest Area" meeting was held on August 25 at North View Jr. High. Attendance was low, but those who attended are generally supportive of continued discussion. The major issue in this area is the need to improve storm drainage facilities. Accordingly staff notes it will be necessary to proceed with Phase II of the Water Management Plan covering the drainage district which includes this study area (see detailed recommendation which follows). Humboldt Avenue - 69th to 73rd Avenues meeting as held on 9 1 g 93 at / / Evergreen Elementary School. Attendance was good with lively citizen participation. The major concern of these citizens is the heavy traffic volume on Humboldt Avenue. Eight citizens volunteered to serve on a committee to meet with staff to discuss issues, options and solutions. Accordingly, staff recommends employing a traffic engineering consultant to assist staff in analyzing traffic information (see detailed recommendation which follows). Staff Recommendations 1. It is recommended that staff be authorized to develop more detailed feasibility studies (step 4 of the building block process - see building block sketch attached) for these two areas. This would include field surveys, television inspection of sewers, inspection of water mains, hiring an independent appraiser to evaluate benefits, and soil borings in areas where the existing streets are failing because of soil /subgrade conditions. If this authorization is granted, the next work session with citizens from these areas would be held in about 6 to 8 weeks. A resolution authorizing development of these feasibility studies is g P Y I provided for consideration by the City Council. 2. At these two meetings, and obviously at future meetings regarding the other 4 areas, the issue of special assessments has been, and will be a major concern. Accordingly staff recommends that the City employ Brad Bjorklund of BCL Appraisers to conduct an evaluation of benefits in each of the six project areas (see attached letter from City Attorney LeFevere in which he strongly supports the use of Mr. Bjorklund for this purpose). We recommend proceeding with this work in all six areas because (1) this is an important issue to all affected citizens, and we believe it's best to have this information available as soon as possible in the process; and (2) the costs of doing all 6 at the same time will be considerably less if all are covered under the same contract with the appraiser. A resolution for this purpose is provided for consideration by the City Council. 3. As noted above, the issue of storm drainage improvements is the major issue in the Northwest Area. Storm drainage will also be the major issue on the 57th Avenue (Logan to I -94) project. To "get the answers" to what's needed in these areas we need to proceed with Phase II development of the Water Management Plan (WMP) for the districts in which these projects are located. Regarding the WMP, the consultant assigned to the Phase I of that study has fallen seriously behind schedule. We have been, and are continuing to deal with and resolve that issue, and now hope to get Phase I completed in October, then submit our recommendation for Phase II. • 4. As noted above, the major issue relating to the Humboldt Avenue project is the volume of traffic on Humboldt (current volume is 10,000 vehicles per day, 2010 forecast is 12,000 v.p.d.). One of the citizens' main concerns is that they believe a very high percentage of that traffic is traffic which uses Humboldt Avenue as a shortcut between T.H. 100 and T.H. 252 (north of Humboldt). The only way to "get a good handle" on this issue is to conduct a "license plate survey" in which the license numbers of vehicles passing certain points along the route in question are recorded at each of those points, then "tracked through" to see which vehicles do go essentially non -stop through the area. In addition, a number of citizens attending this meeting expressed support for installation of traffic signals on Humboldt —both at 69th and at 73rd Avenues. Again, there is a need to do field surveys - to do traffic counts - including turning movement counts at each approach to the intersections —in order to determine whether or not warrants exist for the installation of traffic signals. City staff can do the "field work" for these studies, but consultants have computer programs which can sort out this information (by matching license numbers from point -to -point and by analyzing turning movement counts for warrants) much more effectively and economically than if these tasks were done manually. Accordingly, we have obtained proposals from the two consultants who have done traffic analyses for Brooklyn Center before. We recommend the proposal of Strgar- Roscoe - Fausch, Inc. in the amount of $5,200 be accepted. A resolution for this purpose is provided for consideration by the City Council. • RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Three resolutions are provided for consideration by the City Council. In addition, staff plans to submit our recommendation regarding Phase II of the Water Management Plan to the Council within 2 or 3 months —so that detailed information regarding storm drainage needs in these project areas becomes available prior to the third public set meetings (Step 7) in the project areas. • Ito,. "BUILDING BLOCK" PROCESS OUTLINE FOR PROPOSED 1994 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM -10- Construction (if ordered by) City Council following Public Hearing) -8- -9- Individual Public Hearing. Petitions by Following City Council Informational Meetings & (Citizen's fifth Mailings opportunity (Authorized by for City Council) participation) -4- -5- -6- -7- Field Surveys Studies Staff Complete • TV sewers Worksessions Feasibility Informational • Inspect with Report Meetings watermains Citizens & • other (continued Initiate Plans (conducted by (Authorized by discussion) and City Staff) City Council) Specifications -1- -2- -3- Preliminary Studies Preliminary Meeting with Property Owners Selection of • Costs - (by staff) • need for project - ?- Candidate • Benefits • related improvements Projects (by independent • design issues (by City Council) appraiser) • costs, special • Financing (by City staff) assessments • others (by staff) Northwest Neighborhood Meeting August 25, 1993 7:00 p.m. Northview Junior High Attendance: 15 residents Staff: Sy Knapp, Mark Maloney, Diane Spector, Dave Peterson, Bob Cahlander Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works, opened the meeting by stating that this was to be an informal, informational meeting. He described the process used for the proposed Southeast Neighborhood improvements, and said that this year residents were being given the opportunity to be involved very early in the process. He said that staff have not done a lot of work yet; if as a result of these early meetings the neighborhood was interested in pursuing improvements, then more detailed engineering work would be undertaken. He informed the group that streets in Brooklyn Center, and their neighborhood, are getting to be 30- 40 years old. The costs of maintaining those streets is now estimated to be about $600,000 and rising. He reviewed the "Reactive" and "Proactive" approaches to infrastructure maintenance. Mark Maloney, City Engineer, began his presentation by showing a number of slides of the streets in the neighborhood. He pointed out pavement distresses which were a result of the a subgrade in poor condition, so that patching or sealcoating would not solve the problem. Slides depicted deteriorating boulevard. One slide showed a low area at the edge of the street where a water puddle remained. A resident asked if the area couldn't simply be patched so that water ran off towards the catch basin. Maloney replied that that is something that could be considered, but that only "chased" the water around, and didn't solve the underlying drainage problem. A resident stated that if Perry is improved with curb and gutter, it would only become more attractive to cut - through traffic. He stated that the bad conditions on Perry are due to school buses and cut through traffic. Knapp asked that if any residents had any creative ideas on how to reduce the amount of cut through traffic, staff is more than happy to consider them. Q: When will 69th Avenue west of Brooklyn Boulevard be improved. This has been promised for 36 years. The storm sewers should have been installed on 69th, not in the neighborhoods. Maloney: 69th is a county road, and that would be a county project. Currently the best we could say is that it will be improved in the next 5 -10 years. In the meantime, there are some improvements we can make in the city streets that will improve storm drainage and which won't be "wasted" when the county does its project on 69th. Maloney showed maps of the water distribution system in the area, and said that based on maintenance records it appears to be in good shape. However, it will be physically evaluated if the proposed project moves ahead. He showed the sanitary sewer system, and said there were a few trouble spots. The sanitary sewer system would be televised to determine its condition. Q: Would just one section of the area be televised [if the city knew of bad spots]. Page 2 Maloney: It would be most cost effective to do all the streets. Q: If televising indicated a bad spot, how long would the city wait to make a repair? I had a backup about 15 years ago (6933 Perry) , called RotoRooter, and it was found the problem was in the street. I asked the city for reimbursement for the RotoRooter and for cleaning his rugs, but was denied. Knapp: Maintenance procedures (and insurance claims) are handled differently now than then. The utility crews' maintenance program have reduced sewer backups from 40 to 50 per year in the 1970's to about three this year. Maloney showed a map of the storm sewer system. Residents made various complaints, and Maloney agreed that the storm drainage system in this area was very skeletal, and needed upgrade. One resident complained that the storm sewer north of 70th was never cleaned. Street & Park Supervisor Bob Cahlander replied that this line was self cleaning. His crews have checked this out. Q: Would there would be an additional storm sewer so that the area south of 69th drains toward the freeway. Maloney: Improving drainage means doing more than one piece at a time. The entire area can't be improved by adding one catch basin. If this neighborhood does have an improvement project, we would hope that the area south of 69th would be next. One resident said that if an improvement is done in that area, there would have to be a lot of grading done - some people would have steep yards. Maloney replied that he knows that there will have to be a lot of work done to improve the drainage. The northwest neighborhood and the area south of 69th are flat. Q: Does the city get to approve county projects [to help design drainage on 69th]. Maloney: The city and the county have been working together. Maloney concluded by stating that there is much work to be done if a project is to go ahead - water main inspections, sewer televising, survey work, etc. Q: How is curb and gutter was going to solve drainage problem? Maloney: Additional storm sewers (pipe) would have to be added. Q: Who decides who will do the construction work? Maloney: Described the bidding process. Q: 69th Avenue east of Brooklyn Boulevard is a mess. Maloney: It's very difficult to phase these improvements and still accommodate 10,000 cars per day. Diane Spector, Public Works Coordinator, described in general terms the proposed financing. She explained the City's current policy is a unit assessment which in 1994 is estimated to be $1,550. By law, in order to levy special assessments, there must be an increase in value to the property. As in the Southeast neighborhood study, if the proposed project were to go farther, the city would hire an independent appraiser to evaluate the benefit to properties. If he determined the benefit was less than the proposed assessment, then it would be reduced. If the benefit were greater, then the special Page 3 assessment would be no greater than $1,550. Q: If the appraiser found no benefit, would the project still be done? Spector: You would have to decide, as would the City Council. If you really wanted the improvement, we would have to find some other way to finance it. Q: $1,550 is a good deal. If we put if off, it will only get more expensive. Knapp: The proposed assessment is relatively cheap compared to other cities. Osseo assessed 100% of the project cost, including utilities. The assessments are around $3- 5,000. Brooklyn Park assesses about 50 %. Q: We get drainage all the way from Group Heath - there is a problem at Quail. You have to change drainage patterns. Knapp: Some have said that the best way is storm sewer on 69th, and that is one way. We have to look at all the cost - effective alternatives. If the best way is storm sewer on 69th, then we have to work with Hennepin County to get them to participate in this improvement. Q: Every winter I have to run my water tap to keep it from freezing (4825 - 71st). Knapp: This is the type of information that is useful to have. That would be fixed if we were to do a project. Q: You said this was one of six areas. Will you just be picking one to do? Knapp: If we did all six areas that we are looking at, we would be doing about 4 miles. That's about the most we could handle in- house. Q: I assume that the streets were selected based on street conditions. Knapp: You have about the worst streets in the city. Q: These streets are street mix - have never been hot mixed /rolled. Knapp: We are talking about tearing them up, building a good base, and paving with hot mix - asphalt, and improving grades. Q: Where else is there curb and gutter in Brooklyn Center? Knapp: Showed map. Largest area of neighborhood streets is east of TH 100, south of I94 and north of 59th. Q: Why were we picked? We are among the newest areas of the city? Knapp: Yours are the worst streets. Q: Perry Avenue has traffic also because of the park. Q: Brooklyn Park is all cut up with cul -de -sacs. If we had more through streets, we wouldn't have all this cut through traffic. Knapp: We're willing to consider any suggestions you have for reducing the cut - through traffic on Perry Avenue -71st Avenue. Q: Would curb and gutter help the snowplows? Page 4 Cahlander: Yes, it will help keep the plows off the boulevard. I won't promise that a plow won't go over the curb sometimes, but it will much be better. Q: When will the next meeting be? Knapp: About 2 months. We will send out individual notices. Knapp: Is there a consensus? Should we go ahead to the next step? Resident: [Consideratino of street improvements] Once every 30 -35 years is OK. There were no objections to moving to the next step of the process. Knapp adjourned the meeting. Submitted Diane Spector 0 Humboldt Avenue Neighborhood Meeting August 31, 1993 7:00 p.m. Evergreen Park Elementary Attendees: 37 Residents Staff: Sy Knapp, Mark Maloney, Diane Spector, Joyce Gulseth Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works welcomed residents and thanked them for attending the meeting. In outlining the purpose of the meeting he reminded residents that this was to be an informal and informational meeting to discuss the possible need for improvements on Humboldt Avenue in 1994. Not a lot of work has been done by staff up to this point but if the neighborhood is interested in the proposed improvements staff would undertake more detailed engineering work. In his introductory comments he informed the residents that Brooklyn Center has over 100 miles of streets, 80 of those miles in residential areas and most of them 30 -40 years old. The costs of maintaining those streets is now estimated to be about $600,000 a year and escalating each year. Realizing the need for a pavement management program, the City Council has directed staff to develop preliminary information and discuss possible improvements with residents in 6 areas of the city, based on the need for street improvements... Humboldt Avenue being one of those 6. He described the 'Building Block" process as one whereby the residents are given the opportunity to be involved very early in the process and at several additional times before it is formally considered by the City Council.. The level of interest will be reported to the Council to help them make a determination whether to establish a project. If the Council elects to proceed with the project it could begin as early as spring of 1994 with a fall 1994 completion date. Knapp made a brief reference to the 1991 request for improvements on Humboldt which was denied by City Council because of considerable confusion. He informed residents he would not discuss details at this meeting but would be willing to do so on a one -on -one basis with anyone at another time. To dispel any misconceptions regarding the designation and jurisdiction of Humboldt Ave. Knapp noted that Humboldt was designated as a Municipal State Aid street by the City Council some 15- 20 years ago, or longer. This means the City Council may elect to use a portion of the City's annual MSA allocation ($547,000 in 1993) to pay for part of the costs for street improvements if MSA standards are complied with. 1991 MSA standards would have required construction of a 4 -lane roadway. Since that time the standards have been amended and would allow use of MSA funds for construction of a 2 -lane roadway. He emphasized that Hennepin County has no jurisdiction over Humboldt Ave. and the decision to make improvements or not to make improvements on Humboldt Ave. is totally up to the City Council. No other agency is going to make that decision. Knapp reviewed the "Building Block Process Outline for Proposed 1994 Street Improvement Program" and pointed out that this meeting was the third block of this process and that residents would have adequate opportunities to express support for, or opposition to, these improvements before a formal public hearing by the City Council. The process would reach the public hearing stage only if there is support for the improvements. Mark Maloney, City Engineer, presented slides of Humboldt, pointing out pavement distress, deteriorating boulevards, and drainage problems. He noted that results of the Pavement Management Plan indicate the street is beyond regular maintenance and it is not cost effective to patch and seal the roadway. Total reconstruction is recommended. Maloney showed maps of the water distribution system in the area. The existing sanitary sewer is a combination of clay and truss pipe which has served the area adequately with routine maintenance. The watermain is 8" cast -iron pipe and is showing signs of increased water main leaks and breaks in recent years due to trench settlements and corrosive effects of the change from granular soils on the west to clay on the east. The storm sewer is in fairly good condition and appears to require minimal improvement. The sanitary sewer would require televised inspection which may reveal segments of pipe which should be repaired or replaced. Maloney continued his presentation by showing 3 options meeting MSA standards that could be considered for a proposed roadway on Humboldt Ave. They included a 30' wide street with no parking, a 40' wide street with center turn lane and no parking, and a 42' wide street with parking on both sides. He noted that, while the preliminary report which residents had received indicated that a 26 -foot wide street would meet MSA standards, it has now been determined that the minimum street width to meet MSA standards is 30 feet with parking prohibited on both sides. His presentation was interrupted when a lively discussion ensued and residents expressed the following concerns about heavy traffic on Humboldt: "Widening Humboldt will only encourage more traffic." "We can't get out of, or into, our driveways now, what will it be like with even more traffic? There are some days I wait 20 minutes to get out of my driveway." "There is no room to widen the street unless you acquire property." "Put in speed bumps!" "Block off the street at 73rd and create a cul -de- sac. " "We were told by the City Assessor that once T.H. 252 was complete Humboldt would be a ghost street and our property values would increase because we would have a quiet street. In fact, our property values have decreased and it is very difficult to sell a house on Humboldt. No one wants to live on a busy street like this." "Leave the road just like it is and soon it will deteriorate so much no one will want to drive on it. " "I can't leave m windows open because of the not n y p se and all the exhaust. This can't be healthy. " "Why not make it inconvenient to use and force people to use 252. " "If the numbers are there could lights be installed at 69th and Humboldt? The stop light at Humboldt and Brookdale has made a difference. Maybe some more lights would break up the constant traffic pattern." "Motorists don't care about the people who live here. They go right through stop signs and give us dirty looks when we are trying to get out of our driveways. "If we have to put up with all this traffic why can't there be enforcement of violations? We have been told the police department can't patrol the street like they have in the past because they don't have the manpower." "Could we have "Watch for Children" signs? There are many small children that live on the street and their lives are certainly endangered. " "Has a count ever been taken of the number of 18- wheelers that use Humboldt? Our houses shake when they drive by and they must be a factor in the deterioration of the street. " "Could a signal be installed at 73rd with a left turn diverting traffic to 252 ?" Sy Knapp acknowledged residents concerns about the heavy traffic and stated it was not realistic to divert a significant amount of traffic from Humboldt to 252. He reminded them that Highway 100 is a direct route to many neighborhoods and Humboldt Ave. is an extension of that route. It is a minor arterial north -south street in the city and will always bear heavy traffic. It would not be practical to block off the street. When asked if Humboldt has ever been repaved, Knapp responded, "No, never with a full depth overlay. It was sealcoated about 5 years ago. " He pointed out that some of the pavement distresses are the result of weak subgrade as well as heavy traffic. The lack of curb and gutter on some parts of the street has created drainage patterns which have caused erosion on the boulevards and deterioration of the driving surface as well. Routine patching and sealcoating are no longer cost - effective, therefore complete reconstruction is recommended. Mark Maloney once again showed the options available under MSA standards. He stated the 2- lane proposal would least encourage additional traffic. Staff would need to conduct televised inspection of sanitary sewers, excavation and inspection of water mains, soil boring and testing and actual field surveys and inventories of streets, boulevards, etc., if the project were to move to the next step. A resident suggested consideration be given to adding underground electrical as well. Diane Spector, Public Works Coordinator, gave a presentation on the proposed financing. Utility costs would be funded by the utility construction funds and the street /lighting /landscape costs would be generated from General Obligation Bonds (70 %) and Special Assessments (30 %). State Aid Funds would supplement the General Obligation Bond. She explained the City's current policy is a unit assessment which in 1994 is estimated to be $1,550 payable over a 10 year period. If the project were completed in the fall of 1994 residents would start paying in 1995. The City would hire an independent appraiser to evaluate the benefit to properties. If that evaluation shows market value benefits less than $1550, that figure would be amended accordingly. If, however, the study shows benefits greater than $1550, that figure would not be increased. By law, in order to levy special assessments, there must be an increase in value to the property. To reduce the impact on low income homeowners, the City would consider adoption of an Assessment Stabilization Program based on HUD 1993 income limits. Q. What would happen if the owners formed an association and hired their own appraiser and there was a conflict between the appraisers? Would we have an opportunity as a group to provide testimony? Spector: The Council would take both appraisals into account. You also have the opportunity to contest the appraisal if you don't agree with it. The final special assessment would be established after the completion of the project by the City Council. At that time property owners can legally challenge the assessment and go to court. Knapp: We have had two occasions where that has occurred in the past few years. The process, even though very lengthy, is fair. The City would have to convince the court that the property value is equal to or greater than the proposed assessment amount. If the appraiser determined the property value had increased by $3000, the maximum assessment would still not exceed $1,550. Spector went on to explain that the benefits of the proposed project will result in long -term maintenance savings, create a more attractive revitalized neighborhood and increase the market value of the homes. Q. What is the width of Girard and other side streets? Knapp: All are about the same width - 30 feet - with the exception of Dupont and 67th which are wider. Q. If this project were to happen, how would you do it? Would you take property from the east side or the west side, or split it right down the center? Knapp: We would not propose to widen the street. I would recommend the 30' width, 2 -lane option. It would be center on center with both sides a little wider at 73rd and at 69th. Q. I suggest you just let Humboldt go until it is impossible to drive on and then purchase the houses on both sides of the street, erect large berms and make a four -lane roadway to take care of all the traffic you are projecting. Knapp There are no options to buy properties. It is not feasible. The propposed project is not like 69th Avenue which is a $7,000,000 project. Financially it is not in the cards. There will be no right -of -way acquisitions under this proposal. Q. If the project goes thru and you do all the utility repairs under the street could you narrow the street to reduce traffic? And I don't want curb and gutter. Knapp I would recommend a 30' roadway. Q. It appears this is a political issue and while it is an engineering problem it is also an aesthetic problem. Some time ago a mistake was made and I feel it is not impossible to correct that mistake. Could we consider an alternate option and not accept State Aid, keep the street at 26' and follow the same process? Knapp Will it result in fewer cars if the roadway is only 26'? I don't think so. However, State Aid funds could not be used for a 26 -foot wide sdtreet. Q. Can you come up with alternatives to cut down the traffic by the next meeting? Knapp We will certainly take a look at all the options and if you can offer any suggestions we would appreciate them. Residents were encouraged to fill out evaluation forms that were made available during a brief coffee and cookie break. Knapp said he had anticipated encountering concerns regarding traffic volumes and responded by encouraging residents to form a neighborhood advisory committee —to meet with staff to throw out ideas for discussion and maybe come up with some solutions. Eight residents signed up for the committee. Q. How would the area between 69th & 70th, the apartments, be assessed Spector That area would be assessed on a per foot frontage along Humboldt Avenue. Q. Why is there such a bottleneck of traffic on 69th by the apartments? Knapp The roadway narrows from 4 lanes to 2 lanes. Q. Why not make one of the two lanes at that corner a "right turn only" lane? Knapp That would create more problems. That concept was used at one time and created major delays because northbound thru vehicles were forced to wait for left turning vehicles. Q. I think it would be great to have a big delay. Maybe then people would start taking another route. Right now there are cars stopped two blocks south of 73rd. How do I get out of my driveway? Resident Traffic flow has improved. thru 73rd since the installation of lights at Brookdale Drive and Humboldt. That should help some of your problem. Q. Why do we have to put up with the truck traffic? We have 18- wheelers that go through so often, the houses shake and the windows need to be closed. Knapp Staff has received complaints and although it is difficult to monitor, the truck traffic is usually not thru traffic, but rather serving local purposes. I do want to remind you that Humboldt is an arterial street. Q. The residents don't want that designation. The City has created the problem. Humboldt was not always a thru street. There was a jog in the road. The City made the mistake of allowing an exit off of 252 and it must be possible to change that mistake and divert traffic off of Humboldt. Knapp You can't move enough traffic to create a quiet residential street. It is just not realistic. Q. What is your goal? To maintain the present traffic level or increase it by putting in a better street? Knapp The plan calls for the street to have the same function as it now has. Traffic is expected to increase from 10,000 to 12,000 between the years 1990 -2010. Q. So you are expecting even more traffic? We want less traffic, not more. Knapp How are you going to do that? Resident Get them to 252 some way, maybe have a left turn lane at 73rd & Humboldt. Signals at 69th and Humboldt would help too. Q. As I understand it the special assessments would be $1550. Would that figure remain the same if we did not use State Aid funds? If so, I suggest we not use the funds so we wouldn't have to conform to the standards and we could have reasonable control over Humboldt. Parking cars on the street is essential and wouldn't be allowed if it were a State Aid Street. We don't want a wider street. Spector The special assessment would be $1550. Knapp The roadway under MSA standards would be the same width as it is now. Q. How narrow can it be? Knapp The street could be 26' without State Aid. With State Aid the narrowest it could be is 30'. I would not recommend it to be any more narrow than 26' for safety reasons. Q. It is a problem to get into our driveways with the present width of the street. How can that be improved? Knapp Driveway turn - arounds are one solution. The City would work with property owners to achieve the most desirable solution. Staff has worked with owners in the past on other projects and the result has been satisfactory. Q. If I made a turn - around in my yard it would be up to my bedroom window. The problem is that everyone else would come in and turn around too. Q. Would it be possible to get an accurate count on how many people use Humboldt as an alternate route rather than 252? Could we experiment and close the road for a week? Knapp It is not realistic to close the street for a week but we could do a traffic analysis to record license plates to help determine how much of the traffic is for local purposes and what may be thru traffic. Q. Why can't the road be signed for local traffic only? Brooklyn Park has done that in a certain area. Knapp The laws simply do not allow it and it is unenforceable. The street you are referring to in Brooklyn Park is a private drive. Q. Many motorists don't even bother to stop for the stop signs. Maybe we could consider enlarging them and putting them at every intersection. Can we put a ban on trucks using the road? Knapp If we were to put a ban on truck traffic on Humboldt we would be required to designate another street as a truck route. That would create new problems. Q. Let's make Humboldt a one -way going north and your street a one -way going south. Knapp Once again, we would only be creating new problems. Q. We were told in the early stages of the planning of 252 that Humboldt Ave. would not be an exit. Why was it later approved? Knapp To the best of my knowledge, every plan I ever saw of 252 indicated an intersection with Humboldt Ave.. It (252) was never proposed, designed or constructed to be a freeway. Q. Can we get some relief from all the buses that use Humboldt? Can some of that bus traffic be diverted to other streets, maybe Newton Ave.? I think the Park and Ride is too near us. Knapp We will check into this with the MTC. Knapp I think the general consensus is that issues need to be addressed regarding the traffic volume. Staff will be willing to work with the sub - committee of residents who signed up tonight. Is there a consensus that we should go ahead to the next step? Q. If we spend money for a project we need to see a benefit. Can we get an opinion from an appraiser first? Knapp That is part of the "building block" process. Q. Can the utility improvements be done without the street project? Because we say yes does not mean that we want a street project. Knapp Because substantial portions of the driving surface would need to be removed for utility reconstruction you would have to do the whole package. It wouldn't be cost - effective not to reconstruct the street at the same time. Knapp thanked residents for attending this meeting and for their input. He noted that staff will contact the members who signed up for the advisory committee for a meeting after staff compiles some of the information regarding issues raised at tonight's meeting. Following that meeting, we will plan to have a second worksession (Step 5 of the Building Block process)... all residents will again receive mailed notice of that meeting. Submitted, Joyce dulseth Engineering Secretary HOLMES & GRAVEN CHARTERED Attorneys at Law JOHN M. LEFEVRE, JR. 470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 ROBERT J. LINDALL OBERT A. ALSOP (612) 337 -9300 LAURA K. MOLLET ONALD H. BATTY BARBARA L. PORTWOOD STEPHEN J. BUBUL Facsimile (612) 337 -9310 JAMES M. STROMMEN JOHN B. DEAN JAMES J. THOMSON, JR. MARY G. DOBBINS LARRY M. WERTHEIM STEFANIE N. GALEY BONNIE L. WILKINS CORRINE A. HEINE GARY P. WINTER JAMES S. HOLMEs WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL DAVID L. GRAVEN (1929.1991) DAVID J. KENNEDY JOHN R. LARSON OF COUNSEL WELLINGTON H. LAW 337 -9215 ROBERT C. CARLSON CHARLES L. LEFEVERE ROBERT L. DAVIDSON August 2, 1993 Sy Knapp Director of Public Works City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 RE: Consultant Appraisers Dear Sy: You have asked for my advice on the selection of an appraiser to review the increase in fair market value caused by proposed road improvement projects in the city. Over the years I have dealt with a number of appraisers in special assessment appeals and have found only two whom I felt provided satisfactory service. One, O. J. Janske is retired. The other is Brad Bjorklund. I have found other appraisers unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. The most experienced and well known have been expensive, difficult to contact, unresponsive and have not provided service in a timely fashion. I have had no such problems with Brad. Most importantly, however, other appraisers have shown little inclination to understand the nature of the increase in fair market value caused by public improvements. In some case, the increase in market value is dramatic and obvious. For example, if sewer and water is made available to a property, comparable sales will clearly demonstrate an increase in value of $15,000 or $20,000, and any one of a number of appraisers could give the city adequate service. In other cases, however, the benefit (or increase in fair market value) caused by the public improvement is less dramatic and is difficult to demonstrate with the customary comparison of comparable sales. For example it is much more difficult to demonstrate that a residential property with a new street has more value than one where the street is in need of repair because the increase is much smaller. In these cases, Brad is willing to take a more subjective view based on his experience and expertise, whereas others will be unwilling to recognize a fair market value increase because it is not decisively demonstrated by comparable sales. Brad did an excellent job for the city in the Lyons and Swanson special assessment appeals, both involving street improvements. CLL56720 BR291 -10 Sy Knapp September 7, 1993 Page 2 At the same time, Brad will not simply tell the city what it wants to hear. If in his opinion there is no value enhancement or if the enhancement in value is less than the proposed assessment, he will so advise the city (and no amount of browbeating will make him give the city an opinion with which he does not agree) . I have either handled for been involved with most of the special assessment appeals for cities which we represent over the years, and whenever possible, we attempt to involve Brad as the city's appraiser. There may be other appraisers with the same combination of attributes, but I am not familiar with them. Given the unsatisfactory experience which I have had with other appraisers, I personally would not recommend anyone other than Brad without extensively interviewing them about their experience, appraisal approaches, and understanding of the impact on property value resulting from the construction of public improvements. If I can be any further assistance, please give me a call. > Very truly yours, Charles L. LeFevere CLL:ckr CLL56720 BR291 -10 DISCUSSION ITEM 11. a. - Status Report on Proposed 1994 Street Improvements - Proposal from Brad Bjorklund will be handed out at the 9/13/93 meeting. SRF STRGAR- ROSCOE- FAUSCH, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS & PLANNERS TRANSPORTATION ■ CIVIL ■ STRUCTURAL ■ ENVIRONMENTAL ■ PARKING September 8, 1993 Mr. Mark Maloney, P.E. City Engineer CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 RE: TRAFFIC STUDY FOR HUMBOLDT AVENUE Dear Mark: This letter is in response to your request for a traffic study of Humboldt Avenue North, between 69th and 73rd Avenues. There are two parts to this traffic study. The first is to determine who is using this section of Humboldt Avenue, particularly through trips and origin- destinations. This will be accomplished by means of the regional model's selected link analysis capabilities and by a license plate survey. The second part of the traffic study is to determine the feasibility of installation of traffic signals at the Humboldt Avenue intersections with 69th and 73rd Avenues. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1. Selected Link Analysis • Conduct a selected link analysis of the roadway segment using the regional model. Determine how many of the trips that use this segment of Humboldt Avenue use T.H. 252 and T.H. 100, are areas outside of _ Brooklyn Center, and are through trips. 2. License Plate Survey • Design a license plate survey to be conducted by City Engineering Staff at the locations identified in your letter. We estimate that a minimum of six staff members will be needed for two- and -a -half hours, both in the a.m. and in the p.m. peak periods, including set -up time. We are proposing that hand -held tape recorders be used for recording the license plate numbers. We will provide the tape recorders and tapes. • Train City Engineering Staff in the procedure and proper use of the tape recorders (i.e., number of license plate characters to be recorded, proper use of on /off button to avoid truncating initial or final character, etc.). Suite 150, One Carlson Parkway North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447 -4443 (612) 475 -0010 FAX (612) 475 -2429 Mr. Mark Maloney, P.E. -2- September 8, 1993 • City staff will transfer the license plate numbers from the tapes into a spreadsheet. The format will be defined by SRF and submitted to the City with instructions. • SRF will run the license plates through a computer license -plate matching program to determine the travel patterns of traffic using Humboldt Avenue, particularly through trips using T.H. 252 and T.H. 100, and trips originating or destined to areas outside the City. • Prepare a memorandum summarizing the results of the regional model and license plate survey analysis. 3. Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis • SRF will design the procedure for conducting peak period turning movement counts at 69th and 73rd Avenues, and provide the necessary counters, forms, etc. to City Engineering Staff. • City staff will conduct the counts and submit them to SRF for processing and analysis. • SRF will conduct traffic signal warrants analysis for the two intersections. All work will be developed at such a level of detail that it can be easily translated into a Signal Justification Report. • Prepare a memorandum summarizing the results of the warrants analysis. BASIS OF PAYMENT The total cost for our services on his project is estimated as follows: Try Ccz e o E z Z �t �s 8 • Selected Link Analysis $ 720 • License Plate Survey $2,400 • Warrants Analysis $ 1.800 Total A-s Z00 We will not exceed this figure without your approval and unless the Scope of Services is changed. Mr. Mark Maloney, P.E. -3- September 8, 1993 NOTICE TO PROCEED A signed copy of this proposal returned to this office or your verbal authorization will serve as notice to proceed. We will begin the work immediately thereupon and will complete the project within a mutually agreed -upon time schedule. Please feel free to contact us if additional information regarding the subject is required. Sincerely, STRGAR - ROSCOE- FAUSCH, INC. Ferrol O. Robinson Principal FOR:bba APPROVED: Name: Title: Date: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DEVELOPMENT OF FEASIBILITY STUDIES FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS IN TWO AREAS WHEREAS, the average age of residential streets in the City of Brooklyn Center is in excess of 30 years, and the Director of Public Works has advised the City Council that, because of normal deterioration, the annual costs for maintaining those streets are rising rapidly; and WHEREAS, development of a plan for street improvements must be based on reliable needs evaluation and cost estimates, citizen participation to assure citizen understanding and support, evaluation of alternative design concepts, consideration of costs v. benefits for property owners and for the City, and an overall feasibility evaluation; and WHEREAS, the City Council on July 26. 1993 approved a "Building Block" process detailing a step -by -step process for considering improvement projects. Said process requires that an initial public meeting be held to inform residents of basic information regarding possible improvements in their neighborhood, and that approval of the residents must be granted prior to further consideration of possible improvements; and WHEREAS, City staff has met with residents in two neighborhoods where improvements are being considered, and those residents have no objections to further consideration of improvements; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to expend moneys from the Capital Improvements Fund, MSA Construction Fund, the Public Utilities Funds, or the Special Assessment Construction Fund, on a temporary basis to pay the expenditures described in this resolution; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to reimburse itself for such expenditures from the proceeds of taxable or tax - exempt bonds, the debt service for which is expected to be paid from property taxes, special assessments, or utility fees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Improvement Projects 1994 -05, Street Improvements, Humboldt Avenue, 69th to 73rd, and 1994 -06, Utility Improvements, Humboldt Avenue, 69th to 73rd are hereby established. 2. Improvement Projects 1994 -11, Street Improvements, Northwest Area, and 1994 -12, Utility Improvements, Northwest Area, are hereby established. Resolution No. 3. City staff is hereby authorized and directed to assemble and develop such information as may be necessary to develop a reliable needs evaluation and costs estimates, financing options, and preliminary feasibility reports for the projects established in items 1 and 2 above. 4. Staff is hereby authorized and directed to conduct one or more additional informational meetings in each of the above described neighborhoods to present the findings of the preliminary reports. 5. Staff is hereby directed to report the results of said informational meetings to the City Council for further consideration of possible improvement projects. 6. This resolution is intended to constitute official intent to issue taxable or tax exempt reimbursement bonds for purposes of Treasury Regulation 1.103 -17 and any successor law, regulation or ruling. This resolution shall be modified to the extent required or permitted by Treasury Regulation 1.103 -17, or any successor law, regulation or ruling. 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. DISCUSSION ITEM 11. a. 2. - Resolution on Proposed 1994 Street Improvements - will be handed out at the 9/13/93 meeting. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO EVALUATE TRAFFIC ON HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1994 -05, AND ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has initiated the development of a preliminary feasibility study for a proposed street improvement program; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has recommended that the City obtain a detailed analysis which addresses through traffic and studies turning movements at intersections along Humboldt Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has received the following proposals for services relating to the recommended analysis for Humboldt Avenue North, between 69th and 73rd Avenues: Strgar- Roscoe - Fausch, Inc. (SRF) $5,200 Short - Elliott - Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) $5,500 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The proposal submitted by Strgar- Roscoe - Fausch, Inc. to provide traffic analysis services at a cost not to exceed $5,200 is hereby accepted. 2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized an directed to execute said contract with Strgar- Roscoe- Fausch, Inc. on behalf of the City. 3. All costs for this analysis shall be appropriated from the Municipal State Aid Street Fund, Account No. 2911. The amount of $5,200 is hereby appropriated from that fund for this purpose. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE AN EVALUATION OF BENEFITS RESULTING FROM PROPOSED 1994 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, AND ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has initiated a preliminary feasibility report for possible improvements in two neighborhoods, and is in the process of obtaining approval to conduct such a report in four other neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has recommended that the City obtain detailed appraisals of representative properties in the study areas, to analyze the benefits of the possible improvements; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has received a proposal from BCL Appraisals Inc. for services relating to the appraisal of properties in the six areas of the City where street improvement projects are being considered for 1994, at a cost not to exceed $ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The proposal submitted by BCL Appraisals Inc. to provide appraisal services in the six areas considered for 1994 improvements at a cost not to exceed $ is hereby accepted. 2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute said contract with BCL Appraisals on behalf of the City. 3. All costs related to this contract shall be appropriated from the Municipal State Aid Street Fund, Account No. 2900. 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 9,13/93 Agenda Item Number 1 b REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: STAFF REPORT RE: ESTABLISHMENT OF PROJECT FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO CENTRAL GARAGE DEPT. APPROVAL: U.A� H Sy Knap , Directo f 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 ) • 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 project. 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. s 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 Dale 9-13/9 Agenda Item Number V 0 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: STAFF REPORT RE: ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTRAL GARAGE INTERNAL SERVICE FUND DEPT. APPROVAL: i� Utm,� R a -� Sy Knap , Director 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 purpose of this report is to: • 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. Sufficient funds have been budgeted for this option, although they have been 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. 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 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. I1G 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 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 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 I RESOLUTION NO. ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 9/13/93 Agenda Item Number ► I d REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: STAFF REPORT RE: PARKS AND RECREATION RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Di ctor of Public 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 / � P 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. • 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 N0, Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. b Berklev 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 replace 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 • .%finne:1polis, %IinncxoLi ii -i02 -1023 • (01 2) 376 -( 200 • Hx (012) 3 -i 2 A Mcinhcr liciklc% Risk sr vi( cti i;11MP 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 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 lb, 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 fully 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 Is 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 ASV 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 BIIK &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 with the insured. CENTRAL PARK PLAZA BROOKLYN Ce4 MN. FUTURE , de by SIDEWALK P T Playground, Inc, ° '� ® ►a m va9e cdaw va.r, w►.rao eet97 IblalW7o FM PAM AL CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 9 -13 -9 3 Agenda Item Number e— REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: 1994 CITY MANAGER'S PRELIMINARY BUDGET AND PROPERTY TAX LEVY REPORT DEPT. APAGerald pl inter, City Manager MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • Attached is a summary of the 1994 City Manager's revised Preliminary Budget which is labeled as Version 1. Version 1 is the budget as it was submitted on August 16 with an additional $12,302 for increased Fire Relief Association pension contribution. The City Council requested an alternate budget which included sufficient funds to add two police officers while continuing to operate an independent dispatch operation. This is labeled as Version 2. These preliminary budgets are designed to give the City Council sufficient information to approve a preliminary 1994 property tax levy and budget total by the September 15, 1993, certification deadline established by State law. Counties are responsible under the same law and regulation for mailing parcel specific tax notices notifying property owners of the required hearings to be held by cities, schools, counties, and other taxing districts between November 29 and December 20 of each year. Under State law, cities must finalize their property tax levies and budgets prior to December 30, 1993. The 1994 preliminary budget is being submitted based on preliminary estimates of revenues and expenditures. Please understand these are preliminary figures which must be finalized in October and November and, as in past years, are subject to considerable modification and change. The 1994 preliminary maximum budget levy of $6,017,071, as shown in Version 2, would increase taxes on a $73,000 Brooklyn Center home by $31.47 per year or $2.62 per month. During October and November we will have more reliable figures on which to finalize the 1994 proposed budget. As in previous years, the City Council should understand whatever you set the preliminary tax levy at for the 1994 budget, it cannot be exceeded at a later time. You can levy less than what you establish in the preliminary 1994 levy but you cannot increase it. While you certify the 1994 preliminary proposed budget amount in the same fashion as the levy, the law allows you to increase the total budget amount but not the property tax levy amount. There are a number of significant factors which contribute to the complexity of preparing the 1994 preliminary budget and levy report and they are as follows: • 1. The 1994 preliminary budget, Version 2, calls for an increase in General Fund expenditures over 1993 of $516,566 (4.88 %). A major increase in the 1994 preliminary budget has occurred due to increased capital outlay requests from all departments. The increased capital outlay amounts to $279,410 of the total budget increase of $516,566. The budget Version 2 includes the addition of two police officers financed tax increases and two finance by saving from changing to the Hennepin County dispatch system. The second two proposed officers would start employment upon actual transfer of the dispatch function during 1994. 2. The 1994 preliminary budget reflects the auditor's recommendation of establishing a central garage internal service fund. 3. Because there will be a general election in 1994, and there was none in 1993, the elections budget increases significantly ($20,400). 4. Last year the City Council established a goal of phasing out the certificates of indebtedness sold in previous years. The 1994 preliminary budget calls for the use of surplus debt service fund money to pay off all existing outstanding certificates of indebtedness. This reduced the 1994 preliminary levy. 5. This year we propose to initiate the use of an estimated 2% uncollectible allowance for property tax revenues. This is intended to finance any anticipated shortfall in property tax collections, which we estimate to be $115,019. This proposal increases the 1994 preliminary • levy. 6. Lodging tax revenues have decreased. This is largely due to the loss in revenue from the Park Inn and this amounts to a loss of $40,000 in revenue. 7. Liquor licenses are projected at $13,200 less than 1994 again due to the fact that Park Inn has not renewed its license and we question whether they will renew in 1994. 8. In 1993 we estimated recreational revenues, largely due to water slide revenue, at too high of a level. We are adjusting those revenues down $131,003 and also reducing expenditures a significant amount as our expenditures in 1993 for the water slide were also estimated at too high a level. 9. Fines and forfeitures are declining 28% from the 1993 estimate. This is a continuation of a four -year trend towards lower court fines. Revenues have been stable at the new projected rate for about 18 months and so we may have hit the bottom of this trend, but it does represent a $56,000 decrease from 1993 budget estimates. 2 One of the additional complicating factors in the 1994 budget will be the tax impact on homestead single- family homes will be magnified by the fact that our commercial and industrial tax base has shrunk from its 1993 levels. Because commercial and industrial properties pay a significantly higher property tax rate as a percent of value, when their value drops, those taxes shift to other properties and in this case largely to single - family homestead properties. Our assessor points out the 4.88% increase in our General Fund budget will result in an increase of 17.2% in the tax on a $73,000 Brooklyn Center home. A significant portion of this increase is due to a shift in taxes from commercial and industrial to homestead properties because of the reduced value and lowered classification rates of commercial and industrial properties in Brooklyn Center. This is a phenomena which is impacting virtually all communities. As the Council reviews the 1994 preliminary budget, you can use a rule of thumb that each $100,000 in levy (spending) equates to a $4.18 annual tax increase on an average $73,000 home. I recommend the City Council approve the attached resolution contained in Version 1, setting the 1994 preliminary property tax levy for Brooklyn Center at $5,925,339 and the preliminary 1994 budget total at $11,325,181. Under State law, the preliminary property tax levy cannot be exceeded once the City Council approves the preliminary budget. The budget figure can be exceeded later if authorized by the City Council. Because you can only lower the preliminary property tax levy, we recommend the 1994 preliminary levy be set on the high side to allow you flexibility in considering the proposed 1994 budget and levy in December. It is my intention to submit to the City Council the City Manager's Proposed Budget for 1994 by mid - October. This document will have more reliable figures in which you can make intelligent and informed decisions. This preliminary document is designed strictly to establish the required preliminary property tax le and g Y q P rY P P Y budget figures to comply with State notice requirements. Again this year your staff will be working closely with the Financial Commission in reviewing the proposed 1994 budget. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION I recommend your favorable consideration of one of the attached resolutions establishing the preliminary 1994 levy and budget figures to be adopted prior to September 15, 1993, in accordance with State law. 3 (CNCLRPT3) Q CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date �' 13' ! Agenda Item Number e i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ***************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: RECOMMENDATION OF THE FINANCIAL COMMISSION REGARDING THE ADOPTION OF PRELIMINARY 1994 PROPERTY TAX LEVY ***************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Charles Hansen, Finance Director MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOM4ENDAT No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • The City Council asked the Financial Commission to review and comment on the City's preliminary 1994 budget and preliminary 1994 property tax levy. The Financial Commission took up this issue at its meeting of August 31, 1993 and wishes to inform the City Council of a motion passed regarding the matter. Commissioner Denis Kelly moved that the Financial Commission recommend the tax levy contained in version 1 of the preliminary budget to the City Council. Commissioner Ned Storla seconded the motion. Commissioners Donn Escher, Ned Storla, Ulyssess Boyd, Denis Kelly and Ron Christensen voted in favor of the motion. Commissioner Viola Kanatz voted against it. Complete minutes of the meeting will be distributed and approved at the Financial Commission's next meeting. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Review and discuss the Financial Commission's motion. MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FINANCIAL COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AUGUST 31, 1993 BROOKLYN CENTER CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Chair Donn Escher called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Present at roll call were Chair Donn Escher, Commissioners, Ned Storla, Ulyssess Boyd, Viola Kanatz, Denis Kelly and Ron Christensen. Also present were Council Liaison Dave Rosene, City Manager Gerald Splinter, Community Development Director Brad Hoffman, Earle Netwall of Community Resource Partnership, and Finance Director Charlie Hansen. Approval of Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Ned Storla to approve the minutes of the August 10, 1993 meeting. Commissioner Ulyssess Boyd seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Appointment of a Vice Chair of the Financial Commission The resignation of Pat Boran created a vacancy in the position of Vice Chair. Chair Donn Escher appointed Ned Storla to be the new Vice Chair. Capital Expenditure Policy Chair Donn Escher reminded the staff of need to complete the Capital Expenditure Policy and forward it to the City Council for their consideration. This had been delayed because of staff concerns over some of its provisions and because staff has been working on the 1994 budget. However that budget refers a number of projects to be included in the Capital Improvements Fund and so makes completion of the policy more imperative. Business ExpansionlJob Retention Program The City Council asked the Financial Commission to review and comment on the City's participation in the business expansion /job retention program. Brad Hoffman and Earle Netwall introduced the program and explained that the City is entering the second year of a three year survey. The purpose is to find out who all the businesses in the area are, what they produce, and what their needs are. This information will then be used to encourage them to stay and expand in the area, do business with each other, and thereby stabilize the local economy. The three year survey is funded by a C.D.B.G. grant from each participating city and a grant from the State of Minnesota. It is expected that it will then become a self supporting data base paid for by the businesses through an organization such as the Chamber of Commerce. o � Commissioner Denis Kelly moved that the business expansion /job retention program should be pursued for another year, subject to review by the City Council, along with all other C. D. B. G. programs, in the spring of 1994. Commissioner Ulyssess Boyd seconded the motion and all voted in favor of it. Preliminary 1994 Annual Budget Gerald Splinter introduced the preliminary 1994 budget and explained the changes which have occurred since the joint City Council /Financial Commission meeting on August 16, 1994. Charlie Hansen made a presentation that highlighted revenue aspects of the proposed budget and detailed the property tax implications of the proposed levy on a typical home. Denis Kelly expressed his concern over the 15% to 17% tax increases and stated that no more than a 15% increase should be enacted. Ron Christensen stated his opposition to endorsing one of the existing budget versions because that would imply support for adding officers to the Police Dept. He also proposed that the City should develop a budget with a zero percent increase in total spending so as to have a tax increase to the residents of less than the 15% contained in version 1. Commissioner Denis Kelly moved that the Financial Commission recommend the tax levy contained in version 1 of the preliminary budget to the City Council. Commissioner Ned Storla seconded the motion. Commissioners Donn Escher, Ned Storla, Ulyssess Boyd, Denis Kelly and Ron Christensen voted in favor of the motion. Commissioner Viola Kanatz voted against it. Next Meetinct The next meeting will be Tuesday, September 28, 1993 at 7:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Ned Storla and seconded by Commissioner Viola Kanatz to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. (ISOERAA) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA COMBINED ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR ALL BUDGETED CITY FUNDS INCLUDING THE GENERAL FUND - DEBT RETIREMENT FUNDS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA) - HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT (HRA) FUNDS 1994 PRELIMINARY VERSION 1 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE AND FUND 1993 1994 1994 Percent Revenue Revenue Increase Increase REVENUE BY SOURCE: Estimate Estimate (Decrease) - Decrease ----------- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- I. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 5,457,366 5,806,832 349,466 6.40% II. LODGING SALES TAX 400,000 360,000 - 40,000 - 10.00% III. BUSINESS LICENSES & PERMITS 172,565 159,600 - 12,965 -7.51% IV. NON - BUSINESS LICENSES & PERMITS 127,665 129,700 2,035 1.59% V. INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE 3,270,232 3,374,136 103,904 3.18% VI. GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE CHARGES 40,000 35,100 -4,900 - 12.25% VII. PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICE CHARGES 21,000 22,100 1,100 5.24% VIII. RECREATION FEES 1,010,716 879,713 - 131,003 - 12.96% IX. FINES AND FORFEITURES 200,000 144,000 - 56,000 - 28.00% X. MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 344,000 224,000 - 120,000 - 34.88% XI. TRANSFERS FROM OTHER FUNDS 175,000 190,000 15,000 8.57% ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- TOTAL REVENUE BY SOURCE 11,218,544 11,325,181 106,637 0.95% 1993 1994 1994 Percent Revenue Revenue Increase Increase REVENUE BY FUND: Estimate Estimate (Decrease) - Decrease --------- - - - - -- ---------- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- I. GENERAL FUND 10,583,413 11,010,082 426,669 4.03% II. DEPT REDEMPTION FUNDS 307,800 0 - 307,800 - 100.00% III. EDA SPECIAL OPERATING FUND 183,339 175,739 -7,600 100.00% IV. HRA SPECIAL OPERATING FUND 143,992 139,360 -4,632 100.00% ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- TOTAL REVENUE BY FUND 11,218,544 11,325,181 106,637 0.95% ea..e.aa�eaaaaa = =.a :a a...aaee == ae= aas = =aa - aas = = == 9/9/93 (AAAROAAE) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA COMBINED ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR ALL BUDGETED CITY FUNDS INCLUDING THE . GENERAL FUND DEBT RETIREMENT FUNDS - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA) SPECIAL OPERATING FUND ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1994 PRELIMINARY RESUME OF APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES - VERSION 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1991 1992 1993 1994 1994 1994 9 Actual Actual Adopted Prelim. Increase Increase Expend- Expend - Approp- Approp- - Decrease - Decrease itures itures riations riations From 1993 From 1993 ---- -- - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- I. GENERAL FUND BY FUNCTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT ------------------------------------------------ A. General Government 1,590,812 1,797,900 1,667,472 1,753,764 86,292 5.18% B. Public Safety 3,950,762 3,938,920 4,135,405 4,343,116 207,711 5.02% C. Public Works 1,818,289 1,594,190 1,764,833 1,881,717 116,884 6.62% D. Health & Social Services 104,706 114,579 45,647 41,572 -4,075 -8.93% E. Recreation 1,867,715 1,783,811 2,185,717 2,171,053 - 14,664 -0.67% - F. Economic Development 177,178 187,606 190,000 171,000 - 19,000 - 10.00% G. Unallocated Expenses 414,149 273,275 594,339 647,860 53,521 9.01% --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- Total General Fund 9,923,611 9,690,281 10,583,413 11,010,082 426,669 4.03% - - - - -- --- -- - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- • II. DEBT SERVICE FUNDS BY FUND -------------------------- A. 1980 Park Improvement Bond Redemption Fund 363,363 335,748 0 0 0 B. 1991 Cert. of Indebtedness Redemption Fund 306,000 261,000 73,000 0 - 73,000 - 100.00% C. 1992 Cert. of Indebtedness Redemption Fund 0 198,000 185,200 0 - 185,200 - 100.00% D. 1993 Cert. of Indebtedness Redemption Fund 0 0 49,600 0 - 49,600 100.00% -- - - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- Total Debt Redemption 669,363 794,748 307,800 0 - 307,800 - 100.00% - --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - -- - -- --- - -- --- -- - - - - - -- III. E.D.A. & H.R.A. FUNDS -------------------------- A. Economic Development 183,339 175,739 -7,600 -4.158 B. Housing & Redevelopment 141,386 142,859 143,992 139,360 -4,632 -3.228 - -- - --- - - -- - -- - - - - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - -- 141,386 142,859 327,331 315,099 - 12,232 -3.74% - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - -- - - -- - - - - - -- IV. TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES 10,734,360 10,627,888 11,218,544 11,325,181 106,637 0.959 • 8/27/93 Ile(! (WWRTATB) Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 93- RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 1994 PRELIMINARY BUDGET ----------------------------------------------- BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the appropriations for budgeted funds for the calendar year 1994 shall be: GENERAL FUND ----- -- - -- -- Proposed Unit No. Organizational Unit Amount -- - - - - -- -------------- - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- ill Council $ 85,806 112 Commissions 9,500 113 City Manager's Office 312,054 114 Elections and Voters' Registration 48,637 115 Assessing 203,212 116 Finance 153,420 117 Independent Audit 18,000 118 Legal Counsel 204,196 119 Government Buildings 337,813 120 Data Processing 381,126 131 Police Protection 3,537,672 132 Fire Protection 441,322 133 Community Development 282,656 is 134 Emergency Preparedness 48,966 135 Animal Control 32,500 141 Engineering 292,079 142 Street Construction and Maint. 911,192 143 Vehicle Maintenance 492,146 144 Traffic Signs and Signals 39,500 145 Street Lighting 143,500 146 Weed Control 3,300 152 Social Services 41,572 160 Recreation Administration 341,269 161 Adult Recreation Programs 293,707 162 Teen Recreation Programs 13,671 163 Children's Recreation Programs 86,555 164 General Recreation Programs 93,185 167 Community Center 632,539 169 Parks Maintenance 710,127 170 Convention and Tourism Bureau 171,000 180 Unallocated Departmental Expenses 329,250 181 Unallocated Personal Services 18,243 182 Contingency 300,367 Total General Fund $ 11,010,082 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SPECIAL OPERATING FUND 175,739 TOTAL - APPROPRIATIONS - FOR ' BUDGETED - FUNDS $ 11,185,821 4 and RESOLUTION NO. 93_ - - - -- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the source of financing the sums appropriated are expected to be: General Property Taxes $ 5,685,307 Sales Taxers on Lodging 360,000 Business Licenses and Permits 159,600 Nonbusiness Licenses and Permits 129,700 Intergovernmental Revenue 3,356,301 General Government Charges for Services 35,100 Public Safety Charges for Services 22,100 Recreation Fees 879,713 Fines and Forfeits 144,000 Miscellaneous Revenue 224,000 Transfers From Other Funds 190,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED SOURCE OF FINANCING $ 11,185,821 ------------- - - - - -- -------------------------------- Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion of 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. 5 • k\c 2 (IRTATL) Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 93- RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A PRELIMINARY TAX LEVY FOR 1994 BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE GENERAL FUND AND THE E.D.A. SPECIAL OPERATING :FUND ---------------------------------------------------------------- "WHER:EAS, The City of Brooklyn Center is annually required by Charter and state law to approve a resolution setting forth an annual tax levy to Hennepin County; and "WHEREAS,, Minnesota statutes currently in force require certification of a proposed tax levy to Hennepin County on or before September 15, 1993 and a final tax levy on or before December 30, 1993. "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center: 1. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property lying within the City of Brooklyn Center, a preliminary tax levy of $5,801,334, and the City Clerk shall cause a copy of this resolution to be certified to Hennepin County so that said sum shall be spread upon the tax rolls and will be payable in the year 1994. 2. The levies already certified to Hennepin County for the payment of principal and interest due in 1994 on Certificates of Indebtedness shall be cancelled and surplus funds transferred from another debt service fund to provide for their payment. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion of 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. Ile3 i • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROPOSED TAX CAPACITY LEVY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATION, PROVIDING INFORMATIONAL SERVICE, AND RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MSA 469.001 THROUGH 469.047 OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR THE YEAR 1994 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center is the governing body of the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received a resolution from the Housing and and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center entitled a "Resolution Establishing the Proposed Tax Levy for the Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment Authority for the Year 1994 "; and WHEREAS, Minnesota statutes currently require certification of a proposed tax levy to the Hennepin County Auditor on or before September 15, 1993 and a final tax levy on or before December 25, 1993. WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to the provisions of MSA 469.033, Subdivision 6, must by resolution consent to the proposed tax levy of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center. . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that a special tax be levied upon all real and personal property within the City of Brooklyn Center at the rate of 0.0144% of taxable market value of all taxable property, real and personal, situated within the corporate limits of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota and not exempted by the Constitution of the State of Minnesota or the valid laws of the State of Minnesota. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the said property tax levy be used for the operation of the Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment Authority pursuant to the provisions of MSA 469.001 through 469.047. ---------------------------- - - - - -- ------------------------------------ Date Mayor ATTEST: 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. (ISOERAA) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA COMBINED ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR ALL BUDGETED CITY FUNDS INCLUDING THE GENERAL FUND - DEBT RETIREMENT FUNDS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA) - HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT (HRA) FUNDS 1994 PRELIMINARY VERSION 2 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE AND FUND 1993 1994 1994 Percent Revenue Revenue Increase Increase REVENUE BY SOURCE: Estimate Estimate (Decrease) - Decrease ----------------- ---------- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- I. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 5,457,366 5,896,729 439,363 8.05% II. LODGING SALES TAX 400,000 360,000 - 40,000 - 10.00% III. BUSINESS LICENSES & PERMITS 172,565 159,600 - 12,965 -7.51% IV. NON - BUSINESS LICENSES & PERMITS 127,665 129,700 2,035 1.59% V. INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE 3,270,232 3,374,136 103,904 3.18% VI. GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE CHARGES 40,000 35,100 -4,900 - 12.25% VII. PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICE CHARGES 21,000 22,100 1,100 5.24% VIII. RECREATION FEES 1,010,716 879,713 - 131,003 - 12.96% IX. FINES AND FORFEITURES 200,000 144,000 - 56,000 - 28.00% X. MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 344,000 224,000 - 120,000 - 34.88% XI. TRANSFERS FROM OTHER FUNDS 175,000 190,000 15,000 8.57% ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- TOTAL REVENUE BY SOURCE 11,218,544 11,415,078 196,534 1.75% 1993 1994 1994 Percent Revenue Revenue Increase Increase REVENUE BY FUND: Estimate Estimate (Decrease) - Decrease --------- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - --- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- I. GENERAL FUND 10,583,413 11,099,979 516,566 4.88% II. DEPT REDEMPTION FUNDS 307,800 0 - 307,800 - 100.00% III. EDA SPECIAL OPERATING FUND 183,339 175,739 -7,600 100.00% IV. HRA SPECIAL OPERATING FUND 143,992 139,360 -4,632 100.00% ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- TOTAL REVENUE BY FUND 11,218,544 11,415,078 196,534 1.75% 9/9/93 (AAAROAAE) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA COMBINED ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR ALL BUDGETED CITY FUNDS INCLUDING THE GENERAL FUND - DEBT RETIREMENT FUNDS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA) FUND - HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT(HRA) FUND ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1994 PRELIMINARY RESUME OF APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES - VERSION 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1991 1992 1993 1994 1994 1994 % Actual Actual Adopted Prelim. Increase Increase Expend- Expend- Approp- Approp- - Decrease - Decrease itures itures riations riations From 1993 From 1993 ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- I. GENERAL FUND BY FUNCTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT ------------------------------------------------ A. General Government 1,590,812 1,797,900 1,667,472 1,753,764 86,292 5.18& B. Public Safety 3,950,762 3,938,920 4,135,405 4,433,013 297,608 7.20% C. Public Works 1,818,289 1,594,190 1,764,833 1,881,717 116,884 6.62% D. Health & Social Services 104,706 114,579 45,647 41,572 -4,075 -8.93% E. Recreation 1,867,715 1,783,811 2,185,717 2,171,053 - 14,664 -0.67% F. Economic Development 177,178 187,606 190,000 171,000 - 19,000 - 10.00% G. Unallocated Expenses 414,149 273,275 594,339 647,860 53,521 9.01% --- -- - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- - -- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- Total General Fund 9,923,611 9,690,281 10,583,413 11,099,979 516,566 4.88% --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- II. DEBT SERVICE FUNDS BY FUND -------------------------- A. 1980 Park Improvement Bond Redemption Fund 363,363 335,748 0 0 0 B. 1991 Cert. of Indebtedness Redemption Fund 306,000 261,000 73,000 0 - 73,000 - 100.00% C. 1992 Cert. of Indebtedness Redemption Fund 0 198,000 185,200 0 - 185,200 - 100.00% D. 1993 Cert. of Indebtedness Redemption Fund 0 0 49,600 0 - 49,600 100.00% - -- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- Total Debt Redemption 669,363 794,748 307,800 0 - 307,800 - 100.00% " --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - -- - -- III. E.D.A. & H.R.A. FUNDS -------------------------- A. Economic Development 163,339 175,739 -7,600 -4.15% B. Housing & Redevelopment 141,386 142,859 143,992 139,360 -4,632 -3.22% - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- 141,386 142,859 327,331 315,099 - 12,232 -3.748 - - - - - -- - - - -- -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- IV. TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES 10,734,360 10,627,888 11,218,544 11,415,078 196,534 1.75% 8/27/93 (WWRTATB) Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 93- RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 1994 PRELIMINARY BUDGET ----------------------------------------------- BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the appropriations for budgeted funds for the calendar year 1994 shall be: GENERAL FUND ------ - - - - -- Proposed Unit No. Organizational Unit Amount -- - - - - -- -------------- - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- 111 Council $ 85,806 112 Commissions 9,500 113 City Manager's Office 312,054 114 Elections and Voters' Registration 48,637 115 Assessing 203,212 116 Finance 153,420 117 Independent Audit 18,000 118 Legal Counsel 204,196 119 Government Buildings 337,813 120 Data Processing 381,126 131 Police Protection 3,627,569 132 Fire Protection 441,322 133 Community Development 282,656 134 Emergency Preparedness 48,966 135 Animal Control 32,500 141 Engineering 292,079 142 Street Construction and Maint. 911,192 143 Vehicle Maintenance 492,146 144 Traffic Signs and Signals 39,500 145 Street Lighting 143,500 146 Weed Control 3,300 152 Social Services 41,572 160 Recreation Administration 341,269 161 Adult Recreation Programs 293,707 162 Teen Recreation Programs 13,671 163 Children's Recreation Programs 86,555 164 General Recreation Programs 93,185 167 Community Center 632,539 169 Parks Maintenance 710,127 170 Convention and Tourism Bureau 171,000 180 Unallocated Departmental Expenses 329,250 181 Unallocated Personal Services 18,243 182 Contingency 300,367 Total General Fund $ 11,099,979 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SPECIAL OPERATING FUND 175,739 TOTAL - APPROPRIATIONS - FOR - BUDGETED - FUNDS $ 11,275,718 4 and RESOLUTION NO. 93_ - - - -- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the source of financing the sums appropriated are expected to be: General Property Taxes $ 5,775,204 Sales Taxes on Lodging 360,000 Business Licenses and Permits 159,600 Nonbusiness Licenses and Permits 129,700 Intergovernmental Revenue 3,356,301 General Government Charges for Services 35,100 Public Safety Charges for Services 22,100 Recreation Fees 879,713 Fines and Forfeits 144,000 Miscellaneous Revenue 224,000 Transfers From Other Funds 190,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED SOURCE OF FINANCING $ 11,275,718 ------------ - - - - -- -------------------------------- Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion of 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. 5 (IRTATL) Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 93- RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A PRELIMINARY TAX LEVY FOR 1994 BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE GENERAL FUND AND THE E.D.A. SPECIAL OPERATING FUND ---------------------------------------------------------------- "WHEREAS, The City of Brooklyn Center is annually required by Charter and state law to approve a resolution setting forth an annual tax levy to Hennepin County; and "WHEREAS, Minnesota statutes currently in force require certification of a proposed tax levy to Hennepin County on or before September 15, 1993 and a final tax levy on or before December 30, 1993. "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center: 1. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property lying within the City of Brooklyn Center, a preliminary tax levy of $5,893,066, and the City Clerk shall cause a copy of this resolution to be certified to Hennepin County so that said sum shall be spread upon the tax rolls and will be payable in the year 1994. 2. The levies already certified to Hennepin County for the payment . of principal and interest due in 1994 on Certificates of Indebtedness shall be cancelled and surplus funds transferred from another debt service fund to provide for their payment. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion of 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. e- .3 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROPOSED TAX CAPACITY LEVY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATION, PROVIDING INFORMATIONAL SERVICE, AND RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MSA 469.001 THROUGH 469.047 OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR THE YEAR 1994 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center is the governing body of the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received a resolution from the Housing and and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center entitled a "Resolution Establishing the Proposed Tax Levy for the Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment Authority for the Year 1994 "; and WHEREAS, Minnesota statutes currently require certification of a proposed tax levy to the Hennepin County Auditor on or before September 15, 1993 and a final tax levy on or before December 25, 1993. WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to the provisions of MSA 469.033, Subdivision 6, must by resolution consent to the proposed tax levy of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of • Brooklyn Center that a special tax be levied upon all real and personal property within the City of Brooklyn Center at the rate of 0.0144% of taxable market value of all taxable property, real and personal, situated within the corporate limits of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota and not exempted by the Constitution of the State of Minnesota or the valid laws of the State of Minnesota. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the said property tax levy be used for the operation of the Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment Authority pursuant to the provisions of 469.001 through 469.047. ---------------------------- - - - - -- ------------------------------------ Date Mayor ATTEST: 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. (BDGTCAL) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 9 - 13 - 13 Agenda Item Number \\e— 4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ***************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: FINAL 1994 BUDGET CALENDAR DEPT. APPROVAL: Gerald G. Splinte City anager MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) At the beginning of the 1994 budget process, a budget calendar was adopted on which all dates after August 1 were noted as being tentative. Enough information has now been received from the State and Hennepin County so that the remainder of the calendar may be finalized. Attached is a proposed calendar. Important dates and activities are summarized as follows: 1. Capital Improvements Program. Discussion at a work session on Sept 20. Final approval is indicated at a regular City Council meeting on Oct. 25, although final approval could be done at any meeting of the City Council. 2. Delivery of Proposed 1994 Operating Budget. The staff is promising to deliver the full budget document no later than Oct 7. 3. City Council work sessions to review the Proposed 1994 Budget. These are scheduled for Oct 18, Nov 1, and Nov 15, on Mondays not already taken for regular City Council meetings. 4. Original and reconvened public hearings on the 1994 Operating Budget. By state law, these must take place between Nov 29 and Dec 20, on days not already taken by the county or school districts for their public hearings. These hearings can't be at a regular City Council meeting. The only days left are Dec 1, 8, 15, and 16. The hearings are scheduled for Wednesdays, Dec 8 and 15. 5. Final adoption of the 1994 tax levy and operating budget. By state law, this must be done no later than Dec 20, and must be at a meeting separate from the public hearing, but may be at a regular City Council meeting. This is scheduled for the regular City Council meeting on Dec 20. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Discussion of the attached calendar. budget \calendar CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1994 BUDGET CALENDAR May 10, 1993 Monday City Council discusses elements of Capital Improvements Program (C.I.P.). May 18, 1993 Tuesday Preliminary 1994 Operating Budget conference for City Manager with city department and division heads, 8:30 a.m., Council Chambers. June 1, 1993 Thursday City Manager presents 1994 Operating Budget issues. June 7, 1993 Monday City Council Town Meeting - 1994 Operating Budget. June 14, 1993 Monday 1994 Operating Budget requests due from all departments for submission to the Finance Director. June 23, 1993 Wednesday Consolidated 1994 Operating Budget requests forwarded from the Finance Director to the City Manager. June 24 through July 9 Manager consults as necessary with individual department and division heads as 1994 Operating Budget document is shaped. June /July 1993 City Commissions make preliminary recommendations on Capital Improvements Program (C.I.P.) components. July 23, 1993 Department of Revenue is to certify Local Government Aid amounts. August 11, 1993 Weds Preliminary 1994 Operating Budget is delivered to the City Council members. August 12, 1993 Thursday County must notify City of the public hearing dates selected by school districts. August 13, 1993 Department of Revenue is to certify Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aid (HACA). August 16, 1993 Monday Joint City Council /Finance Commission meeting. Sept 13, 1993 Monday Last day for adoption of the Preliminary 1994 Operating Budget and the Preliminary tax levy by the City Council. Sept 15, 1993 Certify preliminary 1994 Operating Budget and preliminary tax levy to the County. City must also inform the County of City budget public hearing dates. Sept 20, 1993 Monday City Council holds work session to review Capital Improvements Program (C.I.P.). Oct 7, 1993 Thursday Proposed 1994 Operating Budget is delivered to the City Council members. Oct 18, 1993 Monday City Council holds work session to review Proposed 1994 Operating Budget. Oct 25, 1993 Monday City Council approves C.I.P. Nov 1, 1993 Monday City Council holds work session to review Proposed 1994 Operating Budget. Nov 10 - Nov 23, 1993 County must mail individual property tax notices to each property owner. Nov 15, 1993 Monday City Council holds work session to review Proposed 1994 Operating Budget. Dec 8, 1993 City Council holds original public hearing on the 1994 Operating Budget. Dec 15, 1993 City Council holds reconvened public hearing on the 1994 Operating Budget. December 14, 1993 Tuesday All counties to hold budget public hearings. December 20, 1993 Monday City Council adopts the final 1994 tax levy and final 1994 Operating Budget at a subsequent public hearing held during the regular City Council meeting. December 27, 1993 Monday Last day to certify final tax levy and final 1994 Operating Budget to the County. 1994 Budget Planning Calendar s MB � . . :: . Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday . ............................... . ............................... . . ............................... . ............................... . ............................... . ............................... '> '» 6 .:......... ._......... » > > <' - ........ ::: 13 • 14 15 16 17 5 . > > >' <> 2 0 a 2 . d< ><<< >> 27 • 28 29 30 . Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday . ............................... . ............................... 4 »< > > » »_ 1 1 ♦ 12 • 13 14 15 < 18 �k 19 20 21 22 <> ' 2 >< > >> • 26 27 28 29 • City Council Meetings ♦ Holiday O Public Hearing on Budget * Budget Work Session O Capital Improvements Program Work Session Shaded days between November 29 and December 20 are not available for 1994 budget public hearings. 1994 Budget Planning Calendar 'V EI 1993 c .': ; > >:> >: < <::`> 1O! V�3ER Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 4 5 ...... < �k 3 .::...:.:::.......... ....... ;:;; ♦ 12 1> 8 • 9 10 11 ........................... << >< 15 16 17 18 19 22 ... • 2 3 24 25 26 ........... .. .::.;:.::: :Q.; > .... Eli . 9 .__ _. �� .:.....: ... ............................... ...................:....... Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednes Thursday Friday Saturday ........................... ............................... ::::::::.:::::::::::::: :...:::::::::::::: :.::..: :..... .........:.....:.: .................................................................. ............................... �� :....... :::::........... 0 16 ........::..::....:.:....... 21 22 23 24 ♦'i;i<:«` » >'<'' < >ii >< > >> 27 28 29 30 • City Council Meetings ♦ Holiday O Public Hearing on Budget * Budget Work Session 0 Capital Improvements Program Work Session Shaded days between November 29 and December 20 are not available for 1994 budget public hearings. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date ! 99/13/93 Age." Item Nmber OTQ. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING WITH RESPECT TO FINANCING FOR FACILITIES OF MARANATHA CONSERVATIVE BAPTIST HOME, INC. AND CENTER PARK SENIOR APARTMENTS, INC. DEPT. APPROVAL: Tom�ublitz, Community Development ' MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOAMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X ) The resolution included with this item provides for a public hearing on a revenue bond project for the Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc., and Center Park Senior Apartments, Inc. The purpose of the bond issuance is to refund existing debt from the initial issuance and to provide funding to renovate the Maranatha Nursing Home and to provide for the acquisition of the Maranatha Senior Place Housing Project by Center Park Senior Apartments, Inc. The applicant has submitted an application for an industrial development bond project, along with the application fee of $2,000. A summary of the financing for the project is included with this council request form. These bonds do not constitute a financial liability or obligation on the part of the City. The resolution and hearing notice before the council this evening would provide for a public hearing on the proposal at the October 12, 1993, city council meeting. The resolution and hearing notice included with this request form was drafted by the applicant's bond counsel. These documents will be reviewed by our City Attorney's office prior to Monday's meeting. • RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Staff recommends approval of the Resolution Setting October 12 1993 for Public Hearin for PP g g Maranatha Bond Refunding. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING WITH RESPECT TO FINANCING FOR FACILITIES OF MARANATHA CONSERVATIVE BAPTIST HOME, INC. AND CENTER PARK SENIOR APARTMENTS, INC. WHEREAS, a proposal has been made to this Council by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc. and Center Park Senior Apartments, Inc., both affiliated Minnesota nonprofit corporations (the "Borrower ") , that the City of Brooklyn Center issue its revenue bonds or other obligations in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $4,500,000 (the "Bonds ") and adopt a program substantially in the form before this Council (the "Program ") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462C (the "Act ") in order to (i) refund at a discount the City's First Mortgage Elderly Housing Revenue Bonds, Series 1987 (Maranatha Place Project) that were issued to finance the acquisition and construction of a 65 unit multifamily rental housing and 7 unit assisted living project for the elderly, and related facilities, located at 5415 69th Avenue North in the City which will be owned by Center Park Senior Apartments, Inc. (the "Apartment Project "), (ii) refinance certain taxable debt incurred in connection with the Apartment Project, (iii) refund certain taxable debt previously incurred for improvement to a 106 bed nursing home located at 5401 69th Avenue North in the City hich is owned b Maranatha Conservative Baptist Y Y P Home, Inc. (the "Nursing Home ") , (iv) pay certain costs for improvement of the Nursing Home, and (v) establish reserves and pay costs of issuance; and WHEREAS, in_ order to comply with the requirements of Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Section 462C.04 of the Act, the Borrower has requested this Council to conduct a public hearing on said proposal and publish notice of said public hearing not less than 15 days prior to the date fixed for the hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by this City Council as follows: 1. A public hearing shall be conducted by this City Commission on the proposal to adopt the Program and undertake the issuance of the Bonds on October 12, 1993 at 7:30 P.M. at the City Hall, at which hearing all parties who appear shall be given an opportunity to express their views with respect to said proposal. 2. Notice substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, shall be published at least once not less than 15 days prior to the date fixed for the hearing in a newspaper circulating generally in the City. Resolution No. 3. On or before the date of such publication the Borrower is hereby authorized to submit the Program to the metropolitan council for review and comment in accordance with Section 462C.04 of the Act. 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. EXHIBIT A 0 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON ADOPTION OF A PROPOSED PROGRAM AND RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS IN AN AGGREGATE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $4,500,000 FOR FACILITIES OF MARANATHA CONSERVATIVE BAPTIST HOME, INC. AND CENTER PARK SENIOR APARTMENTS, INC. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "City ") will meet on Monday, October 12, 1993 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, for the purpose of conducting a public hearing on a proposal that the City issue its revenue bonds or other obligations in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $4,500,000 (the "Bonds ") and adopt a program (the "Program ") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462C (the "Act ") in order to (i) refund at a discount the City's First Mortgage Elderly Housing Revenue Bonds, Series 1987 (Maranatha Place Project) that were issued to finance the acquisition and construction of a 65 unit multifamily rental housing and 7 unit assisted living project for the elderly, and related facilities, located at 5415 69th Avenue North in the City which will be owned by Center Park Senior Apartments, Inc. (the "Apartment Project "), (ii) refinance certain taxable debt incurred in connection with the Apartment Project, (iii) refund certain taxable debt previously incurred for improvement to a 106 bed nursing home located at 5401 69th Avenue North in the City which is owned by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc. (the "Nursing Home "), (iv) pay certain costs for improvement of the Nursing Home, and (v) establish reserves and pay costs of issuance. The Bonds will be limited obligations of the City of Brooklyn Center, payable solely from the revenues of the Apartment Project, the Nursing Home, and certain other security pledged therefor. The Bonds and the interest thereon will not constitute or give rise to a charge against the City's general credit or taxing powers or constitute a pecuniary liability of the City. Copies of the Program are on file and available for inspection in the Office of the Director of Community Development located in City Hall. The hearing will provide an opportunity for persons to express their views with respect to adoption of the Program and the issuance of the Bonds. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER (Published in the Brooklyn Center Sun -Post on the day of September, 1993) 5401 69th Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 (612) 561 -0477 Maranatha Baptist Care Center A Maranatha Ministry September 8, 1993 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Att: Gerald Splinter City Manager Enclosed are the following as requested by Brad Hoffman, Director of Community Development: 1) Summary of Financing for Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc. and Center Park Senior Apartments, Inc. 2) Application for Industrial Development Bond Project Financing 3) Our check in the amount of $2,000 Please contact either our consultant, Bruce Farrington, at 929 -2122 or our bond underwriter, Wood Kidner, at 376 -4123 if you have any questions. Your assistance in this financing is greatly appreciated. Since el , Roger Adams President cc: Brad Hoffman Wood Kidner Bruce Farrington Larry Petersen SUMMARY OF FINANCING FOR MARANATHA CONSERVATIVE BAPTIST HOME, INC AND CENTER PARK SENIOR APARTMENTS, INC. September 8, 1993 The proposed financing will be a combination financing for the above mentioned corporations which are both Minnesota corporations exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The proceeds of the bonds will be used by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc. to refund certain existing debt and renovate the nursing home and by Center Park Senior Apartments, Inc. to acquire the Maranatha Place senior housing project. Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc. operates Maranatha Care Center, a 106 bed licensed nursing home. The original construction was completed in 1962 with some subsequent additions. It has been under the same ownership continuously for the.past 31 years. It currently has $725,000 of bank debt and there are approximately $500,000 of improvements that need to be made to remodel and update this facility. Maranatha Place is a 65 unit apartment building physically attached to the nursing home. It also provides assisted living services to several residents. Center Park Senior Apartments, Inc. has entered into a Settlement Agreement with Maranatha Residence Corporation, the current owner of Maranatha Place, and First Trust N.A., as Trustee, to acquire Maranatha Place for $2,300,000. The tax exempt revenue bonds in the amount of $4,000,000 issued by the City of Brooklyn Center in 1987 to finance Maranatha Place are currently in default. Proceeds from the proposed bond offering together with funds held by the Trustee will be used to discharge and redeem the 1987 existing bonds pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. All present Maranatha Place tenants who originally made entrance deposits in the amount of $5,900 will receive a full refund of this deposit amount concurrent with the closing on the financing. Other than this change in the entrance deposit arrangement, no material change in the operations of Maranatha Place is anticipated. Maranatha Place is currently 100% leased. All of the above corporations are controlled by a common parent - Maranatha Ministries Foundation. APPLICATION FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOND PROJECT FINANCING CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER I. Applicant: a. Business Name: Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc. and Center Park Senior Apartments, Inc. b. Business Address: Phone: (612) 561 -0477 5401 69th Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 c. Authorized Representative: Larry S. Petersen Administrator d. Address: Phone: (612) 561 -0477 5401 69th Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 e. Business Form: Both are corporations exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. II. Nature of Business: Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc. operates a 106 bed licensed nursing home. Center Park Senior Apartments, Inc. will be acquiring (from an affiliate) a 65 unit senior apartment building that also provides assisted living. III. Proposed Development: a. Describe the proposed project and its location. Both projects currently exist and are described in the attached Summary. b. Is the proposed project a new facility or an expansion? Describe. The project is primarily a refinancing with a limited amount of remodeling scheduled for the nursing home. c. Explain the need for the project in Brooklyn Center. The project serves senior residents primarily coming from a 5 mile radius of the site. Application Page 2 d. What other potential uses are there for the facility? This is a special purpose facility that would have very limited alternative uses. e. Will the proposed facility attract other business to the area? Describe. The project provides employment to over 100 employees. IV. Financing: Information previously furnished. V. Other: a. Provide the names and addresses for your underwriter, bond counsel, corporate counsel. UNDERWRITER Mr. S. Wood Kidner, Senior Vice President Dougherty, Dawkins, Strand & Bigelow Inc. 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 376 -4123 BOND COUNSEL Mr. Kent Richey Faegre & Benson - 2700 Norwest Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 336 -3459 CORPORATE COUNSEL Mr. Scott Moen Chandler & Mason 336 North Robert Street, Suite 1607 St. Paul, MN 55101 (612) 228 -0497 Application Page 3 b. What is your target date for: 1. Construction Start: January 1994 2. Construction Completion: September 1994 The construction portion of this financing is less than $500,000 of the total and is primarily for remodeling and updating of the nursing home. VI. Financial References: a. Bank: Marquette Bank Brookdale 5620 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 b. Mortgage: Marquette Bank Brookdale 5620 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Applicant: MARANATHA CONSERVATIVE BAPTIST HOME, INC. and CENTER PARK SENIOR APARTMENTS, INC. By a �� Date c FAEGRE & BENSON 2200 NORWEST CENTER 90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402 -3901 612/336-3000 FACSIMILE 336 -3026 PETER J. BERRIE 612/336 -3463 September 13, 1993 VIA MESSENGER Brad Hoffman Director of Economic Development City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc. and Center Park Senior Apartments, Inc. financing. Dear Mr. Hoffman: Enclosed please find a draft of the Program referenced in the Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing to be adopted tonight by the City Council. If I can be of assistance, please call. Very t y yours, Peter a — . Berrie PJB /mlr /MFFOA95F. WP5 Enclosures cc: Barbara Portwood (w /encl.) (via facsimile) Wood Kidner (w /encl.) Kent Richey (w /encl.) DENVER DES MOINES WASHINGTON,D.C. LONDON FRANKFURT First Draft: 9/13/93 PROGRAM FOR A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES CHAPTER 462C MARANATHA CARE CENTER PROJECT Section 1 Statutory Authority Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the "Act ") , the City of Brooklyn Center, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State, and its home rule charter (the "City ") has been authorized to develop and administer programs of multifamily housing developments under the circumstances and within the limitations set forth in the Act. Minnesota Statutes, Section 462C.07 provides that such programs for multifamily housing developments may be financed by revenue bonds issued by the City. The City Manager's office in and for the City of Brooklyn Center has full responsibility for the administration of the City's housing revenue bond program. and may exercise on behalf of the City, the powers conferred by Sections 462C.01 to 462.08 of the Minnesota Statutes, subject to certain approvals by the City Council. Section 2 . The Program The City has received a proposal from Center Park Senior Apartments, Inc. and Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc., each a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, (the "Borrowers ") that, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462C.05, subdivision 7, the City approve a program providing for the (i) refunding at a discount of the City's First Mortgage Elderly Housing Revenue Bonds, Series 1987 (Maranatha Place Project) that were issued to finance the acquisition and construction of a 65 unit multifamily rental housing (7 units of which will be "assisted living" units for the elderly) , and related facilities, located at 5415 69th Avenue North in the City which will be owned by Center Park Senior Apartments, Inc. (the "Apartment Project "), (ii) refinancing of certain taxable debt incurred in connection with the Apartment Project, (iii) refunding certain taxable debt previously incurred for the improvement of a 106 -bed nursing home (the "Nursing Home ") located at 5401 69th Avenue North in the City which is owned by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc., (iv) improving the Nursing Home (collectively, the "Project ") . It should be noted that the City has already approved, in connection with the issuance of the Refunded Bonds, the acquisition and construction of the Apartment Project pursuant to a program under the Act. The Borrowers propose that the City finance the foregoing by issuing revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $4,500,000 pursuant to the authority of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462C.05, Subd. 7, which permits revenue bonds to be issued to finance developments consisting of a combination of multifamily housing development and a new or existing health care facility, if certain requirements set forth therein are met. It is believed the requirements of said Subd. 7 are met because the Apartment Project is designed and intended to be used for rental occupancy; the Project is designed and used primarily by elderly persons; and at the Nursing Home various health related assisted living services will be available on a 24 -hour basis to residents. It is • First Draft: 9/13/93 contemplated that the Nursing Home and Apartment Project are and will be in compliance with all applicable zoning ordinances and other applicable land use regulations, including any urban renewal plan or development district plan, and including the state building code as set forth under Minnesota Statutes, Section 16. 83, et. seq. Section 3 Need for the Program; How the Program Meets the Needs of Low and Moderate Income Families In establishing this multifamily housing program (the "Program ") , the City has considered the goals and information contained in the City's Housing Plan (the "Housing Plan "). The Borrowers have concluded that the units will be affordable by a significant amount of elderly residents of the City and surrounding area on the basis of their current income, and that number will be increased if funds received from the sale of current residents are made available. Pursuant to Section 462C.05, subd. 4, no statutory income limits are applicable to the project because the project is designed for rental primarily to elderly persons. The Nursing Home currently is helping meet the goals found in the City's Housing Plan by providing affordable long -term care to elderly persons. Section 4 . Method of Financing The City expects to issue up to $4,500,000 of its revenue bonds (the "Bonds ") for the purpose of providing improvements and long -term financing for the Project and related reserve funding and administrative and bond issuance costs. The Bonds will be issued upon such terms and conditions as set forth herein and as may be agreed upon in writing between the City, the original purchaser(s) of the Bonds and the Borrowers. The Bonds are expected to be issued within twelve (12) months after adoption of this Program. A negotiated sale and public offering of the Bonds is contemplated. Insofar as the City will or may be contracting with underwriters, legal counsel, bond counsel, a trustee, and others, all of whom will be reimbursed from Bond proceeds (to the extent permitted by federal law) and revenues generated by the Program, no administrative costs will be paid from the City's budget with respect to this Program. The Bonds will not be general obligation bonds of the City, but are expected to be paid from the properties or credit pledged to the payment thereof. It is not contemplated that any additional financing or contributions on the part of the City will be needed for the completion of the Project or for the operation of the Program. It is expected that the Program can be implemented without subjecting some or all of the obligations thereafter to be issued by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency to federal income tax. -2- First Draft: 9/13/93 Section 5 . Bond Allocation Because the Borrowers are a non - profit corporations exempt from tax under Section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code "), it is anticipated that the taxes and bonds will be issued as "qualified 501 (c) (3) bonds" pursuant to Section 145 of the Code. As such, no allocation of bonding authority is required under Section 146 of the Code. Section 6 Evidence of Compliance; Method of Monitoring Implementation The City may require from the Borrowers, or such other person deemed necessary at or before the issuance of the Bonds, evidence satisfactory to the City of the ability and intention of the Borrowers to complete the Project, and evidence satisfactory to the City of compliance with the standards and requirements for the making of the financing established by the City, and in connection therewith, the City or its representatives may inspect the relevant books and records of the Borrowers in order to confirm such ability, intention and compliance. In addition, the City may periodically require certification from either of the Borrowers or such other person deemed necessary concerning compliance with various aspects of this Program and the Code. It should be noted that with respect to the Project no special monitoring by the City is necessary. Proceeds of the Bonds proposed to be issued to finance the Project will be held and disbursed by a trustee bank during construction of the improvements to the Nursing Home, and it is believed the oversight exercised by the trustee bank, and any title insurance company assisting the bank with the disbursement of the proceeds, will be adequate to insure the development as presented is in fact carried out. Section 7 . Severability The provisions of this Program are severable and if any of its provisions, sentences, clauses or paragraphs shall be held unconstitutional, contrary to statute, exceeding the authority of the City or otherwise illegal or inoperative by any court of competent jurisdiction, the decision of such court shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions. Section 8 . Amendment This Program shall be a component of and amendment to the Housing Plan as recognized by the Act. The City shall not amend this Program while Bonds are outstanding to the detriment of the holders of such Bonds. -3- First Draft: 9/13/93 Adopted: October 1993. 0 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER By City Clerk Its Mayor MFFOA8E4.WP5 -4- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 9/13/93 Agenda Item Number a b REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF PATRICK J. BORAN FOR HIS DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE ON THE FINANCIAL COMMISSION DEPT. APPROVAL: Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMaMNDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) On August 10, 1993, Patrick J. Boran resigned from the Brooklyn Center Financial Commission (see attached letter from him). RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Pass a Resolution Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of Patrick J. Boran for His Dedicated Public Service on the Financial Commission. August 10, 1993 Mr. Donn Escher Chairman, Financial Commission City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Dear Donn: Unfortunately, this letter represents my resignation from the Financial Commission for the City of Brooklyn Center. As you may know, Roseann and I intend to build a home in the western suburbs in the near future and as such, I believe now is the time to transition off of the Financial Commission to provide an opportunity for new membership. In addition to friendships I have gained with service on this commission, I have also developed a strong respect for the City of Brooklyn Center. The efforts of the city leadership, city staff, and particularly citizen involvement, have resulted in outstanding community organization and success. I wish you and your commission all the success in the future. Sincerely, Patrick J. Boran 7001 Dallas Road Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 PJB /cw cc: Todd Paulson, Mayor Jerry Splinter, City Manager Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF PATRICK J. BORAN FOR HIS DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE ON THE FINANCIAL COMMISSION WHEREAS, Patrick J. Boran first served on the Brooklyn Center Financial Task Force from April 22, 1991, to June 9, 1992; and WHEREAS, Patrick J. Boran served as Vice Chairperson on the Financial Task Force from June 11, 1991, to June 9, 1992; and WHEREAS, on June 9, 1992, the Brooklyn Center City Council transformed the Financial Task Force into the Financial Commission, and Patrick J. Boran served on the Financial Commission from July 13, 1992, to August 10, 1993; and WHEREAS, his public service and civic effort for the betterment of the community merit the gratitude of the citizens of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, his leadership and expertise have been greatly appreciated by the Brooklyn Center Financial Commission; and WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that his service to the community should be recognized and expressed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the dedicated public service of Patrick J. Boran is hereby recognized and appreciated by 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. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date ` ^ 9/13/93 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. AP O G. Hoffman, Director of Comm pity Development MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOnENIENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • RECOMMENDATION OF THE FINANCIAL COMMISSION REGARDING THE B USINESS RETENTION /JOB EXPANSION PROGRAM The City Council asked the Financial Commission to review and comment on the City's participation in the business retention /job expansion program. The Financial Commission took up this issue at its meeting of August 31, 1993, and wishes to inform the City Council of a motion passed regarding the matter. Commissioner Denis Kelly moved that the business retention /job expansion program should be pursued for another year, subject to review by the City Council, along with all other C.D.B.G. programs, in the spring of 1994. Commissioner Ulyssess Boyd seconded the motion and all voted in favor of it. Complete minutes of the meeting will be distributed and approved at the Financial Commission's next meeting. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Pass A Resolution Giving Final Approval to Year II of the Brooklyn Center Business Retention /Job Expansion Program. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GIVING FINAL APPROVAL TO YEAR II OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER BUSINESS RETENTION /JOB 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. MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FINANCIAL COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AUGUST 31, 1993 BROOKLYN CENTER CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Chair Donn Escher called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Present at roll call were Chair Donn Escher, Commissioners, Ned Storla, Ulyssess Boyd, Viola Kanatz, Denis Kelly and Ron Christensen. Also present were Council Liaison Dave Rosene, City Manager Gerald Splinter, Community Development Director Brad Hoffman, Earle Netwall of Community Resource Partnership, and Finance Director Charlie Hansen. Approval of Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Ned Storla to approve the minutes of the August 10, 1993 meeting. Commissioner Ulyssess Boyd seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Appointment of a Vice Chair of the Financial Commission The resignation of Pat Baran created a vacancy in the position of Vice Chair. Chair Donn Escher appointed Ned Storla to be the new Vice Chair. Capital Expenditure Policy Chair Donn Escher reminded the staff of need to complete the Capital Expenditure Policy and forward it to the City Council for their consideration. This had been delayed because of staff concerns over some of its provisions and because staff has been working on the 1994 budget. However that budget refers a number of projects to be included in the Capital Improvements Fund and so makes completion of the policy more imperative. Business Expansion /Job Retention Program The City Council asked the Financial Commission to review and comment on the City's participation in the business expansion /job retention program. Brad Hoffman and Earle Netwall introduced the program and explained that the City is entering the second year of a three year survey. The purpose is to find out who all the businesses in the area are, what they produce, and what their needs are. This information will then be used to encourage them to stay and expand in the area, do business with each other, and thereby stabilize the local economy. The three year survey is funded by a C.D.B.G. grant from each participating city and a grant from the State of Minnesota. It is expected that it will then become a self supporting data base paid for by the businesses through an organization such as the Chamber of Commerce. N Commissioner Denis Kelly moved that the business expansion /job retention program should be pursued for another year, subject to review by the City Council, along with all other C. D. B. G. programs, in the spring of 1994. Commissioner Ulyssess Boyd seconded the motion and all voted in favor of it. Preliminary 1994 Annual Budget Gerald Splinter introduced the preliminary 1994 budget and explained the changes which have occurred since the joint City Council /Financial Commission meeting on August 16, 1994. Charlie Hansen made a presentation that highlighted revenue aspects of the proposed budget and detailed the property tax implications of the proposed levy on a typical home. Denis Kelly expressed his concern over the 15% to 17% tax increases and stated that no more than a 15% increase should be enacted. Ron Christensen stated his opposition to endorsing one of the existing budget versions because that would imply support for adding officers to the Police Dept. He also ro osed that p p t the City should develop a budget with a zero percent increase in total spending so as to have a tax increase to the residents of less than the 15% contained in version 1. Commissioner Denis Kelly moved that the Financial Commission recommend the tax levy contained in version 1 of the preliminary budget to the City Council. Commissioner Ned Storla seconded the motion. Commissioners Donn Escher, Ned Storla, Ulyssess Boyd, Denis Kelly and Ron Christensen voted in favor of the motion. Commissioner Viola Kanatz voted against it. Next Meeting The next meeting will be Tuesday, September 28, 1993 at 7:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Ned Storla and seconded by Commissioner Viola Kanatz to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 9/13/93 Agenda Item Number ad REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR YEAR XIX URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM DEPT. APPROVAL: Tom b itz, Community Development Specialist MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONMMNDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X ) This resolution authorizes execution of the Subrecipient Agreement between Hennepin County and the City of Brooklyn Center for the Year XIX CDBG program (1993 - 1994). The Subrecipient Agreement sets forth the regulations for how the CDBG funds must be spent. Essentially, it is a standard contract which is executed annually by all cities participating in the Urban Hennepin County programs and reflects the City's CDBG program for the year. A copy of the agreement is included with this memorandum. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Staff recommends approval of resolution. aoe Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR YEAR XIX URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has executed a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County for the purpose of participating in the 1993 (Year XIX) Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County is the recipient of an annual grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for purposes of the program, and the City is a subrecipient under the program and receives a share of the grant; and WHEREAS, program regulations require that the City and County execute a Subrecipient Agreement which sets forth the specific implementation processes for activities to be undertaken with program funds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Brooklyn Center City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and the City Council to execute the Subrecipient Agreement on behalf of the City. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA, hereinafter referred to as "RECIPIENT," A -2400 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487, and CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, hereinafter referred to as "SUBRECIPIENT," 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430, said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the State of Minnesota, and is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59: WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Recipient has received a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement allocation under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, to carry out various community development activities in cooperation with Subrecipient, according to the implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 570; and WHEREAS, $ 235.627 from Federal Fiscal Year 1993 CDBG funds and any resulting program income have been approved by Recipient for use by Subrecipient for the implementation of eligible and fundable community development activity /ies as included in and a part of the 1993 Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds, Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and as set forth in the Statement of Work described in Exhibit 1 to this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Subrecipient agrees to assume certain responsibilities for the implementation of the approved activities described in Exhibit 1, said responsibilities being specified in part in the Joint Cooperation Agreement effective October 1, 1991, executed between Recipient and Subrecipient on August 20, 1991, and in the 1993 Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds, Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program and the Certifications contained therein. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereunto do hereby agree as follows: - 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES A. The Subrecipient shall expend all or any part of its CDBG allocation only on those activities identified in Exhibit 1, "Statement of Work," subject to the requirements of this Agreement and the stipulations and requirements set forth in Exhibit 1 to this Agreement. B. The Subrecipient shall take all necessary actions, not only to comply with the stipulations as set out in Exhibit 1, but to comply with any requests by the Recipient in that connection; it being understood that the Recipient is responsible to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for ensuring compliance with such requirements. The Subrecipient also will promptly notify the Recipient of any changes in the scope or character of the activity /ies which it is implementing. 2. TERM OF AGREEMENT The effective date of this Agreement is July ly 1, 1993. The termination date of this Agreement is December 31, 1994, or at such time as the activity /ies constituting part of this Agreement are satisfactorily completed prior thereto. Upon expiration, the Subrecipient shall relinquish to the Recipient all program funds unexpended or uncommitted and all accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds for the activities described in Exhibit 1. 3. THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS The Subrecipient may subcontract this Agreement and /or the services to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, only with the prior consent of the Recipient and only through a written Third Party Agreement acceptable to the Recipient. The Subrecipient shall not otherwise assign, transfer, or pledge this Agreement and /or the services to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, without the prior consent of the Recipient. 4. AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENT Any material alterations, variations, modifications or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when reduced to writing as an Amendment to this Agreement signed, approved and properly executed by the authorized representatives of the parties. An exception to this process will be in amending the Statement of Work Exhibit 1 to this Agreement. The Statement of Work, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 1, shall be deemed amended to conform to any amendments to the Final Statement of Community Development Objectives and Projected Use of Funds, as such amendments occur. Any amendments to the Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds, which constitute substantial changes, must be accompanied by documentation that a local public hearing was conducted and by an authorizing resolution. Amendments which do not constitute substantial changes may be handled administratively. Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development staff may approve administrative amendments provided they are eligible, fundable and satisfy the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives. Substantial change is defined as a change in (1) beneficiary; (2) project location; (3) purpose; or (4) scope, resulting in more than a 50% increase or decrease in the original budget or $10,000, whichever is greater, in any authorized activity. The total budget of multi - community activities will be used in determining substantial change. 2 5. PAYMENT OF CDBG FUNDS The Recipient agrees to provide the Subrecipient with CDBG funds not to exceed the Hennepin County authorized budget to enable the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG - eligible activity /ies as described in Exhibit 1. It is understood that the Recipient shall be held accountable to HUD for the lawful expenditure of CDBG funds under this Agreement. The Recipient shall therefore make no payment of CDBG funds to the Subrecipient and draw no funds from HUD/U.S. Treasury on behalf of a Subrecipient activity /ies, prior to having received a proper Hennepin County Warrant Request form from the Subrecipient for the expenses incurred, as well as copies of all documents and records needed to ensure that the Subrecipient has complied with the appropriate regulations and requirements. 6. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE A. The Subrecipient does hereby agree to release, indemnify, and hold harmless the Recipient from and against all costs, expenses, claims, suits or judgments arising from or growing out of any injuries, loss or damage sustained by any person or corporation, including employees of Subrecipient and property of Subrecipient, which are caused by or sustained in connection with the tasks carried out by the Subrecipient under this Agreement. B. The Subrecipient does further agree that in order to protect itself as well as the Recipient under the indemnity agreement provisions hereinabove set forth it will at all times during the term of this Agreement and any renewal thereof, have and keep in force: a single limit or combined limit or excess umbrella commercial and general liability insurance policy of an amount of not less than $1 million for property damage arising from one occurrence, $1 million for damages arising from death and /or total bodily injuries arising from one occurrence, and $1 million for total personal injuries arising from one occurrence. Such policy shall also include contractual liability coverage protecting the Recipient, its officers, agents and employees by a certificate acknowledging this Agreement between the Subrecipient and the Recipient. C. The Subrecipient's liability, however, shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466. 7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST A. In the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction, and services by the Subrecipient, the conflict of interest provisions in 24 CFR 85.36 and OMB Circular A -110 shall apply. B. In all other cases, the provisions of 24 CFR 570.611 shall apply. 0 3 8. DATA PRIVACY ,• The Subrecipient agrees to abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and all other applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations relating to data privacy or confidentiality, and as any of the same may be amended. The Subrecipient agrees to defend and hold the Recipient, its officers, agents, and employees harmless from any claims resulting from the Subrecipient's unlawful disclosure and /or use of such protected data. 9. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION A. If the Subrecipient materially fails to comply with any term of this Agreement or so fails to administer the work as to endanger the performance of this Agreement, this shall constitute noncompliance and a default. Unless the Subrecipient's default is excused by the Recipient, the Recipient may take one or more of the actions prescribed in 24 CFR 85.43, including the option of immediately cancelling this Agreement in its entirety. B. The Recipient's failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement. C. This Agreement may be cancelled with or without cause by either party upon thirty (30) days' written notice according to the provisions in 24 CFR 85.44. D. CDBG funds allocated to the Subrecipient under this Agreement may not be obligated or expended by the Subrecipient following such date of termination. Any funds allocated to the Subrecipient under this Agreement which remain unobligated or unspent following such date of termination shall automatically revert to the Recipient. 10. REVERSION OF ASSETS Upon expiration or termination of this Agreement, the Subrecipient shall transfer to the Recipient any CDBG funds on hand or in the accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds, including CDBG funds provided to the Subrecipient in the form of a loan. Any real property under the control of the Subrecipient that was acquired or improved, in whole or in part, using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000 shall either be: A. Used to meet one of the national objectives in 24 CFR 570.208 and not used for the general conduct of government until: (1) For units of general local government, five years from the date that the unit of general local government is no longer considered by HUD to be a part of Urban Hennepin County; or (2) For any other Subrecipient, five years after expiration of this Agreement. 4 Or, B. Not used in accordance with A. above, in which event the Subrecipient shall pay to the Recipient an amount equal to the current market value of the property less any portion of the value attributable to expenditures of non -CDBG funds for acquisition of, or improvement to, the property. The payment is program income to the Recipient. No payment is required after the period of time specified in A. above. 11. PROCUREMENT The Subrecipient shall be responsible for procurement of all supplies, equipment, services, and construction necessary for implementation of its activity /ies. Procurement shall be carried out in accordance with the "Common Rule" Administrative Requirements in 24 CFR 85 and all provisions of the CDBG Regulations in 24 CFR 570 (the most restrictive of which will take precedence). The Subrecipient shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, all advertisements, negotiations, notices, and documents; enter into all contracts; and conduct all meetings, conferences, and interviews as necessary to ensure compliance with the above described procurement requirements. The Recipient shall provide advice and staff assistance to the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG- funded activity /ies. 12. ACQUISITION. RELOCATION AND DISPLACEMENT A. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for carrying out all acquisitions of real property necessary for implementation of the activity /ies. The Subrecipient shall conduct all such acquisitions in its name, or in the name of any of its public, governmental, nonprofit agencies as authorized by its governing body, which shall hold title to all real property purchased. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for preparation of all notices, appraisals, and documentation required in conducting acquisition under the latest applicable regulations of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 and of the CDBG Program. The Subrecipient shall also be responsible for providing all relocation notices, counseling, and services required by said regulations. The Recipient shall provide advice and staff assistance to the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG - funded activity /ies. B. The Subrecipient shall comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as required under 24 CFR 570.606(a) and HUD implementing regulations at 24 CFR 42; the requirements in 24 CFR 570.606(b) governing the residential antidisplacement and relocation assistance plan under section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (the Act); the relocation requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(c) governing displacement subject to section 104(k) of the Act; and the requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(d) governing optional relocation assistance under section 105(a)(11) of the Act. 5 13. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Recipient shall determine the level of environmental review required under 24 CFR Part 58 and maintain the environmental review record on all activities. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for providing necessary information, relevant documents, and public notices to the Recipient to accomplish this task. 14. LABOR STANDARDS, EMPLOYMENT AND CONTRACTING The Recipient shall be responsible for the preparation of all requests for HUD for wage rate determinations on CDBG activities undertaken by the Subrecipient. The Subrecipient shall notify the Recipient prior to initiating any activity, including advertising for contractual services which will include costs likely to be subject to the provisions on Federal Labor Standards and Equal Employment Opportunity and related implementing regulations. The Recipient will provide technical assistance to the Subrecipient to ensure compliance with these requirements. 15. PROGRAM INCOME If the Subrecipient generated any program income as a result of the expenditure of CDBG funds, the provisions of 24 CFR 570.504 shall apply, as well as the following specific stipulations: A. The Subrecipient will notify the Recipient of any program income within ten (10) days of the date such program income is generated. When program income is generated by an activity only partially assisted with CDBG funds, the income shall be prorated to reflect the percentage of CDBG funds used. B. That any such program income must be paid to the Recipient by the Subrecipient as soon as practicable after such program income is generated unless the Statement of Work in Exhibit 1 specifically permits the Subrecipient to retain program income. C. The Subrecipient further recognizes that the Recipient has the responsibility for monitoring and reporting to HUD on the use of any such program income. The responsibility for appropriate recordkeeping by the Subrecipient and reporting to the Recipient by the Subrecipient on the use of such program income is hereby recognized by the Subrecipient. The Recipient agrees to provide technical assistance to the Subrecipient in establishing an appropriate and proper recordkeeping and reporting system, as required by HUD. D. That in the event of close -out or change in status of the Subrecipient, any program income that is on hand or received subsequent to the close -out or change in status shall be paid to Recipient as soon as practicable after the income is received. The Recipient agrees to notify the Subrecipient, should close -out or change in status of the Subrecipient occur. 6 16. USE OF REAL PROPERTY The following tandards shall g apply to real property under the control of the Subrecipient that was acquired or improved, in whole or in art us' q P � p using CDBG funds: A. The Subrecipient shall inform the Recipient at least thirty (30) days prior to any modification or change in the use of the real property from that planned at the time of acquisition or improvements including disposition. The Subrecipient will comply with the requirements of 24 CFR 570.505 to provide affected citizens the opportunity to comment on any proposed change and to consult with affected citizens. B. The Subrecipient shall reimburse the Recipient in an amount equal to the current fair market value (less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non -CDBG funds) of property acquired or improved with CDBG funds that is sold or transferred for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG regulations. Said reimbursement shall be provided to the Recipient at the time of sale or transfer of the property referenced herein. Such reimbursement shall not be required if the conditions of 24 CFR 570.503(b)(8)(i) are met and satisfied. Fair market value shall be established by a current written appraisal by a qualified appraiser. The Recipient will have the option of requiring a second appraisal after review of the initial appraisal. C. Any program income generated from the disposition or transfer of real property prior to or subsequent to the close -out, change of status or termination of the Joint Cooperation Agreement between the Recipient and the Subrecipient shall be repaid to the Recipient at the time of disposition or transfer of the property. 17. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS The uniform administrative requirements delineated in 24 CFR 570.502 and any and all administrative requirements or guidelines promulgated by the Recipient shall apply to all activities undertaken by the Subrecipient provided for in this Agreement and to any program income generated therefrom. 18. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY A. During the performance of this Agreement, the Subrecipient agrees to the following: In accordance with the Hennepin County Affirmative Action Policy and the County Commissioners' Policies Against Discrimination, no person shall be excluded from full employment rights or participation in, or the benefits of, any program, service or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, affectional /sexual preference, public assistance status, ex- offender status, or national origin; and no person who is protected by applicable federal or state laws against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination. 7 B. The Subrecipient will furnish all information and reports required to comply with the provisions of 24 CFR Part 570 and all applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to discrimination and equal opportunity. 19. NON- DISCRIMINATION BASED ON DISABILITY A. The Subrecipient shall comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 'amended, to ensure that no otherwise qualified individual with a handicap, as defined in Section 504, shall, solely by reason of his or her handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination by the Subrecipient receiving assistance from the Recipient under Section 106 and /or Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. B. When and where applicable, the Subrecipient shall comply with, and make best efforts to have its third party providers comply with, Public Law 101- 336 Americans With Disabilities lities Act of 1990 Title I "Employment," _ Title II Public Services Subtitle A, and Title III. "Public Accommodations and Services Operated By Private Entities" and all ensuing federal regulations implementing said Act. 20. LEAD -BASED PAINT The Subrecipient shall comply with - P the Lead Based Paint notification, P Y cation, inspection, testing and abatement procedures established in 24 CFR 570.608. 21. FAIR HOUSING The Subrecipient shall be prohibited from receiving CDBG funds for activity /ies subject to this Agreement should it not affirmatively further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or impede action taken by Recipient to comply with the fair housing certification. 22. LOBBYING A. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the Subrecipient, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal Grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract ra g nt, loan, or cooperative agreement. P g 8 B. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement Subrecipient will complete and submit Standard Form -LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. 23. USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES Subrecipient has adopted and is enforcing a policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non- violent civil rights demonstrations; and a policy of enforcing applicable state and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such non - violent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction. 24. OTHER CDBG POLICIES The Subrecipient shall comply with the applicable section of 24 CFR 570.200, particularly sections (b) (Special Policies Governing Facilities) ; (c) (Special Assessments) ; (f) (Means of Carrying Out Eligible Activities); and (j) (Constitutional prohibitions Concerning Church /State Activities). 25. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE The Recipient agrees to provide technical assistance�to the Subrecipient in the form of oral and /or written guidance and on -site assistance regarding CDBG procedures and project management. This assistance will be provided as requested by the Subrecipient, and at other times at the initiative of the Recipient when new or updated information concerning the CDBG Program is received by the Recipient and deemed necessary to be provided to the Subrecipient 26. RECORDKEEPING The Subrecipient shall maintain records of the receipt and expenditure of all CDBG funds, such records to be maintained in accordance with OMB Circulars A -87 and the "Common Rule" Administrative Requirements in 24 CFR 85 and in accordance with OMB Circular A -110 and A -122, as applicable. All records shall be made available upon request of the Recipient for inspection /s and audit /s by the Recipient or its representatives. If a financial audit /s determines that the Subrecipient has improperly expended CDBG funds, resulting in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) disallowing such expenditures, the Recipient reserves the right to recover from the Subrecipient such disallowed expenditures from non -CDBG sources. Audit procedures are specified below in Section 22 of this Agreement. 9 27. ACCESS TO RECORDS The Recipient shall have authority to review P y r iew any and all procedures and all materials, notices, documents, etc., prepared by the Subrecipient in implementation of this Agreement, and the Subrecipient agrees to provide all information required by any person authorized by the Recipient to request such information from the Subrecipient for the purpose of reviewing the same. 28. AUDIT The Subrecipient agrees to provide Recipient with an annual audit consistent with the Single Audit Act of 19,84, (U.S. Public Law 98 -502) and the implementing requirements of OMB Circular A -128, Audits of State and Local Governments, and, as applicable, OMB Circular A -110, Uniform Requirements for Grants to Universities, Hospitals and Non - Profit Organizations. A. The audit is to be provided to Recipient on July 1 of each year this Agreement is in effect and any findings of noncompliance affecting the use of CDBG funds shall be satisfied by Subrecipient within six (6) months of the provision date. B. The audit is not required, however, in those instances where less than $25,000 in assistance is received from all Federal sources in any one fiscal year. C. The cost of the audit is not reimbursable from CDBG funds. D. The Recipient reserves the right to recover from the Subrecipient's non -CDBG funds any CDBG expenses which are disallowed by an audit. 10 SUBRECIPIENT, having signed this Agreement, and the Hennepin County Board Of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on 19 , and pursuant to such approval and the proper County officials having signed this Agreement, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. Upon proper execution, this COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, Agreement will be legally STATE OF MINNESOTA valid and binding. B Chairman its County Board Assistant County Att ey And: Date: Deputy /Associate County Administrator Attest: Deputy /Clerk of the County Board APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: SUBRECIPIENT: Assistant County Attorney Date: B Its: Mayor And: Its: City Manager Attest: Title: The City is organized pursuant to: Plan A _ Plan B XX Charter 11 SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM EXHIBIT 1 STATEMENT OF WORK The following activity /ies shall be carried out by the CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER under the terms of this Agreement and the details,and processes set forth below. Up to $ 235,627 is to be provided in Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant funds to the CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER to assist in the funding of the following activity /ies in the amount and under the stipulations individually specified in each attachment: Attachment A. Business Expansion /Retention 001 $ 30,000 Attachment B. Headstart Facility Remodeling 002 38,100 Attachment C. HOME Program 003 8,000 Attachment D. Rehab of Private Property 004 109,527 Attachment E. Scattered Site Redevelopment 005 50,00 Total $235,627 ATTACHMENT A PROJECT DESCRIPTION URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG STATEMENT OF PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS YEAR XIX /1993 1. COOPERATING UNIT Brooklyn Center 2.. ACTIVITY Planning - Business Expansion /Retention Study 3. LOCATION ADDRESS Citywide CENSUS TRACT 4. NUMBER 001 5. ACCOUNT 59940 6. BUDGET /SOURCES 530,000 / FY 1993 CDBG -0- / Program Income $30,000 / TOTAL 7. ELIGIBILITY CITATION 570.205(a)(iii) 8. NATIONAL OBJECTIVE CITATION: [ ] L/M Area Benefit 570.208(a)(1) [ ] S/B Area 570.208(b)(1) [ ] L/M Limited Clientele 570.208(a)(2) [ ] S/B Spot 570.208(b)(2) [ ] L/M Housing 570.208(a)(3) [X] P/A Exempt [ ] Job Creation or Retention 570.208(a)(4) 9. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STA TUS: X Exempt E X STATUS: [ X] P ( ) [ ] Categorically Excluded (CE) [ ] Categorically Excluded /Exempt (CE /EX) [ ] Assessment Required (AR) 10. DESCRIPTION The city of Brooklyn Center is developing a local comprehensive business expansion/retention ro ram in c unction on' program J with other north metro communities. At the present time, Blaine and Brooklyn Park have entered into a powers agreement reement w' J P ith Brooklyn yn Center to develop and implement the program. I It is the intent of Brooklyn Center and the other communities to encour- age economic growth and development by providing assistance to businesses already located in these communities. The initial stage for which CDBG funding is proposed is a study /survey of approximately 900 businesses in Brooklyn Center over a three -year period. The project as proposed is a multi -year project for the purposes of CDBG funding. Brooklyn Center has also received a $50,000 pilot project grant from the state (DTED). Brooklyn Center will be retaining a private firm (consultant). 11. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this agreement. [ ] SuPRIemental Agreement Type: [ ] Non - Profit Agency [ ] Public Agency [ ] Other An agreement must be executed between subrecipient and any other agency providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of subrecipient. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as are identified herein. [X] Schedule Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December 31, 1994. [ } Labor Standards /Equal Employment Opportunity All construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis -Bacon Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act and the Copeland (Anti- Kickback) Act. All federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcon- tracts of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended by Executive Order 12086, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto in 41 CFR Part 60. [X] Procurement Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by one of the following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate. - Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. - Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when the purchase /s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed -price contract is to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is preferred for soliciting construction bids. - Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than one source submits an offer, and either a fixed -price or cost - reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically used for procuring professional services. [X] Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 In connection with the planning and implementation of any project assisted under the Act, to the greatest extent feasible, opportuni- ties for training and employment be given to low and moderate income persons residing within the unit of local government or the metro- politan area in which the project is located, and that contracts for work in connection with the project be awarded to eligible business concerns which are located in, or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the same metropolitan area as the project. Contracts for work may include, but are not limited to, contracts for supply of goods and /or services. [ ] Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition The standards described in 24 CFR 570.606 shall apply to activity that involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons, including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition. [ ) Residential AntidisDlacement and Relocation Assistance All occupied and vacant occupiable low- moderate income dwellin units demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each displaced low- moderate income household in accor- dance with the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Anti - displacement and Relocation Assistance Policy pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and the provisions in 24 CFR 570.606. [ ] Property Management The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply to all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in part using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a period of five (5) years after the termination of this agree- ment. [ ) Land Disposition Agreement This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subrecipi- ent community, contains the terms under which the community can acquire and hold land for a specified use and time period. [ ] Other Requirements YEAR XIX /1993 ATTACHMENT B PROJECT DESCRIPTION URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG STATEMENT OF PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS YEAR XIX /1993 I. COOPERATING UNIT Brooklyn Center 2. ACTIVITY Public Facilit y - Headstart 3. LOCATION Facility Remodeling ADDRESS 5800 85th Avenue No. CENSUS TRACT: 4. UHC PROJECT NUMBER 002 0 "' 5, ACCOUNT NUMBER 59720 6. BUDGET /SOURCES 138,100 / FY 1993 CDBG -0- / Program Income $38.100 , / TOTAL 7. ELIGIBILITY CITATION 570,201(e) 8. NATIONAL OBJECTIVE CITATION: [ ] L/M Area Benefit 570.208(a)(1) [ ] S/B Area 570,208(b)(1) [X] L/M Limited, Clientele 570.208(a)(2) [ ] S/B Spot 570.208(b)(2) [ ] L/M Housing 570.208(a)(3) [ ] P/A Exempt [ ] Job Creation or Retention 570.208(a)(4) ( )(4 9. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: [ ] Exempt (EX) [ ] Categorically Excluded (CE) [ ] Categorically Excluded /Exempt (CE /EX) [X] Assessment Required (AR) 10. DESCRIPTION Remodel the old Brooklyn Park city hall into the new Town Hall Head Start and Early Childhood & Family Development Center. Brooklyn Park has donated the use of the building to the project and has entered into a rent -free lease agreement with PICA (Parents in Community Action, Inc.) to operate the programs and facility. In addition to Year XIX funding the other cities have allocated funds from their Year XVII programs. PICA will contribute approximately 60% of the total project cost which is estimated to be $800,000. (This is a multi - year activity beginning in Yr XVIII.) 11. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this agreement. [X ] Supplemental Agreement Type: [ ] Non - Profit Agency Headstart /PICA (Executed 6/93) [ ] Public Agency [ ] Other An agreement must be executed between subrecipient and any other agency providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of subrecipient. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as are identified herein. [X] Schedule Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December 31, 1994. [X] Labor Standards /Equal Employment Opportunity All construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis- Bacon.Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and 0 Safety Standards Act and the Copeland (Anti- Kickback) Act. All federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcon- tracts of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended by Executive Order 12086, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto in 41 CFR Part 60. [X] Procurement Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by one of the following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate. Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. - Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when the purchase /s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed -price contract is to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is preferred for soliciting construction bids. Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than one source submits an offer, and either a fixed -price or cost - reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically used for procuring professional services. [X] Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 In connection with the planning and implementation of any project assisted under the Act, to the greatest extent feasible, opportuni- ties for training and employment be given to low and moderate income persons residing within the unit of local government or the metro- politan area in which the project is located, and that contracts for work in connection with the project be awarded to eligible business concerns which are located in, or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the same metropolitan area as the project. Contracts for work may include, but are not limited to, contracts for supply of goods and /or services. [ ] Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition The standards described in 24 CFR 570.606 shall apply to activity that involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons, including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition. [ ] Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance All occupied and vacant occupiable low - moderate income dwelling units demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each displaced low- moderate income household in accor- dance with the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Anti - displacement and Relocation Assistance Policy pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and the provisions in 24 CFR 570.606. [ ] Property Management The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply to all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in part using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a period of five (5) years after the termination of this agree- ment. [ ] Land Disposition Agreement This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subrecipi- ent community, contains the terms under which the community can acquire and hold land for a specified use and time period. [ ] _Other Requirements YEAR XIX /1993 ATTACHMENT C PROJECT DESCRIPTION URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG STATEMENT OF PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS YEAR XIX /1993 1. COOPERATING UNIT Brooklyn Center 2, ACTIVITY Public Service - Senior Community Services 3, LOCATION Household & Outside Maintenance for Elderly ADDRESS Citywide CENSUS TRACT: 4. UHC PROJECT NUMBER 003 5. ACCOUNT NUMBER 59970 6. BUDGET /SOURCES 8 000 FY 1993 CDBG -0- / Program Income $ 8 , 000 TOTAL 7. ELIGIBILITY CITATION 570.201(e) 8. NATIONAL OBJECTIVE CITATION: [ ] L/M Area Benefit 570.208(a)(1) [ ] S/B Area 570.208(b)(1) [X] L/M LimitediClientele 570.208(a)(2) [ ] S/B Spot 570.208(b)(2) [ ] L/M Housing 570.208(a)(3) [ ] P/A Exempt [ ] Job Creation or Retention 570.208(a)(4) 9, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: [X] Exempt (EX) [ ] Categorically Excluded (CE) [ ] Categorically Excluded /Exempt (CE /EX) [ ] Assessment Required (AR) 10. DESCRIPTION The HOME program provides increased routine home maintenance /repairs and homemaker services to the elderly and handicapped residing in Brooklyn Center. The HOME program is provided through and operated by Senior Community Services. This is a multi -year activity. 11. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this agreement. [X ] Supplemental Agreement Type: [X] Non - Profit Agency _Senior Community Services [ ] Public Agency [ ] Other An agreement must be executed between subrecipient and any other agency providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of subrecipient. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as are identified herein. [X] Schedule Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December 31, 1994. [ ] Labor Standards /Equal Employment Opportunity All construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis- Bacon.Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act and the Copeland (Anti- Kickback) Act. All federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcon- tracts of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended by Executive Order 12086, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto in 41 CFR Part 60. [ ] Procurement Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by one of the following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate. y Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. - Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when the purchase /s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed -price contract is to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is preferred for soliciting construction bids. Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than one source submits an offer, and either a fixed -price or cost - reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically used for procuring professional services. [ ] Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 In connection with the planning and implementation of any project assisted under the Act, to the greatest extent feasible, opportuni- ties for training and employment be given to low and moderate income persons residing within the unit of local government or the metro- politan area in which the project is located, and that contracts for work in connection with the project b�, awarded to eligible business concerns which are located in, or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the same metropolitan area as the project. Contracts for work may i nclude, nclude, but are not limited to, contracts for suppl pp y of goods and /or services. [ ] Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition The standards described in 24 CFR 570.606 shall apply to activity that involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons, including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition. [ J Residential, Antidis lacement and Relocation n Assistance All occupied and vacant occupiable low - moderate income dwelling units demolished or converted to another use asa direct result of activity shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each displaced low - moderate income household in accor- dance with the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Anti - displacement and Relocation Assistance Policy pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and the provisions in 24 CFR 570.606. [ ] Property Mana ement The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply to all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in part using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a period of five (5) years after the termination of this agree- ment. [ ] Land Disposition Agreement This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subrecipi- ent community, contains the terms under which the community can acquire and hold land for a specified use and time period. [ ) Other Requirements YEAR XIXl1993 ATTACHMENT D PROJECT DESCRIPTION URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG STATEMENT OF PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS YEAR XIX /1993 1. COOPERATING UNIT Brooklyn Center 2. ACTIVITY Rehabilitation of Private Property 3. LOCATION ADDRESS Citywide CENSUS TRACT: 4. UHC PROJECT NUMBER 004 5. ACCOUNT NUMBER 59890 6. BUDGET /SOURCES 109 527 FY 1993 CDBG -0- / Program Income $109.527 / TOTAL 7. ELIGIBILITY CITATION 570.202.(a)(1) 8. NATIONAL OBJECTIVE CITATION: [ J L/M Area Benefit 570.208(a)(1) [ ] S/B Area 570.208(b)(1) [ ] L/M Limited Clientele 570.208(a)(2) [ ] S/B Spot 570.208(b)(2) [X] L/M Housing 570.208(a)(3) [ ] P/A Exempt [ J Job Creation or Retention 570.208(a)(4) 9. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: [ ] Exempt (EX) [ J Categorically Excluded (CE) [X] Categorically Excluded /Exempt (CE /EX) [ ] Assessment Required (AR) 10. DESCRIPTION This locally administered program provides grants to eligible low /moderate income homeowners for improvements to their homes consistent with the Urban Hennepin County Procedural Guides for Housing Rehabilitation. This is a multi -year activity. 11. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this agreement. [X] Supplemental Agreement Type: [ ] Non- Profit Agency [X] Public Agency Metropolitan Council Housing and Redevelopment Authority [ ] Other An agreement must be executed between- subrecipient and any,Qther agency providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of subrecipient. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as are identified herein. [X] Schedule Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December 31, 1994. [ ] Labor Standards /Equal Employment Opportunity All construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis -Bacon Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act and the Copeland (Anti- Kickback) Act. All federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcon- tracts of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended by Executive Order 12086, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto in 41 CFR Part 60. [ ] Procurement Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by one of the following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate. - Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. - Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when the purchase /s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed -price contract is to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is preferred for soliciting construction bids. Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than one source submits an offer, and either a fixed -price or cost - reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically used for procuring professional services. [ ] Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 In connection with the planning and implementation of any project assisted under the Act, to the greatest extent feasible, opportuni- ties for training and employment be given to low and moderate income persons residing within the unit of local government or the metro- politan area in which the project is located, and that contracts for work in connection with the project be,, awarded to eligible business concerns which are located in, or owned in substantial part'by persons residing in the same metropolitan area as the project. Contracts for work may include, but are not limited to, contracts for supply of goods and /or services. [ ] Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition The standards described in 24 CFR 570.606 shall apply to activity that involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons, including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition. [ ] Residential,Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance All occupied and vacant occupiable low- moderate income dwelling units demolished or converted to another use as.a direct result of activity shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each displaced low- moderate income household in accor- dance with the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Anti - displacement and Relocation Assistance Policy pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and the provisions in 24 CFR 570.606. [ ) Property Management The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply to all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in part using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a period of five (5) years after the termination of this agree - ment. [ ] Land Disposition Agreement This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subrecipi- ent community, contains the terms under which the community can acquire and hold land for a specified use and time period. [ ] Other Requirements YEAR XIX 11993 ATTACHMENT E PROJECT DESCRIPTION URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG STATEMENT OF PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS YEAR XIX /1993 1. COOPERATING UNIT Brooklyn Center 2. ACTIVITY Scattered Site Redevelopment 3. LOCATION ADDRESS 6601 Bryant Avenue North CENSUS TRACT: 4. UHC PROJECT NUMBER •005 5. ACCOUNT NUMBER 59680 6. BUDGET/SOURCES 50.000� / FY 1993 CDBG -0- / Program Income $ 50,000 /TOTAL 7. ELIGIBILITY CITATION 8. NATIONAL OBJECTIVE CITATION: [ ) L/M Area Benefit 570.208(a)(1) [ ] S/B Area 570.208(b)(1) [ ] L/M Limited,Clientele 570.208(a)(2) [X] S/B Spot 570.208(b)(2) [ ] L/M Housing 570.208(a)(3) [ ) P/A Exempt [ ] Job Creation or Retention 570.208(a)(4) 9. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: [ ] Exempt (EX) [ ) Categorically Excluded (CE) [ ) Categorically Excluded /Exempt (CE /EX) [X] Assessment Required (AR) Funds released 2/16/93 10. DESCRIPTION Funds will be used to continue reimburse- ment to the Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority for the cost of acquisition and clearance through demolition of four (4) four plex apartment buildings at 6601 Bryant Avenue North. This is a multi -year activity which received environmental clearance on February 16, 1993. 11. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this agreement. [X) Supplemental Agreement Type: [ ] Non- Profit Agency [X] Public Agency Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority [ J Other An agreement must be executed between subrecipient and any other agency providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of subrecipient. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as are identified herein. [X] Schedule Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December 31, 1994. [ ) Labor Standards /Equal Employment Opportunity All construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis -Bacon Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act and the Copeland (Anti - Kickback) Act. All federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcon- tracts of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended by Executive Order 12086, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto in 41 CFR Part 60. [X) Procurement Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by one of the following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate. - Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. - Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when the purchase /s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed -price contract is to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is preferred for soliciting construction bids. - Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than one source submits an offer, and either a fixed -price or cost - reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically used for procuring professional services. [ ] Section 3 of the Housin and Urban Development Act of 1968 g P In connection with the planning and implementation of any project assisted under the Act, to the greatest extent feasible, opportuni- ties for training and employment be given to low and moderate income persons residing within the unit of local government or the metro- politan area in which the project is located, and that contracts for work in connection with the project be „awarded to eligible business concerns which are located in, or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the same metropolitan area as the project. Contracts for work may include, but are not limited to, contracts for supply of goods and /or services. [XI Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition The standards described in 24 CFR 570.606 shall apply to activity that involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons, including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition. [ ] Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance All occupied and vacant occupiable low- moderate income dwelling units demolished or converted to another use as p direct result of activity shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each displaced low- moderate income household in accor- dance with the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Anti - displacement and Relocation Assistance Policy pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and the provisions in 24 CFR 570.606. [ J Property Management The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply to all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in part using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a period of five (5) years after the termination of this agree - ment. [ ] Land Disposition Agreement This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subrecipi- ent community, contains the terms under which the community can acquire and hold land for a specified use and time period. [ ] Other Requirements YEAR XIX /1993 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 09/1 Agenda Item Number l e, REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR STORM WATER POND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -29 DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Director of - fublic Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached • On 6/28/93 the City Council adopted Resolution No 93 -106 which authorized the City Manager, in coordination with Evergreen Land Services Inc. as agents for the City, to negotiate for the purchase of the 4.1 acre vacant parcel in the SW quadrant of the I- 694 /Brooklyn Boulevard interchange for the purpose of using this property as a storm water pond. A tentative purchase agreement has now been negotiated with the property owners and is presented for approval and ratification by the City Council. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution is provided for consideration by the Council. I tae Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR STORM WATER POND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -29 WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 90 -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. 90 -106 adopted on June 28, 1993, the City Council approved acquisition of property to be acquired for the project, and authorized the City Manager to negotiate the purchase of such property; and WHEREAS, Evergreen Land Services, as the City's agent, has presented the City's offer to the owner of the property legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Northgate Addition to the City of Brooklyn Center, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota (also identified as PIN 34- 119- 21 -24- 0008); and WHEREAS, Evergreen Land Services has advised the City Manager and the City Council that the property owner has requested payment greater than the amount of the City's offer, that based on special considerations regarding this property they have negotiated a purchase agreement which exceeds the City's offer by $10,000, and that they recommend approval of that purchase agreement; and WHEREAS, said property owner has accepted the offer, and has executed a purchase agreement to that - effect. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The terms of the purchase agreement are hereby approved. 2. The City Manager is directed to proceed with the purchase of the property legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Northgate Addition to the City of Brooklyn Center, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota (also identified as PIN 34- 119- 21 -24- 0008). 3. The City Manager and Mayor are authorized to execute the purchase agreements. 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 913!93 Agenda Item Number I d . REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: 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 DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Dire r of Public Works S A a MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: L No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached No • The 1993 budget includes $22,500 to fund the application of an anti -slip treatment to the Community Center pool deck and to the floors in the locker rooms and showers. This treatment was recommended by North Star Risk Services, the City's risk management consultant, and the concept was endorsed by the official at the Minnesota Department of Health who has responsibility for enforcing health and safety regulations regarding public pool facilities. The handicapped access ramp in the pool received this type of treatment on an experimental basis at the time the water slide was installed. Staff has found this treatment to be quite effective in reducing the slipperiness of areas that are usually wet or which become wet occasionally. Bids were opened at 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, September 8. Two bids were received, with the low bid being submitted by Sure Stop Floor Safety, Inc. in the amount of $15,332.24. Sure Stop has successfully installed this treatment at several local pool facilities, including the medical pool at Fairview Riverside Hospital. The quality of the work is high, and the facilities are pleased with the performance of the anti -slip surface. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution accepting the bid of Sure Stop Floor Safety, Inc. and awarding a contract is attached for Council consideration. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 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 WHEREAS, the 1993 General Fund budget includes $22,500 for installation of an anti -slip floor treatment on the Community Center pool deck and on the locker room floors; and WHEREAS, such a treatment is recommended by the City's risk management consultant; and WHEREAS, bids for this treatment were received, opened, and tabulated on the 8th day of September, 1993, and said bids were as follows: Bidder Bid Sure Stop Floor Safety, Inc. $15,332.24 Carlson Traction Plus, Inc. $18,207.53 WHEREAS, it appears that Sure Stop Floor Safety, Inc. of Fridley, Minnesota, has provided the lowest responsible bid. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Improvement Project No. 1993 -17, Community Center Anti -slip Floor Treatment, is hereby established. 2. The bid as submitted by sure Stop Floor Safety, Inc. of Fridley, Minnesota is hereby accepted and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract, in the amount of $15,332.24 with Sure Stop Floor Safety, Inc. in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1993 -17. 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!13!93 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp,' 'rector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMVlENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ---- I • The attached resolution represents the official Council action required to expedite removal of the trees most recently marked by the City tree inspector, in accordance with approved procedures. It is anticipated that this resolution will be submitted for Council consideration each meeting during the summer and fall as new trees are marked. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION It is recommended the Council adopt the attached resolution. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES (ORDER NO. DST 09/13/93 ) 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: I. The diseased trees at the following ddresses are hereby declared g Y to be a public nuisance: TREE PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY ADDRESS NUMBER ---------------------- - - - - -- ----------------------- - - - - -- -- - - - --- DANIEL & CAROLYN SCHUELLER 5937 EMERSON AVE N 153 CITY OF B.C. 1120 69TH AVE N 154 STEVEN MCGLYNN 2319 BROOKVIEW DR 155 GEORGE & VIRGINIA SWANSON 6803 PERRY AVE N 156 S. RODEN & C. MOENGEN 3006 51ST AVE N 157 ROBERT & PATRICIA TORRES 4501 WINCHESTER LA 158 ROBERT & PATRICIA TORRES 4501 WINCHESTER LA 159 THOMAS GLEASON 4418 WINCHESTER LA 160 GROUP HEALTH PLAN, INC. 6845 LEE AVE N 161 MARVIN & VIVIAN LOVLEIN 6025 ABBOTT AVE N 162 CITY OF B.C. EVERGREEN PARK 163 CENTER DEVELOPMENT CO. 2806 NORTHWAY DR 164 GREG LUTGEN 7216 BROOKLYN BLVD 165 LLOYD & DARLA WALLACE 5652 JAMES AVE N 166 2. After twenty (20) days from the date of the notice, the property owner(s) will receive a second written notice providing five (5) business days in which to contest the determination of the City Council by requesting, in writing, a hearing. Said request shall be filed with the City Clerk. 3. After five (5) days, if the property owner fails to request a hearing, the tree(s) shall be removed by the City. All removal costs, including legal, financing, and administrative charges, shall be specially assessed against the property. RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date September 13, 1M Agenda Item Number t o� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF A LAWFUL GAMBLING LICENSE TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB TO OPERATE A PULL -TAB BOOTH AT THE EARLE BROWN BOWL. DEPT. APPROVAL: Trevor A. Hampton, Chief of Police f� MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached no) • The City ty o Brooklyn Center has received a permit renewal application from the Lions Club for a Minnesota Lawful Gambling License to operate a pull -tab booth at the Earle Brown Bowl. The Lions presently operate pull -tab booths at both Lynbrook Bowl and the Earle Brown Bowl. A special search of calls for service to the Earle Brown Bowl for the past year has not indicated any illegal activity with regards to the gambling activities at the Earle Brown Bowl address, 6440 James Circle North, in Brooklyn Center. Background checks were conducted on James Moylan, Gambling Manager; Thomas Shinnick, Accountant; and Milt Fogel, Board Member. Nothing was found during those checks that would preclude approval of the permit renewal application under State Statute or City Ordinance at this time. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION The City Council approve the Lions Club permit renewal application for the operation of a pull - tab booth at the Earle Brown Bowl, 6440 James Circle North. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF A LAWFUL GAMBLING LICENSE TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB TO OPERATE A PULL -TAB BOOTH AT THE EARLE BROWN BOWL WHEREAS, the Minnesota Charitable Gambling Control Board requires a municipality to submit a resolution authorizing issuance of any lawful gambling license within its borders; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Lions Club has held and currently holds such license within the City of Brooklyn Center and there has been no illegal activity with regards to the gambling activities at that location; and WHEREAS, the city of Brooklyn Center allows for such conduct on premises within the City of Brooklyn Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the issuance of a lawful gambling license to the Brooklyn Center Lions Club to operate a pull -tab booth at the Earle Brown Bowl is hereby approved. 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 13, 1993 Agenda Item Number a' REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION • ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF A LAWFUL GAMBLING LICENSE TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB TO OPERATE A PULL -TAB BOOTH AT THE LYNBROOK BOWL. DEPT. APPROVAL: Trevor A. Hampton, Chief of Police MANAGER'S REVIEW RECOMMENDATION: O MENDATI ON. No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached no) The City of Brooklyn Center has received a permit renewal application from the Lions Club for a Minnesota Lawful Gambling License to operate a pull -tab booth at the Lynbrook Bowl. The Lions presently operate pull -tab booths at both Lynbrook Bowl and the Earle Brown Bowl. A special search of calls for service to Lynbrook Bowl for the past year has not indicated any illegal activity with regards to the gambling activities at the Lynbrook Bowl address, 6357 North Lilac Drive, in Brooklyn Center. Background checks were conducted on James Moylan, Gambling Manager; Thomas Shinnick, Accountant; and Milt Fogel, Board Member. Nothing was found during those checks that would preclude approval of the permit renewal application under State Statute or City Ordinance at this time. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION CTI N The City Council approve the Lions Club permit renewal application for the operation of a pull- tab booth at Lynbrook Bowl, 6357 North Lilac Drive. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF A LAWFUL GAMBLING LICENSE TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB TO OPERATE A PULL -TAB BOOTH AT THE LYNBROOK BOWL WHEREAS, the Minnesota Charitable Gambling Control Board requires a municipality to submit a resolution authorizing issuance of any lawful gambling license within its borders; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Lions Club has held and currently holds such license within the City of Brooklyn Center and there has been no illegal activity with regards to the gambling activities at that location; and WHEREAS, the city of Brooklyn Center allows for such conduct on premises within the City of Brooklyn Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the issuance of a lawful gambling license to the Brooklyn Center Lions Club to operate a pull -tab booth at the Lynbrook Bowl is hereby approved. 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 9/13/93 Agenda Item Number ' REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION i ITEM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES DEPT. APPROVAL: J" - k� Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOA ENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) Attached is the list of licenses to be approved by the city council. • RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Approve licenses. 13 icenses to be approved by the City Council on September 13, 1993: MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Countryside Heating and Cooling 10880 County Road No. 20 D.C. Mechanical HVAC Service, Inc. 5041 Vincent Ave. N. �y Quality Air, Inc. 7907 5th Street NE 1.1 Aav� Building Official RENTAL DWELLINGS Renewal: Brian Follese 6933 Brooklyn Blvd. f j4M4�21 Director of Community Development TAXICAB Town Tani #78 2500 Washington Ave. N. City Clerk 0 GENERAL APPROVAL: Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk