Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 05-10 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MAY 10, 1993 7 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Opening Ceremonies 4. Open Forum 5. Council Report 6. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda -All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. 7. Approval of Minutes: * a. April 19, 1993 - Board of Equalization * b. April 26, 1993 - Reconvened Board of Equalization c. April 22, 1993 - Special Council Meeting * d. April 26, 1993 - Regular Session 8. Discussion Items: a. Southeast Neighborhood Improvement Project -The City Council conducted the public improvement hearing regarding these proposed improvements on April 22, 1993. 1. Resolution Ordering Portions of Improvement Projects 1993 -02 (Sanitary Sewer Improvements), 1993 -03 (Water System Improvements), 1993 -04 (Storm Drainage Improvements), and 1993 -05 (Street Improvements) in Area between Logan Avenue North and 4th Street North, and between 53rd Avenue North and 55th Avenue North; and Directing Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Said Improvements b. Presentation of Transportation Study Report -This study which has been conducted concurrently with Brooklyn Park's transportation study was authorized by the City Council on July 13, 1992. Staff and a representative from Strgar- Roscoe - Fausch (SRF) will present the report. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- May 10, 1993 c. Staff Recommendation to Authorize Preparation of Conceptual Layout for Improvements to Brooklyn Boulevard 1. Resolution Accepting Proposal from Strgar - Roscoe - Fausch Inc. to Prepare a Conceptual Layout Plan for Improvements to Brooklyn Boulevard between 65th Avenue and the North City Limits, and Appropriating Funds Therefor d. Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Report 1. Resolution Approving a Request for Proposals Streetscape Amenities Study for Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota e. Preliminary Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 1994 -1998 f. Earle Brown Commons Limited Partnership II Request g. Legislative Update 9. Resolutions: • a. Establishing Improvement Project No. 1993 -07, Replacement of Water Mains on Lawrence Road and on Aldrich Court; Approving Plans and Specifications; and Directing Advertisement for Bids, Contract No. 1993 -C • b. Amending the 1993 General Fund Budget and Approving the Purchase of Electronic Mail and Scheduling Software • c. Declaring Earle Brown Days as a Civic Event *10. Licenses 11. Adjournment CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting D ate _ y 10, 1993 / Agenda Item Number / ,:L,j 6i C�G3 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF APRIL 19, 1993 RECONVENED BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF APRIL 26, 1993 SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 22, 1993 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 26, 1993 - REGULAR SESSION DEPT. APPR VAL: Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION i , a MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA BOARD OF EQUALIZATION APRIL 19, 1993 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met as the Board of Equalization and was called to order by Mayor Todd Paulson at 7 :00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Todd Paulson, Councilmembers Barb Kalligher, Dave Rosene, Celia Scott and Kristen Mann. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Hennepin County Appraisal Supervisor Bob Hanscom, and City Assessor Mark Parish. PURPOSE OF THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION The City Manager explained the purpose of the City Council was to act as the Board of Equalization and act as an appeal board to the Assessor's setting of values and classifications. The assessment is not based on taxes, but on the market value of the properties as compared with similar properties. Once the local board acts, the assessment is forwarded on to the County. CITY ASSESSOR'S REPORT The City Assessor explained that the Board of Equalization is established by State law and City Charter. Notices were published in accordance with law. In addition to the published notice, each property owner received a 1993 value notice indicating the 1993 market value. This notice was either included with the 1993 homestead card or, for properties that are non - homestead, value notices were mailed late March and early April. The Assessor went on to describe the tax system an d how different classes of property have different tax rates as prescribed by law. The Assessor is responsible for placing market value on property. The Board of Equalization meeting is to review the assessment, values and property classifications. The Board has the power to decrease, affirm, or increase a market value or to change a classification. The Assessor indicated that the 1993 values and classifications will become the basis for the 1994 payable taxes. In order to arrive at the 1993 values, the Assessor and staff reviewed sales from October 1991 through September of 1992. Through the use of the computer aided appraisal system, all properties were reviewed and market values determined. 4/19/93 -1- L PUBLIC INQUIRY REGARDING ASSESSMENT Gary Brummer - River Glen Apartments Gary Brummer, owner of River Glen Apartments, 407 70th Avenue North, appeared before the Board. He indicated that he felt the market value placed on his property was excessive as all repairs and improvements to the property have not yet been completed. He has put approximately $109,000 of improvements into the property; however, there are still improvements to be made and hopefully there will be no major problems or expenses in the near future. Mr. Brummer indicated that his profit per year is around $4,000 - $5,000 and the resulting tax based on the value will exceed $12,000, which would result in a $8,000 - $9,000 per year deficit. City Assessor Parish praised Mr. Brummer's efforts in renovating /upgrading the property. He also indicated that this property was a depressed property that has turned around because of Mr. Brummer's efforts. He indicated that he believed the property has become stable and, therefore, the market value should reflect that. He reminded the Council that staff s responsibility is to place fair market value on property. Based on the income and expense information he had on this property, he would ask that the Council affirm the 1993 market value of $2,560,000. The Council discussed the improvements made to the property and the value per unit of $20,000 and whether or not that was fair value. It was suggested that the property be valued at $19,000 per unit as there are still repairs to be made to the property and that the project did not reach its current occupancy rate until late in 1992. The Council also inquired of the County representative what would happen if Mr. Brummer went to the County Board. Mr. Bob Hanscom stated that an appraisal would be made for use at the County Board. Depending upon the results of that appraisal, the value of the property for 1993 would either be decreased, affirmed or increased. He also felt that staff s recommendation of $20,000 per unit was in line when compared to other similar properties. Following this discussion, a motion was made by Councilmember Scott, seconded by Councilmember Kalligher, to lower the per unit value from $20,000 per unit to $19,000 per unit for a total 1993 market value of $2,432,000. Motion passed unanimously. Helen Peltier - 6506 Willow Lane Helen Peltier, 6506 Willow Lane, appeared before the Board. Ms. Peltier felt the value placed on her property was excessive. She indicated that she purchased the property in May, 1991 for $124,900. At that time the assessor's value was $123,700 (1991 value). In 1992, the value decreased to $108,300 and now in 1993, it was increased to $125,300. She felt she could not sell the property today for more than what she paid for it 1991. City Assessor Parish briefly reviewed the staff report for this property and explained that each year, values are determined based on information available. In 1992 there were a couple of sales that troubled staff. As a result, market values were decreased. In 1993, there were additional sales and the analysis of those sales and the other information available indicated that 4/19/93 -2- an increase in market values was warranted. Ms. Peltier's property has been reviewed and a report prepared which also included some adjustment for location based on the apartment influence across the street. The report recommended that the 1993 market value of $125,300 be affirmed. Councilmember Rosene asked Ms. Peltier what she felt the value of her property was. Ms. Peltier felt that she could not sell it for more than what she paid in 1991 ($124,900) so that must be the value. There was a motion by Councilmember Kalligher, seconded by Councilmember Rosene, to decrease the 1993 market value from $125,300 to $124,900. Motion passed unanimously. Robert Nechal - 5332 Russell Avenue North Mr. Nechal, 5332 Russell Avenue North, appeared before the Board concerning the 1993 market value placed on his property. He indicated that he has contacted and worked with staff as well as contracted for an independent appraisal. Mr. Nechal requested that any action on his appeal be postponed or deferred until such time as he receives the written appraisal and can review it with staff. He indicated he is confident that the issue can be resolved and if not, he can go on to the County Board. Mr. Nechal went on to report that he received a verbal figure from the appraiser of $105,000 which would be lower than the value recommended by the Assessor. City Assessor Parish indicated that a review of the property was made and the value placed on the property was fair and the report recommended that the 1993 value of $116,000 be affirmed. Staffs recommendation was based on 3 sales of double bungalows within 60 days in the area of Mr. Nechal's property. However, staff will prepare a recommendation based on review of the appraisal Mr. Nechal will receive later this week and asked that this property be deferred until the Board can reconvene next Monday. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene, seconded by Councilmember Mann to defer action on this appeal until the Board reconvenes on Monday, April 26, 1993. Staff is to work with Mr. Nechal and bring a recommendation to that meeting. Motion passed unanimously. Change in order of Agenda There were two appointments before the Board where the owners have not yet arrived. It was determined to postpone these two appeals until the end of the meeting to allow time for the owners to appear. These properties were Thomas Gladwin, 6512 Willow Lane and Michael Haase, 5330 -28 Queen Avenue. Jeanne Peterson, 5441 71st Circle Ms. Peterson, 5441 71st Circle, had signed in to appear before the Board. However, she was not present to address the Board. Staff indicated that she had general questions regarding market values and taxes and those questions were answered earlier in the evening, but that she may continue to stay for general interest. 4/19/93 -3- Bartholomew Dabrowski, 5001 Ewing Avenue North Mr. and Mrs. Dabrowski appeared before the Board regarding the property they own at 5001 Ewing Avenue North. They indicated that they purchased the 4 -plex a few years ago for $150,000. Now the value has decreased to $111,300 but the taxes continue to increase. They asked for an explanation of why the value decreased and the taxes increase. Staff indicated that the values were determined based on information available regarding the sales of 4 unit buildings. Mr. Parish also reviewed a portion of his earlier presentation indicating how the tax system works. Unfortunately, just because the value decreases does not mean that the taxes will decrease. Taxes are the result of the local taxing districts and their budgets, the values of property, and the classification system prescribed by statute. Staff indicated that they were unaware that the Dabrowski's would be attending and, therefore, no report was prepared. Staff indicated that it would be their recommendation to offer no change to the 1993 market value. By common consent, the Board indicated that no change in the 1993 market value would be recommended. George Kosmides - Lyn River Apartments Mr. Kosmides, owner of Lyn River Apartments, appeared before the Board. Mr. Kosmides indicated that he was upset over the tax situation that exists on his property. He indicated that the value for the 1993 payable taxes is $1,512,000 and the value for the payable 1994 taxes decreased to $1,435,000. Mr. Kosmides would like to have the payable 1993 lowered. Mr. Kosmides went on to say that he has had many problems with the tenants and repairs to the buildings. The property is experiencing a 22 -30 unit vacancy rate, a deficit of $6,000 - $8,000 per month. Mr. Kosmides indicated that he has attempted to market the buildings, and in fact, sold it a couple of years ago for in excess of $2 million. However, that contract defaulted and he received the property back in a depressed state. City Assessor Parish informed the Board that staff was unaware that this property would be in appeal and, therefore, no report was prepared. Mr. Parish indicated that he has met with Mr. Kosmides previously to discuss the property and its value and indicated that the 1993 value is based on a value of $17,083 per unit which is the lowest per unit value with the exception of Brookdale Ten which has all one bedroom units and over 100 vacancies. Staff does not feel a reduction in the 1993 value is warranted. Also, if Mr. Kosmides wishes to appeal the 1993 payable taxes, his only form of appeal would be through the Tax Court, as the Board can only take action on the 1993 assessment for taxes payable in 1994. Mr. Kosmides stated that he was disappointed as he was told by an associate of his that he was encouraged not to attend tonights meeting as appealing the market value would not be beneficial to him if he is trying to sell the property to the City. City Assessor Parish responded that he did receive a call regarding tonights meeting; however, the conversation that took place was not as Mr. Kosmides described. Mr. Kosmides indicated that he would offer the property for purchase by the City at a cost of $18,000 per unit. 4/19/93 -4- There was a motion by Councilmember Mann, seconded by Councilmember Scott to affirm the Assessor's 1993 market value of $1,435,000. Motion passed unanimously. Letter Appeal - Total Petroleum, 6830 Brooklyn Blvd City Assessor Parish informed the Board that Total Petroleum has appealed the 1993 value by letter. Total provided additional information today regarding their appeal; basically it was information and news articles regarding properties with contamination. Apparently Total is experiencing groundwater contamination at this site as a result of a leak or spill. As of this date, no final orders have been given by the MCPA. Total does not have an estimate of what costs will be incurred for clean up and no sufficient information has been provided to assess the impact as it relates to the 1993 market value. Staffs recommendation is to affirm the 1993 market value and to allow Total to exercise their right to appeal to the Tax Court. There was a motion by Councilmember Kalligher, seconded by Councilmember Scott to affirm the 1993 assessor's market value of $117,000. Motion passed unanimously. Thomas Gladwin - 6512 Willow Lane Mr. Gladwin had made an appointment to appeal the 1993 market value of his property at tonights meeting. As of now, Mr. Gladwin has not arrived. Staff indicated that action should be taken on this appeal so that Mr. Gladwin has is eligible to appeal to the County Board if he wishes to. Staff has reviewed the property and prepared a report and, based on that report, it is staff's recommendation to reduce the 1993 market value from $141,500 to $139,000. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott, seconded by Councilmember Mann to reduce the 1993 market value from $141,500 to $139,000. Motion passed unanimously. Michael Haase - 5330 -28 Queen Avenue North Mr. Haase had made an appointment to appeal the 1993 market value of his property at tonight's meeting. As of now, Mr. Haase has not arrived. Staff indicated that action should be taken on this appeal so that Mr. Haase is eligible to appeal to the County Board if he wishes to do so. Staff has reviewed the property and prepared a report and, based on that report, it is staff's recommendation to reduce the 1993 market value from $113,400 to $95,400. There was a motion by Councilmember Kalligher, seconded by Councilmember Scott to reduce the 1993 market value from $113,400 to $95,400. Motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF 1993 ASSESSMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Kalligher, seconded by Councilmember Scott to accept and approve the balance of the 1993 Assessment with the exception of the Robert Nechal property at 5332 Russell Avenue North which is being deferred the Board when it reconvenes on Monday, April 26, 1993. Motion passed unanimously. 4/19/93 -5- a ADJOURNMENT There was a motion b Councilmember Scott seconded b Councilmember Kalli her to adjourn � Y g J the meeting. Motion passed unanimously. The Board of Equalization was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor Minutes taken by: Kay Manning Assessment Technician 4/19/93 -6- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA BOARD OF EQUALIZATION RECONVENED APRIL 26, 1993 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council reconvened as the Board of Equalization and was called to order by Mayor Todd Paulson at 7:18 p.m. on Monday, April 26, 1993. ROLL CALL Mayor Todd Paulson, Councilmembers Barb Kalligher, Dave Rosene, Celia Scott and Kristen Mann. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, and City Assessor Mark Parish. PURPOSE The purpose of the reconvened Board of Equalization was to finalize the appeal of Robert Nechal, 5332 -36 Russell Avenue North, which was deferred from the April 19, 1993 Board meeting. Staff reported that they had met with Mr. Nechal to review his appraisal and the staff report. It is staffs recommendation that the 1993 market value be reduced from $116,000 to $113,300 on his property. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene, seconded by Councilmember Scott, to reduce the 1993 market value for 5332 -36 Russell from $116,000 to $113,300. Motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the reconvened Board of Equalization was closed at 7:20 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor 4/26/93 -1- i MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 22, 1993 CONSTITUTION HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in special session and was called to order by Acting Mayor Pro tem Celia Scott at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Acting Mayor Pro tem Celia Scott, Councilmembers Barb Kalligher, and Kristen Mann. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, City Engineer Mark Maloney, Public Works Coordinator Diane Spector, and Council Secretary Nancy Berg. PUBLIC HEARING - SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS The City Manager explained the purpose of the meeting was a public improvement hearing. He further explained everyone who could possibly be affected by an assessment had received notice of the meeting. He continued to explain the history and background of the proposed Southeast Neighborhood improvements. The Director of Public Works used overhead slides and films to show the proposed Southeast Neighborhood improvements. The City Engineer presented the engineering report and cost estimates for the proposed Southeast Neighborhood improvements. The Public Works Coordinator outlined the details regarding funding and the proposed assessment stabilization program. The City Manager explained the procedure for addressing the Council to the public. Councilmember Kalligher questioned whether nonqualifying residents would have to pay for the qualifying residents under the assessment stabilization program. The Public Works Coordinator explained there were some local state aid funds to pay the cost of the assessment stabilization program. 4/22/93 - - 1 Acting Mayor Pro tem Scott opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing to consider the proposed Southeast Neighborhood improvements at 8 p.m. She inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. Donald Welch, 5311 Dupont Avenue North, addressed the Council stating he has lived in Brooklyn Center for 38 years. He said if it wasn't broken, don't fix it. He agreed there may be a need for repair and asked for the results of the resident survey on the street improvement project. The City Manager stated 147 surveys had been returned. He explained of the 147 surveys, 86 residents were e aga nst the improvement project, 27 were undecided and 33 were in favor of the project. Mr. Welch suggested the Council let the majority rule and reminded Council the public was fed up with taxes and special assessments. Cliff Painter, 5339 Fremont, stated the street conditions were much worse in Minneapolis because Brooklyn Center maintains the streets better. He disagreed with installing curbs explaining this would be more to maintain. He also disagreed with replacing sewers at this time. He also agreed the public did not need any more taxes. He further stated he opposed the improvements. The Director of Public Works noted the City of Minneapolis has programmed reconstruction of the area just south of 53rd Avenue for 1994. Norma Rydholm, 5307 Dupont, asked if putting in new storm sewers would decrease the sewer and water bills. The Public Works Coordinator explained the improvements would reduce the cost for maintaining the water and sewer system. She further explained this would not reduce the amount of the bills but would slow the rate of increase. The Director of Public Works reiterated the cost for water and sewerage charges would not be reduced, but the rate of increase would be lessened. Mike Ronning, 5452 Dupont Avenue North, stated he was associated with the Harron Methodist Church on Dupont. He asked if the church's parking lot would be assessed separately. The Director of Public Works answered it would be assessed according to the width on Dupont Avenue. He further explained both the parking lot and the church property would be assessed if improvements are made adjacent to those properties. Mr. Ronning asked how the City would view the church's income as a non - profit organization. The City Manager answered the assessment stabilization program was not intended for churches, only for single family homes. 4/22/93 -2- Boyd Will, 5350 James Avenue North, stated he has lived in Brooklyn Center for 40 years. He further stated there could be problems with the sewer in the future, and he asked that improvements be done on a timely basis. He also stated he agreed with the project. Paul Thour, 5425 James Avenue North, asked about the HUD income limits for the assessment stabilization program. The City Manager suggested Mr. Thour see the Public Works Coordinator after the hearing and she would explain the program. Mr. Thour asked if the street improvement program was not approved, could the City still replace the sewer because there was an odor problem in his area. The City Engineer agreed with that assessment and explained in this area there was a sanitary sewer main in the street and one in the boulevard on James Avenue. He recommended removal of both and replacement with one in the street. Mr. Thour again asked if the street improvement program was not approved, could the City just replace the one in the yard. The City Manager answered he did not believe so. Roger Dusbabek, 5400 Logan, asked what size the new sanitary sewer would be. The City Engineer answered it would be 8 inches, which he stated would be more than adequate. Mr. Dusbabek agreed the residents were getting a lot for the money with this program. He added the area over the last 40 years had been deteriorating, and he thought some improvements would be beneficial. Jack Kramer, trustee of the Harron Methodist Church, asked if the church would again be assessed when 55th Avenue was improved. Acting Mayor Pro tern Scott answered no, a corner lot was only to be assessed for one street. Patricia Dobbs, 5315 Camden, asked where the residents would park during reconstruction. Acting Mayor Pro tern Scott answered the residents would have to park on the side streets. Ms. Dobbs asked how long the streets would be under construction. The City Engineer explained the construction company would try to phase the construction to allow for maximum usage of the road. He further stated staff would require the contractor to keep parking as close as possible. Ms. Dobbs explained Camden was two blocks long and asked if this street would receive additional street lighting. The Director of Public Works answered the proposal included additional lighting on Camden. Bill Johnson, 5317 Colfax Avenue, explained he had an underground sprinkling system and asked how far construction would go into the yards. The City Engineer explained the construction company would go as far up the driveway as needed to match grades and not make any new problems. He asked all residents with irrigation systems contact staff, and 4/22/93 -3 - staff would inform the construction company. He further explained if the construction company had been notified of the system and it was damaged, the construction company would be responsible for repair of the system. Mr. Johnson stated some streets in Minneapolis had been replaced with concrete, and he asked if there was an advantage to that e Director i rector of Public Works answered Y es Minneapolis had been using concrete for about 10 years but had changed to bituminous because of the high cost of concrete. Mr. Johnson inquired if this was an all or nothing package. The Director of Public Works answered it was not an all or nothing package. He explained it did not have to be an entire 3 -mile area. He also explained from an engineering standpoint, it was recommended the basic improvements be included -- the street including curb and gutter, sewer, and water. He added the landscaping, street lighting, and signs did not have to be included. Mr. Johnson asked if curb and gutter was an option. The Director of Public Works answered this was actually a small cost and staff highly recommended including curb and gutter. Mr. Johnson stated he approved of the project. Gerald Shudy, 5447 Bryant Avenue North, explained he was 24 years old and had owned his home for 3 years. He stated the sewer in front of his home was not being considered for replacement and he asked why. The Director of Public Works explained the decision as to what parts of the sanitary sewer would be replaced was based on the televised inspection. He further explained existing sewers which staff believes will last an additional 25 to 30 years would not be replaced under this program. Mr. Shudy asked how many dollars would be removed from the Public Utility Construction funds. The Public Works Coordinator explained the Public Utility Construction fund grows through interest earnings and through a small amount of each resident's water bill. She further stated the construction o struchon fund was generally between $2 million and $3 million. The City Manager added the auditors had reviewed the funds and the project and believed the funds would accommodate the program. Mr. Shudy questioned how much the general obligation bonds would cost the residents. The Public Works Coordinator explained the resident would pay about $4 to $5 per year per bond. Mr. Shudy asked that additional parking be provided at Bellvue Park. The City Manager stated staff would take the suggestion into consideration. He further explained the Park and Recreation Commission would be given the suggestion, and he would notify Mr. Shudy of the date the Commission would be reviewing the recommendation. Mr. Shudy complimented staff on the nice presentation and said he would leave the decision up to the Council members. 4/22/93 - 4 - Acting Mayor Pro tem Scott agreed there was a problem with the parking at Bellvue Park. She suggested diagonally striping the lot to allow for additional parking. She suggested Mr. Shudy and other neighbors should attend a meeting of the Park & Recreation Commission to share their concerns. Floyd Stewig, 5455 Colfax Avenue North, stated he had never had a problem with the sewer in his area, however he was aware there were problems with the flow into Minneapolis. He further explained he had a problem when he tried to install a bathroom in his basement. He stated he was unable to because of the sewer. He asked about the watershed charges on his sewer bill each month. The City Manager explained the watershed charge was to pay for the storm sewer improvements in this area and for future project areas. The City Engineer agreed to investigate further into why Mr. Stewig was unable to install a lower - level bathroom. Mr. Dusbabek stated the annual cost for street repair was $600,000. He asked what percentage his district represented. The Director of Public Works explained the $600,000 was the cost for all streets in the City. He calculated there were 100 miles in the City, so the cost would be $6,000 per mile. He also explained the seal - coating would cost $2,000 per mile and would still be an expense whether the streets were new or old. He stated it was the $4,000 per mile for patching that would not have to be expended if the streets were new. Norma Rydholm, 5307 Dupont Avenue North, asked how wide Dupont was. The City Engineer answered it was between 30 and 31 feet. Ms. Rydholm also asked how it was determined which side of the street would allow parking. The City Manager explained staff would consult with the residents before making a decision. Ms. Rydholm asked if Dupont would ever have sidewalks. The City Manager answered the City's policy had been to install sidewalks only on main thoroughfares and on streets connecting to schools. He further added there were no new proposed sidewalks in this area. Ms. Rydholm stated Dupont is a busy street and sidewalks should be considered. Wayne Paulson, 5330 Colfax Avenue North, stated he wanted more street lights installed, but not expensive ones. He agreed with the need for a new sewer and asked if the new sewer would be maintained like the old one. The City Manager answered the pipes in his area were too shallow, and the new pipes would be of higher quality requiring less maintenance. Acting Mayor Pro tem Scott stated one of the purposes of the proposed program was to eliminate the property owners' problems. The Director of Public Works explained the proposed street lighting was at the same cost as the current lighting on a per light basis and the only increase would be for additional lighting. Mrs. Forystek, 5332 Emerson, asked if the City was going to do the same on her street. The City Manager answered no improvements were proposed for her street this year. Acting 4/22/93 -5 - Mayor Pro tem Scott explained this area had just been assessed for the alley, and Council did not want to add an additional assessment to these residents. June Scofield, 55th & Fremont, stated the project did not directly affect her now, but she reminded Council the current results of the survey indicated the people did not want it. The City Manager agreed the survey results would be a part of the Council's consideration. Irene Seburg, 5407 Dupont Avenue North, asked if there would be any additional sidewalks. The City Manager answered the existing sidewalks would be repaired, but no additional sidewalk construction was being proposed. Johanna Mills, 5517 Logan, stated Logan was a busy street, and she discouraged widening the street. She stated if the street were widened, it would further encourage traffic. Acting Mayor Pro tem Scott explained the 32 -feet width was mandated by the State. The Director of Public Works explained the street could be narrowed to 26 feet, but then the State would not allow any parking. Mr. Hanson asked why the City was not considering a sidewalk on Dupont and Logan. The City Manager stated this was the first two times anyone has spoken in favor of sidewalks. Stan Waletko, 5323 Camden Avenue North, stated he was against the project. He further stated he felt the street lighting was more than adequate. He also recommended asphalt curb rather than curb and gutters. The City Engineer explained staff had given consideration to asphalt, but maintenance of the asphalt curb was higher. Mr. Waletko stated he felt the Southeast Neighborhood was in excellent condition, and he recommended the City maintain the streets more often. He reiterated he was against the project. John Kalligher, 5548 Girard, recommended a city -wide program rather than special assessments to pay for the project. The City Manager explained Council and staff had been encouraging the Legislature to authorize cities to establish a transportation utility for some time. Mr. Kalligher asked if there could be a city -wide referendum to pay for the whole City over a 20 -year period. The City Manager stated legally this could not be done. He explained the bond money would have to be expended within a certain amount of time following the issuance of bonds, and the streets in the entire City could not be reconstructed in that amount of time. Mr. Kalligher stated he would like to have a nice street, but he worried about how to pay for it. He recommended finding a procedure to spread the assessment over a longer period of time. Acting Mayor Pro tem Scott explained the City had been working with the local Legislators to get the transportation utility bill passed, and they had been very supportive. She further stated an assessment was never easy for the Council or for the homeowner. She went on to explain she had her home appraised before and after a street improvement program, and it was appraised at $2,000 more after the project was complete. 4/22/93 -6 - Elmer Peterson stated he felt all residents should be equal in paying for the improvements. He explained some of the residents who would qualify for the assessment stabilization program did not need the help. Acting Mayor Pro tem Scott thanked everyone for attending the meeting. She asked residents to talk to their neighbors and encourage them to return their survey to City Hall or to write a note letting the Council know their feelings on this project. She appreciated the residents coming to the meeting and sharing their views with the Council. She noted this matter will again be considered by the City Council at its May 10, 1993, meeting. Councilmember Kalligher thanked everyone for attending the meeting and also encouraged everyone to return their survey. The Director of Public Works encouraged anyone with questions call the engineering department at 569 -3340. Elmer Peterson stated he was definitely in favor of the project, but asked that everyone pay equally. There was a motion by Councilmember Kalligher and seconded by Councilmember Mann to close the public hearing at 9:28 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 9:28 p.m. and reconvened at 9:42 p.m. The City Manager asked for direction from the Council. Councilmember Mann asked staff contact the remaining residents that had not yet responded to the survey. Acting Mayor Pro tem Scott recommended waiting on such action. Councilmember Kalligher stated two residents informed her during recess they had responded negative earlier, and now have agreed with the proposed project. Councilmember Mann stated she was concerned about orangeburg and asbestos pipes. The Director of Public Works explained if the orangeburg and asbestos were underground, they were of no danger to anyone. The City Manager assured Council staff would double -check the requirements for working with these materials. Councilmember Kalligher stated she was concerned about contacting the residents about the survey. She felt the residents might feel the City was pushing them into making a decision. _ Acting Mayor Pro tem Scott and Councilmember Mann agreed. 4/22/93 -7- 7 ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Kalligher and seconded by Councilmember Mann to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Nancy Berg Timesaver Off Site Secretarial 4/22/93 - 8- I 1 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE TY N CI COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION APRIL 26, 1993 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Todd Paulson at 7 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Todd Paulson, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Dave Rosene, Barb Kalligher, and Kristen Mann. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LcFe.vcrc, and Cottnc;il Secretary Nancy Horg. OPENING CEREMONIES A moment of silence was observed. OPEN FORD Dianne Reem, 6225 Chowen Avenue North, addressed the Council. She outlined for Council her extensive background in volunteer work in the City of Brooklyn Center. She explained she was a member of the Planning Commission, and it was her understanding a person who was appointed to a commission would be respected. She stated she had read the minutes of the April 5,1993, City Council Work Session and noted commission members had been referred to as "stooges," She further stated she did not like being referred to in this manner. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmcmber Mann reported the Park and Recreation Commission had received a petition from residents concerning the Orchard Park and storm holding pond, She further reported the Park and Recreation Commission recommended Option 3 with the two stages and they would be looking at capital improvements at their May 5, 1993, meeting. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Paulson inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items - be removed from the consent agenda, Councilmember Mann requested the April 5, and April 12, 1993, minutes be pulled from the consent agenda. Mayor Paulson asked that item 12a be added to the consent agenda. 4/26/93 _ 1 _ RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION N 93-62 0 Membcr Dave Roseno introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR 1993 DISEASED TREE REMQVAL, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993-01, CONTRACT ACT lyy3 -A The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Barb Kalligher, and the motion passed unanimpuSly. LICENSES There was a motion b Councilmember Rosene and seconded by 0.)uncilinember Kalligher to approve the following list of licCnSeS: ICHANICAL SYSTEMS E.A.H. Schmidt and Associates 3245 Winpark Drive Faircon Service 2668 Patton Road Flare heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. 664 Mendelssohn Ave, N, LBP Mechanical 315 Royalston Ave. Modern Heating s&. Air Conditioning, Inc. 2318 First St, NE Owens Services Corporation 930 East 80th Street S & W Heating 13614 Acacia Ave. NE Sedwick Heating & Air Conditioning Co. 8910 Wentworth Avc, S MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP Bob .Ryan Oldsmobile 6700 Brooklyn Blvd. RENTAL D— E LLING S Renewal; Shingle Creek Tower 6221 Shingle Creek Pkwy. James and 13o b' - b ie Simons 6149 11 -13 Beard Ave. N. Jack and Nancy Wold 5907 -09 Juno Ave, N, Ethel and Lambert Ackermann 4207 Lakeside Avc. N. #234 Dorothy Janssen/Julic & Sharon Haugen 4806 Twin Lake Ave. N. Bobby and Sally Robson 1107 57th Ave. N. Mrs. Helen Nelson - Chapman 1341 63rd Lane N. Joscph and Madeleine Roche 824 69th Ave. N. SIGN HANGER Nordquist Sign Co. Inc. 312 West Lake St. 4/26/93 -2- APPROVAL OF MINUTES APRIL 5,1993 - SPECIAL WORK-SESSION Councilmember Mann asked paragraph 2, on page 5 of the minutes be changed to read: Councilmember Mann explained she did not feel the Council was following its own resolutions concerning commission appointments. She stated that qualifications, geographic representation and gender guidelines had been ignored in the past. She further stated she could only assume this would be a ploy for the Mayor to appoint more stooges. Mayor Paulson then suggested all our citizens were stooges and asked that the word "stooges" be put in the record. Councilmember Mann asked the following be added to the end of paragraph 3, page 5: ... Rights and Resources Commission the whole City would benefit. She stated she acknowledged transportation is an important issue, lateral service through the community and between communities. She further stated right now low income residents cannot get to doctor appointments or medical care. Councilmember Mann asked paragraph 4, page 5 be changed to read: The City Manager stated the Human Rights and Resources Commission at its next meeting would be discussing whether there was a need for additional membership. Councilmember Mann stated she was very interested to know what they decided and if a majority of commissions were in favor of increasing, she would be more than willing to discuss increasing commission size. Councilmember Rosene explained he was not trying any kind of political ploy. Councilmember Mann suggested sending a statement to all commissions asking for their input. The City Manager agreed to provide Council with a draft statement to send to commission members. Mayor Paulson stated such additions and corrections were unnecessary and politically orientated as pointed out by Ms, Reem. He suggested Council get on with its business. There was a motion by Councilmember Mann to approve the minutes of April 5, 1993, Special Work Session as amended. The motion failed for lack of a second. Councilmember Rosene stated he could not approve the corrections if they included any reference to Mayor Paulson referring to citizens as "stooges." He explained this would not be the way he remembered the discussion. He. also asked paragraph 2, page 5 be changed to read: Councilmember Rosene explained he had attempted to be even - handed at the DFL meeting when he voted for the first motion. He explained he had voted with 0 Councilmember Mann and Diane Lerbs, and he had taken a lot of heat ever since. 4/26/93 _ 3 Mayor Paulson pointed out the Council Secretary generally did a good job of taking the minutes, and he did not want to start every meeting taking apart the minutes for minor changes. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Mann to table the April 5, 1993, Special Work Session minutes until they had been reviewed by Mayor Paulson and Councilmembers Mann and Roscnc. Vote on the Motion: 3 ayes and 2 abstain, Councilmembers Scott and Kalligher abstained, APRIL 12.1993.-, REGULAR SESSION Councilmember Mann asked the last sentence in paragraph 4, page 6 be changed to read: ... She added it is important for these neighborhoods to be represented on each commission, an excellent base for neighborhood groups, but this is not the case with certain areas. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the minutes of April 12, 1993, Rcgular Session as amended. The motion passed unanimously. RECONVENE 130ARD QF EQUALIZATION 5332 RUSSELL AVENUE NORTH, PID #02- 115 -21 -34 -0055 The City Manager reconvened the Board of Equalization on the matter of 5332 Russell Avenue North, PID #02- 118 -21 -34 -0055. He explained there had been a difference of opinion in regard to the value of the property, but an agreement had now been reached at $113,300. Councilmember Rosene stated if the Council had a property owner and City Assessor in agreement, the Council should approve. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve 5332 Russell Avenue North, PIU #02- 118 -21 -34 -0055, The motion passed unanimously. MAYORAL, APPOINIMENTS The City Manager presented the Mayoral appointments and cxplained the appointments would be. to the Financial Commission, Hliman Rights and Resources CA)mmission, and Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission. He further explained the item was tabled to the April 26, 1993, City Council meeting because of the lack of a unanimous vote by the City Council on the Mayor's recommendations. He further stated the City Council may now approve the appointments recommended by the Mayor by majority vote. 4/26/93 _4 _ Councilmember Mann inquired if any of the applicants had withdrawn. Mayor Paulson answered yes, Sarah Pollock had withdrawn from the Human Rights and Resources Commission. Councilmember Rosene explained he had received a call from a resident asking him to vote against the appointments because the Human Rights and Resources Commission would remain 100 percent female and the majority of the members would also be from the Southeast neighborhood, He further explained the Council had guidelines to follow for gender, racial, and neighborhood balance. He noted there were many folks of various ethnic backgrounds at the town crime meetings. He further noted the commission and the City would greatly benefit from ethnic balance, He agreed the Mayor's choices were the best. Councilmember Mann asked Mayor Paulson if he was requesting appointment of the same applicants. Mayor Paulson answered yes. Councilmember Mann stated it was the duty of the Council to uphold City Resolutions, particularly ones that allow citizens to participate in the process. She an7tinued the resolution for representation requirements for citizens commissions states: Due regard shall be given by the Mayer and City Council in appointment of commission members." She explained in fact, three of the current Council voted for these requirements. she agreed all the applicants were qualified for the commissions, however by using our requirements, an unrepresented neighborhood could be represented, there could be the start of gender balance on another unrepresented commission and we could gain a majority representation. She stated these appointments were wrong. She further stated they were against the spirit of citizen involvement, they ignore representation requirements, and they were inconsistent. Councilmember Mann continued if the Council did not take its representation requirements into account, Council would be misleading all citizens. She asked on what would the Council he basing its votes? She also asked if applications were going to be a thing of the past as previously demonstrated? She stated leadership based on partnership with citizens works. She continued to state successful communities and city governments of the future would be working together as partners in the process. Councilmember Mann asked Council to vote no, not to usurp the Mayor, but to keep the Council accownable to the citizens of Brooklyn Center and to follow represcutation requirements when appointing, commission members. Mayor Paulson asked Councilmember Mann if there was someone else she wanted appointed. Councilmember Mann answered perhaps the assessor applicant would have been a much better choice for the Planning Commission and the analyst applicant would have been better for the Financial Commission, Mayor Paulson inquired to whom Councilmember Mann was referring. Councilmember Mann responded Lee Anderson. 4/26/93 -5 - Councilmember Scott agreed gender balance and area representation was important to the commissions, She explained he Human t Rights and Resources On Was with females and representatives from the Southeast neighborhood, She further 1 stated Brooklyn Center was one of the few cities without male representation on the Human Right and Resources Commission. She agreed with appointing a minority applicant to the Human Rights and Resources Commission, but she still felt the commission was out of balance. She stated she agreed with the Mayor's appointment to the Human Rights and Resources Commission. She further stated she did not understand his appointment to the Financial Commission, but the commission would be balanced, and she supported his appointment to the Financial Commission. Councilmember Rosene stated it was unfortunate there weren't more female applicants for the Financial Commission, and it was also unfortunate there wcrcn't more males applying for the Human Rights and Resources Commission. He explained the members of the Human Rights and Resources Commission were doing an excellent job, and if the commission members were interested in the Financial Commission and if some men were interested in the Human Rights and Resources Commission, the Council should look at making changes. He further explained when he referred to residents as folks, he was not referring to any ethnic background. Councilmember Scott appreciated Councilmember Rosene's comments, but she stated she felt all neighborhoods needed to be represented because different neighborhoods had different problems. She further stated she would not agree to a size increase on the Human Rights and Resources Commission if the new members were not males. She stated she believed many males would be interested in serving on the Duman Rights and Resources Commission. Councilmember Kalligher pointed out the Council must realize it cannot change something overnight. She further stated the Council was trying to balance the commissions. She also stated the Council must stop pickering among itself, Mayor Paulson stated he hoped the Council's future appointments to the commissions would move toward gender and ethnic balance. He pointed out the commissions are getting there and there was an overall balance. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Kalligher LO approve the following Mayoral Appointments: FINANCIAL COMMISSION Ned Sturlu, 4207 Lakeside Avenue North, #328 HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESOURCES COMMISSION Sherry Maddox, 5711 Knox Avenue North 4/26/93 -6- NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL, ADVISORY COMMISSION Delores A. Fehlberg, 4512 Woodbine Lane Vote on the motion: four ayes, one nay. Councilmember Mann voted nay. The motion passed. PLANNINQ COM ISSLON APPLICATION NO 93002 SUBMITTED BY BR OKDALE CHRISTIAN CENTER ASSEMBLY OF GOD The City Manager presented Planning Commission Application No. 93002 submitted by Reverend Robert Cilke on behalf of Brookdale Christian Center Assembly of God_ He explained the application was a request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide an approximate 6 acre parcel of land located at 6030 Xerxes Avenue North into three lets and an outlot. He further explained the application had been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its April 15, 1993, meeting. The Planning and Zoning Specialist used overhead slides to show the Council the area and reviewed the Planning Commission's discussion of the application. He explained the plat appeared to be in order, and the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 93002 subject to five conditions which he reviewed for the Council. Councilmember Rosene asked the distance between the garage on Lot 1 and the proposed outlot to the North. The Planning and Zoning Specialist answered five feet, which was the minimum. Councilmember Rosene asked if the property would now be subject to taxes. The Planning and Zoning Specialist answered because the property was leased, it was subject to taxes right now. Councilmember Scott asked Reverend Robert Cilke if the property to the North of this subdivision containing another church building was currently rented out and for sale, Reverend Cilke arswered yes. Councilmember Scott asked if the property was sold, wac he proposing to add parking on the east side and did he anticipate parking problems. Reverend Cilke answered yes he would add parking on the east side, if needed, but he did not anticipate any parking problems. Councilmember Mann asked Reverend Cilke if he had any problems with the Planning Commission's requirements. Reverend Cilke answered no. Councilmember Mann stated the Planning Commission had done an excellent job. There was a motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve planning Commission Application No. 93002, submitted by Brookdale Christian Center Assembly of God, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 4/26/93 _ 7, 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances, including the need for a subdivision agreement regarding costs for utility service line extensions and hook ups as well as extension of Vincent Avenue North. 3. The applicant shall apply for and receive the necessary approvals from the Shingle Crock Watershed Management Commission prior to final plat approval by the City Council. 4 . Applicant shall provide an easement for access purposes over Lot 1, Block 1 to Lot 2, Block 1 for ae(;uss to the garage area of the existing single family home. S. Approval of this preliminary plat comprehends the west property line of Lot 2 to be a front property line for building set back purposes. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Paulson recognized Mike Opat, County Commissioner, in the audience. He welcomed Mr. Opat to the meeting and suggested he make a presentation sometime in the future to keep the Council up -to -date on matters at the County level. Councilmember Rosene pointed out Mr. Opat had attended many Council meetings and also the crime and safety meetings. DISCUSSION ITEMS REPORT ON TOWN ETINGS CRIME AND cAFETY The City Manager presented the report on town meetings -- crime and safety held on February 18, 1993, and February 27, 1993. The Chief of Police stated he was pleased to present to the Council a summary on the two crime and Safety town meetings. He summarized the report for the Council highlighting the citizens' concerns for safety and the need for additional police patrol. Councilmember Scott agreed the Curfew Ordinance was in need of revision. She suggested when it was changed the schools should be informed so they can inform the students. She also suggested providing pamphlets for the students to take home to their parents. She agreed with the suggestion by the Chief of Police and Lucy Gerold to hold a town meeting with juveniles. She stated the City must get the parents, community, and schools to work hand -in -hand. She also stated she would like to participate in a town meeting with the youths and help in any way she could. She stated she was also concerned about the lighting at commercial areas and suggested the community service officers contact the commercial enterprises about increasing their lighting. 4/26/93 _ 8 _ Councilmember Rosene stated he was pleased to see the Police Department had already taken some steps to implement some of the suggestions, He congratulated the Chief of Police on inviting; the appropriate officials to attend the town meetings. He also agreed it was time to adjust the curfew hours. He suggested once they are adjusted, residents need to be informed they will be enforced. He also stated he thought parents needed to have greater ability to eliminate inappropriate behavior in their children. Councilmember Mann concurred with Councilmembers Scott and Rosene. She suggested the City held a cultural diversity seminar on an annual basis. Councilmember Rosene stated this was a long -range plan of CO -OP Northwest. Councilmember Kalligher asked if the report would be made available to the people who attended the town meetings. The Chief of Police stated he would be sending he report to $ p certain elected officials and copies would be available at the Police Department after noon on April 27, 1993, at the information desk, Councilmember Mann asked if the Police Department was looking into the truancy issue. The Chief of Polico answered he had met several times with school offices, and the decision of what to do about it was up to the school officials. Councilmember Kalligher asked if the youth town meeting would be held before school was out. The Chief of Police answered yes, the police would be meeting with a group of young people before school was out, and then he hoped to have a town meeting with the young people and with involved adults to interact between tho generations, Councilmember Rosene asked if the Counciimembers would be involved in both meetings. The Chief of Police answered no, not at the youth meetings, Councilmember Mann asked if it would be appropriate to recommend coming back to Council with a resolution approving these action plans so they can advance, The City Manager answered this would be more appropriate at a later stage. He further explained it was his recommendation to get some of the youth involved first, package the items in groupings, submit to the appropriate elected officials, and then put into a resolution. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Mann to accept the Report on Town Meetings -- Crime and Safety with thanks and to endorse in concept the action plans contained therein and to thank Chief Hampton and Lucy Gerold. Councilmember Scott thanked all the people and stated the entire Council would like to thank ail the people who attended the town meetings so the Council can make Brooklyn Center a better place to live. Mayor Paulson stated the town meetings were initiated because Councilmember Rosene asked about crime and safety and had suggested a town meeting. He further stated Council then turned to staff and staff set up a meeting with the Chief of Police and together they set up the town meetings and notified the residents, He, continued to explain the residents attended the meetings giving their opinions and recommendations. He stated this makes for 4/26/93 - 9 - better public policy. He suggested added visibility to the police force and recommended additions t( the police force as part of the 1994 budget. He called for an ongoing form of communication and ongoing way to address some of these problems. He also suggested Council should think about adding a police and public safety commission such as the task force on drug awareness. Councilmember Rosene pointed out to the citizens in the April 5, 1993, minutes there was a suggestion for a town meeting discussion on the 1994 budget to be hCld before Memorial Day. He stated it citizens want to pay more for additional officers, they should attend the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. WATER UTILITY MPTPR RE ING P I The City Manager presented the water utility teeter reading policy. He explained on January 25, 1993, the Council had approved an amendment to the water utilities administrative policy regarding water shut offs where customers have not paid their utility bill. He further explained the amended procedure would provide customers with the right to demand a hearing before the City Council to show cause as to why their water should not be shut off. Councilmember Scott asked if a separate notice would be sent to these customers, and if they did 110L kiiow how to read the meter, would someone from City Hall help them. The City Manager answered yes a notice would be sent, and staff would help in any way they ! could. Councilmember Kalligher asked if a resident was paying the prorated bill but was still not rcadinb the meter, would a notice be sent. The City Manager answered yes, RESOLUTION NO 93 -63 - Member Celia Scutt introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE WATER UTILITY METER READING POLICY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. TREE CITY USA AND AR13Qg MONTH STAT The City Manager presented the 'free City USA and Arbor Month status. He explained Brooklyn Center had been designated a Tree City USA by the National Arbor Day Foundation. He further cxplained this designation was in recognition of the City's commitment to preserving and increasing its urban forest. 4/26/93 - 10 - Mayor Paulson showed the plaque to the audience and read the inscription. He asked staff to place the plaque in an appropriate spot in City Hall. RESOLUTION NO 93 64 Member Da Rosene introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE DESIGNATION OF BROOKLYN CENTER AS A TREE CITY USA The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the 1 110tiurr passed unanimously. O ATI N DECLAR NG AP 7A 1 QQ2 A ARB DAY D MAY 93 AS RBOR MONTH IN BROOKLYN CENTER_ The City Manager presented a proclamation declaring April 30, 1993, as Arbor Day and May 1993 as Arbor Month in Brooklyn Center. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Scott to declare April 30, 1993, as Arbor Day and May 1993 as Arbor Month in Brooklyn Center. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Scott asked when the trees and shrubs would be planted on 69th Avenue. The City Manager answered staff was trying to coordinate the planting with Arbor Day. CO -OP NORTHWEST The City Manager presented the CO -Op Northwest funding request. He explained the request had originally been brought to the City Council and then referred to the Human Rights and Resources Commission, its recommendation came to the Council and the City Council then referred the request to the Financial Commission. He further explained the Human Rights and Resources Commission had recommended approval of the funding request, and the Financial Commission recommended the Council review the definition of the contingency fund contained in their financial policies, and if this funding request fit that definition, they would view it as acceptable. He continued to state staff believed the proposed funding request for CO -OP Northwest met the criteria contained in the contingency definition. He further stated it would benefit the City of Brooklyn Center in that by expending $5,678 the City would receive more funding in return through its participation in this program. Councilmember Scott agreed with the City Manager that the City would be getting much more from the program then it would be spending on the program. Donn Eseher, Chair of the Financial Commission, thanked the Council for sharing this inatter with the Financial Commission, Ho stated the Commission had spent a considerable amount of time reviewing this matter, and the Commission would also be reviewing the 4126/93 _ 11 Council's request to set up criteria for future requests. He continued the Financial Commission felt this was an estahlishcd program and it was an augmented budgetary program. He stated the Commission was concerned this might become a recurring request. He suggested the Council look at the budget and where it might find the $5,678 without tapping the contingency fund, Councilmember Rosene appreciated the Financial Commission spending its time and efforts to help the Council. He further stated the City Council had pretty much always endorsed the CO-OP Northwest. He agreed this request for money did seem like an unforeseen budget impact, He stated whether it was recurring or not was not sure, but CO -OP Northwest had said they would use outside funding in the future. He felt the request would fit the criteria. Councilmember Kalligher felt this was a worthwhile program, but the Council must realize it had already set its budget, and the Council must live within its means. Slit stated the Council would have to say no to CO -OP Northwest in the future. Councilmember Rosene suggested the Financial Commission look at the evaluation used by the Human Rights and Resources Commission for evaluating such requests. Councilmember Mann stated she felt the request was unforeseen. RESOLUTION NO, 93 -65 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO PROVIDE FUNDING ASSISTANCE TO NWHHSC CO -OP NORTHWEST The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Barb Kalligher, Councilmember Mann suggested informing CO -OP Northwest their funding requests would have to be part of the 1994 budget. Councilmember Kalligher verified Counciliurmber Mann was requesting CO -OP submit their financial request during the budget process, not after the budget had been set. The City Manager explained the Council wanted to look at funding during the budget process, not during a special session. Councilmember Rosene stated he was sure CO -OP Northwest would be able to comply with this request. The City Manager offered to communicate the Council's wishes to CO -OP Northwest. The motion passed unanimously. 4/26/93 -12- LEGISLATIVE UPDATE The City Manager presented the 1Cgislative update. CONSIDERATION OF SPECIFIED LICENSE CLASS B AND SUNDAY QN -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE TO INN CO, INC., DBA PARK INN INTERNATIONAL The City Manager presented consideration of specified license for Class B and Sunday on- sale intoxicating liquor license to Inneo, Inc., dba Park Inn International. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Mann to approve issuance of a Class 8 and Sunday On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License to Innco, Inc. dba Park Inn International. The Chief of Police recommended approval of the license and requested the City taxes be paid prior to issuance of license. The City Manager explained the applicant had bcCii told they would not receive the license until the taxes were paid. Councilmember Scott recommended issuing the license in accordance with all applicable ordinances. The motion passed. Vote on the motion: four ayes, one abstain. Mayor Paulson abstained. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 8,45 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Nancy Berg Timesaver Off Site Secretarial 4/26/93 - 13 - CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 05/10/93 1 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: SOUTHEAST IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DEPT. APPROV . Sy Knapp, Director d Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ' SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Incorporated into this booklet are the following items of official proceedings, ' correspondence, reports and analyses relating to the proposed improvements in the southeasterly portion of Brooklyn Center, specifically the area from Logan Avenue to I -94 between 53rd and 55th Avenues North: MAP OF PROPOSED STREET IMPROVEMENTS Cherry OCTOBER 2, 1992 LETTER TO RESIDENTS RE: SURVEY WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . Green MARCH 26, 1993 LETTER TO PROPERTY OWNERS, PUBLIC HEARING ' NOTICE, SUMMARY & DETAIL OF PROPOSED PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . Orange APRIL 7, 1993 INFORMATIONAL MEETING NOTES Blue APRIL 22, 1993 PUBLIC HEARING PRESENTATION MATERIAL . . . . . . . . . . . Yellow QUESTIONS MOST FREQUENTLY ASKED ABOUT PROPOSED PROJECT . . . . . . . . . Orchid ' APRIL 22, 1993 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gold SURVEY MAILED TO RESIDENTS ON APRIL 7, 1993 AND SURVEY RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Salmon ' PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pink CITY ENGINEER'S COMMENTS . Lt. Green As noted throughout these proceedings, City staff is capable of completing plans and specifications and providing construction management for a project which would include up to 2 miles of the 3 miles of street and utility improvements which were included in the proceedings. 1 We also recommend that, if the City Council wishes to order some improvements pursuant to these proceedings, the "minimum order" should include at least one mile of streets and utilities. Note: each north -south 2 -block segment of street in this area is 1320 feet 1 long (i.e. -1/4 of a mile), while each east -west "block" is 330 feet (i.e. -1/16 of a mile). ' The enclosed report from City Engineer Mark Maloney summarizes both engineering concerns /comments and citizen concerns /comments on a street -by- street basis. ' Based on that report I recommend approval of a project which includes street and utility improvements on the following streets: • Knox Avenue North from 53rd to 55th Avenues North 0 James Avenue North from 53rd to 55th Avenues North • Irving Avenue North from 53rd to 55th Avenues North • 54th Avenue North from the alley east of Logan Avenue to the alley west of Humboldt Avenue • Colfax Avenue North from 53rd to 55th Avenues North • Bryant Avenue North from 53rd to 55th Avenues North • Camden Avenue North from 53rd to 55th Avenues North • 4th Street North from 53rd to 55th Avenues North Approval of these improvements would cover just under two miles of streets, in ' the westerly and easterly portions of the study area and would provide an excellent demonstration of the City's commitment to community development. ' It is specifically noted that the recommended project exclude both Logan Avenue and Dupont Avenue. This was done in consideration of two major factors; i.e.: 1 • Both Logan and Dupont are Municipal State Aid streets. Inclusion of these two streets would require processing the plans and specifications through the State Aid process for approval. Any delay in obtaining that approval could significantly impact our ability to get the work under contract in ' late June and to achieve completion this year. • On both Logan Avenue and Dupont Avenue citizens called our attention to ' concerns regarding pedestrian safety (are sidewalks needed ?); regarding the volume and speed of vehicular traffic; and regarding the possible loss of existing boulevard trees. ' Deferring the improvement of these two streets will provide the staff and Council a better opportunity to evaluate these issues, and to attempt to develop a "consensus plan" which meets State Aid standards while addressing citizen concerns. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION ' A resolution which, if adopted, would order construction of the improvements as recommended above is submitted for consideration by the City Council. If the ' City Council wishes to approve a smaller package of improvements, the resolution can easily be amended, by motion, to delete the improvements on these streets which the Council wishes to delete. 1 Note Because these improvements are being considered pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 411, and because proceedings were initiated by the City Council, a 4 /5ths affirmative vote of the Council (by roll call vote) is required to adopt a resolution ordering improvements. However, in the event a motion to adopt the resolution fails to obtain adoption by a 4 /5ths vote, subsequent motions to adopt the resolution, based on a revised listing of which improvements would be ordered, may be considered. Any such revised resolution would, of course, require a 4 /5ths affirmative vote for its adoption. Fa Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 1 RESOLUTION ORDERING PORTIONS OF IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1993 -02 (SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS), 1993 -03 (WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS), 1993 -04 (STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS), AND ' 1993 -05 (STREET IMPROVEMENTS) IN AREA BETWEEN LOGAN AVENUE NORTH AND 4TH STREET NORTH, AND BETWEEN 53RD AVENUE NORTH AND 55TH AVENUE NORTH; AND DIRECTING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SAID IMPROVEMENTS 1 WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted on the 22nd day of March, 1993 fixed a date for a council hearing on the following described project: ' Improvement Projects 1993 -02 (Sanitary Sewer Improvements), 1993 -03 (Water System Improvements), 1993 -04 (Storm Drainage Improvements), and 1993 -05 (Street Improvements) In Area From Logan Avenue North To ' 4th Street North, And Between 53rd Avenue North And 55th Avenue North; ' AND WHEREAS, ten days' mailed notice and two weeks' published notice of the hearing was given and the hearing was held thereon on the 22nd day of April, 1993, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an ' opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: ' 1. The following improvements are hereby ordered: Improvement Projects 1993 -02 (Sanitary Sewer Improvements), 1993 -03 (Water System Improvements), 1993 -04 (Storm Drainage Improvements), and 1993 -05 (Street Improvements) on: Knox Ave. N. from 53rd to 55th Avenues North James Ave. N. from 53rd to 55th Avenues North Irving Ave. N. from 53rd to 55th Avenues North ' 54th Ave. N. from the alley between Logan Ave. N. and Knox Ave. N. to the alley between Irving Ave. N. and Humboldt Ave. N. Colfax Ave. N. from 53rd to 55th Avenues North Bryant Ave. N. from 53rd to 55th Avenues North Camden Ave. N. from 53rd to 55th Avenues North 4th Ave. N. from 53rd to 55th Avenues North RESOLUTION NO. 2. The City Engineer is hereby directed to prepare plans and Y g Y P P P specifications for the making of such improvements. 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. 1-29Y NI -7 76'09 PIRISIMMINIMM Y- 91N - 90 -,%Ngmgw OOZI 009 0 Of 009 Mfflffk — ,rcWMI7061 d -7Y d ,r02 S N 7YOOY9 umlb -J0 ,(1I0 2H1 S1N��V�/I0b�dl�Vl 1���1 S 1 -L7Y1 S 677 So 9I70dtN -7NNl`V --Jo .(1I� UU UU IU !_J LI UI --- I I-_J U ! Ul u -".,J L -1u uLI UL � - rn m m ' n i♦ Or O --� N CD Z D �� z i D D a Z Z . D D m < G < r CD O D %, m m rn m I �� . ° x -a m .H a < F rn m a H Z c rn < m z cx , t - -- Z -- N '3nV1 HISS - -- M ED , , ®f� , �1 f N f3 Hr 19 �1 !H19S I f Tt " F H 19 �- b'��d � 0�1 S 1 Sd�H1 SOS CITY 5301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY F B ROOKLYN BR OKLY CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 551 -5440 ENTER ENIERGEIVCY - POLICE - EIRE ' 911 October 2, 1992 TO: All Residents between 53rd and 55th Avenues between Centerbrook Golf Course and ' Interstate Highway 94 Re: Survey Work in Your Neighborhood Dear Resident: ' During the next several weeks you may notice City survey crews working in your neighborhood. They will be collecting information which will be used to develop a feasibility study for possible utility and street improvements in your neighborhood. This work has been authorized by the City ' Council following preliminary discussions with the Earle Brown Neighborhood Advisory Committee and meetings with a number of residents from your neighborhood. The information being gathered will include locations and elevations of pavements, manholes, yards, driveways, garages, etc. Also, independent firms hired by the City will be testing the strength of the existing pavements, and performing televised inspection of sewers. The City will use this information ' in the preparation of a feasibility study. We wish to emphasize that collection of this information and preparation of a feasibility report does not mean that any project has been or will be approved. roved. Rather, it will provide the information ' needed to allow meaningful consideration of an improvement program. Before any decisions are made, formal public hearings would be held. But more importantly, if serious consideration is given ' to such a program in your neighborhood, you will first be invited to attend public information /discussion meetings. At such meetings, the information assembled during the feasibility study would be presented and your questions and comments will be welcomed and appreciated. Only following such meetings would formal hearings be held. Note While the Advisor Committee recommended y that all streets between 53rd and 55th Avenues will be included in the feasibility study, they also recommend that the initial stages of an improvement program not include streets abutting property owners who were recently assessed for alley improvements. ' If you have any questions regarding the activities of the City survey crews in your area, please call the Engineering office at 569 -3340. ' Sin erel G. G. lint City anager Y 6301 SFIINGLE CREEK PARKWAY -0 F B: 0 0 K L Y BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 �. TELEPI°IONE 551 -5444 E MERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE March 26, 1993 U ENTER ' Dear Property Owner: On October 2, 1992 you were mailed a letter from the City informing you that survey crews would ' be working in your neighborhood during October, November, and December. This letter stated that information on streets, water mains, sanitary sewers, and storm drainage was being gathered to develop a feasibility report for possible street and utility improvements. ' City staff has on a number of occasions reviewed its progress and findings with the Earle Brown Neighborhood Advisory Committee ( EBNAC). EBNAC has reported on the progress of the feasibility study in its newsletter, which is mailed to all residents in the Southeast neighborhood. The City Council has also discussed this issue during the past 6 months. On March 22, 1993 the final feasibility report, which recommends street and utility improvements, was presented to the City ' Council. The City Council has ordered a public hearing to be held on April 22, 1993 on proposed improvement projects. It is important to note that scheduling a public hearing does not mean that any improvement projects have been approved. Approval will only be considered after ' the public hearing. This packet includes the following information: 1. Notice of Public Hearing on April 22, 1993 2. Summary of Proposed Improvements 3. Detail of Proposed Improvements 4. Project Financing, Special Assessments, and Assessment Stabilization Program ' An informational meeting regarding proposed improvements is scheduled for April 7, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. in the auditorium at Brooklyn Center High School. A detailed presentation will be made at the meeting, and there will be a question and answer period. We encourage you to participate in this meeting. On the day following the informational meeting, a survey will be mailed to all property owners in the area. On this survey you may provide information and comments about the proposed improvements, and will be asked if you support or oppose the improvements. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact the Engineering Department at 569 -3340, or stop by in person. If you cannot attend the informational meeting or the public hearing, you may call the Engineering Department and register your comments, or send them in writing. All comments will be provided to the City Council for its consideration. ' Sin re G. G. S 'nter CITY NAGER ' € -, — K- 1 SLAWGLE CREEK PARKWAY C , 3FN7)0KL 'C'ENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 V �- B:ROOKLI" - 7ELEPHONE 561-5440 1 - POLICE - FIRE 9 11 March 26, 1993 C ENT EF TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Brooklyn Center will meet in Constitution Hall of the Brooklyn Center Community Center, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway at 7:00 p.m., April 22, 1993 for a public hearing on the following improvement: Description: Street reconstruction project number 1993-05: regrading, base preparation, installation of concrete curb and gutter and driveway aprons, bituminous paving, installation of street lighting, replacement of street signs, and boulevard restoration Location: The area bounded by Logan Ave. N on the west, 1-94 on the east, 53rd Ave. N to the south, and 55th Ave. N to the north, excluding the following: Humboldt Ave. N from 53rd Ave. N to 55th Ave. N, Fremont Ave. N from 53rd Ave. N to 54th Ave. N and Emerson Ave. N from 53rd Ave. N to 54th Ave. N Estimated Cost: $1,719,100 NOTE: This proposed project is part of a larger improvement which would include projects to: reconstruct water main, replace water service lines, reconstruct sanitary sewer main, replace sanitary sewer service lines, and improve storm drainage, at a total estimated cost of $2,823,800. An informational meeting regarding proposed improvement is scheduled for April 7, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. in the auditorium of Brooklyn Center High School. The Council proposes to proceed under the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.011 to 429. 111. The area proposed to be assessed includes all properties abutting the streets within the above described area, except those residential properties previously assessed in 1981 for improvements to 53rd Avenue N, improvement project 1978-38. Persons who desire to be heard with reference to the proposed improvements will be heard at this meeting. Auxiliary aids for persons with handicaps are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569-3300 to make arrangements. Senior citizens and persons totally or permanently disabled may be eligible to defer some or all of the proposed special assessment. Homeowners whose family income is below the HUD low income threshold may be eligible for assistance in paying some or all of the proposed special assessment. Please contact the Engineering Office at 569-3340 for more information. Published in Brooklyn Center Post, April 7 and 14, 1993 /s/ Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk ' Summary of Proposed Projects The streets and public utilities of Brooklyn Center are aging. Many of the streets, sewer, and water mains in Brooklyn Center are over thirty years old, and are approaching the end of their useful lives. The streets and public utilities may not appear to be in bad shape, because substantial amounts of ' money have been spent on what are essentially cosmetic, or "band -aid" improvements - patching, sealcoating, etc. These types of maintenance improve the appearance of, but do not extend the life of streets and utilities. The cost of continuing this "band -aid" maintenance is steadily increasing. As these facilities deteriorate, that cost will escalate, resulting in higher water and sewer rates, and increased taxes for street repair. Some parts of the infrastructure will fail completely - sewers will collapse; streets will be patches on patches; drainage problems will get worse. To correct these problems, and to provide neighborhood revitalization, it is proposed that Brooklyn Center undertake a program of comprehensive infrastructure improvements, neighborhood by neighborhood. It is proposed to reconstruct or repair four miles of streets and utilities per year, for ' the next twenty years. The Neighborhood Improvement Program would comprehensively address all infrastructure needs: streets, drainage, utilities, street lighting, landscaping, neighborhood parks, signs - items which are needed to upgrade the functionality of the infrastructure and improve the appearance and increase the property values in the neighborhood. Existing Conditions and Proposed Improvements ' The conditions of the streets, utilities and street lighting in the Southeast neighborhood were studied extensively. All the sanitary sewers and storm sewers in the area were televised - that is, a special ' video camera was run through the mains. These tapes show that the sewer mains are cracked, joints between pipes are pulling apart, and tree roots have infiltrated the sanitary sewer service lines under your lawns and grown through the pipes to the main. It has been determined that 75 to 80 percent of ' the sanitary sewers in the area need replacement, and all service lines between the sewer mains and your property line should be replaced. Water main will be required to be replaced wherever it is near replaced sanitary sewer. All streets in the area show considerable deterioration. Our engineering analysis of the condition of the streets shows that it is no longer cost - effective to keep patching and sealcoating - we are wasting our money. To improve storm drainage and reduce long -term maintenance costs, concrete curb and gutter is recommended. Street lighting is recommended to be increased as a part of this project. ' Proposed Project The Study Area in the Southeast neighborhood encompasses about 3 miles of streets. It is ' recommended that any 1993 project be limited to 2 miles. The City Council will rely on public input and staff recommendations to decide which streets and utilities would be replaced, if any. ' Please turn to the other side for more detailed project information. Detail of Proposed Improvements These are the specific improvements proposed in this projects. SANITARY SEWER, Project 1993 -02 o Replace 75 to 80 percent of all sanitary sewer main ' o Replace all sanitary sewer house service lines from the main to the property line o Possibly arrange discounted rate for replacement of sanitary service lines from the property line to the houses WATER, Project 1993 -04 o Replace water main where adjacent to replaced sanitary sewer main o Where water main is replaced, replace house water service lines from the main to the property line, and replace curb stops (water shut offs) STORM DRAINAGE, Project 1993 -05 o Replace inlets /manholes and storm sewer mains ' o Add storm sewers where needed to improve level of storm drainage STREETS, Project 1993 -05 STREET IMPROVEMENTS ' o Total reconstruction of streets o Add concrete curb and gutter o Install concrete aprons on all driveways to 5 feet behind curb. Replace any other sections of driveway disturbed by construction. o Match existing grades as closely as possible. ' o Sod all boulevard areas disturbed by construction o Maintain existing width of streets. Dupont and Logan, if included in project, would be widened from the existing width of about 30 feet to a width of 32 feet. STREET LIGHTING o Replace existing lights with "shoebox" lights (similar to Shingle Creek Parkway near City Hall) o Add mid -block shoebox lights on north -south streets OTHER IMPROVEMENTS o Sign on- street bike trail on Bryant Avenue ' o Replace street signs o Maintenance projects at Bellvue Park o Possibly some tree planting, other streetscape amenities ' 0 Repair sidewalks as necessary Assessment Stabilization The City Council has initiated a program to assist lower income property owners with paving special ' assessments. It is called the Assessment Stabilization program. It is based on family size, gross income, and income limits established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. To determine if you are eligible, refer to the following table. Find the line which describes your gross family income, then read across until you reach the column describing your family size. Insert the figure into the formula below, and multiply. The resulting figure is the estimated assessment you ' would pay. The Assessment Stabilization program would pay the rest of your assessment. If the multiplier reads 0.00, then the City would pay the entire assessment, and your cost would be $0. If Your Gross And Your Family Size Is Annual Family Income Is 1 2 3 4 5 6 Person Persons Persons Persons Persons Persons Read down the rows and across the columns to obtain your multiplier Less than $17,850 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $17,850- 20,000 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $20,000- 22,500 0.40 0.20 .0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $22,500- 25,000 0.60 0.40 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' $25,000- 27,500 0.80 0.60 4.33 0.17 0.00 0.00 $27,500- 30,000 1.00 0.80 0.50 0.33 0.17 0.00 $30,000- 32,500 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.50 0.33 0.14 ' $32,500- 35,000 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.67 0.50 0.28 $35,000- 37,500 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.67 0.43 $37,500- 40,000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.57 ' $40,000- 42,500 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.71 $42,500- 45,000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 ' More than $45,000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' Estimating Your Special Assessment EXAMPLE: A three person family with gross annual income of $26,000. The multiplier, shown in the shaded box above, is 0.33 63 feet x $25.65/ft x 0.33 - $533.64 YOU: feet x $25.65/ft x - $ i If you need assistance in completing this calculation, please contact the Engineering Department at 569 -3340. ' Southeast Neighborhood Informational Meeting April 7, 1993 Approximately 368 notices were mailed to the Southeast Neighborhood between 53rd and 55th Avenues from Logan Avenue to I -94. ' Meeting date appeared on Cable T.V. Attendance: G.G. Splinter, Sy Knapp, Mark Maloney, Diane Spector, Terri Swanson (City Staff) Mayor Todd Paulson Councilmembers Kristen Mann, Barb Kalligher, Dave Rosene 25 + residents News media (Cable T.V. and Brooklyn Center Sun Post) City Manager G. G. Splinter welcomed attenders and gave the following brief history of the Southeast Study Area: • In 1991 City Council initiated discussion of a pavement management program and discussed major elements of a possible street and utility rehabilitation program. e In August, 1992 City Council asked staff to develop a preliminary needs evaluation, cost estimates, financing options for a comprehensive street and utility rehabilitation program and instructed staff to "work with" the Earle Brown Neighborhood Advisory Committee ( EBNAC) to collect initial public input. • In September /October, 1992 EBNAC and its extended committee reviewed the proposed rehabilitation concept. The committee recommended and City Council approved a more ' detailed feasibility study of street and utility conditions in the area — including televising of sanitary sewers. Residents in study area received mailed notices about when crews 1 would be conducting the street and utility inspection and surveys in their neighborhood. • From October, 1992 through February, 1993 City crews and contractors completed the 1 street and utility inspections and surveys. Sanitary and storm sewers in the area were televised and evaluated. Water mains were inspected and evaluated. The street pavement management program consultant completed their evaluation of streets in the study area. IIi , • In February, 1993 an independent property appraiser analyzed the property value impact of a comprehensive street and utility rehabilitation program. EBNAC came up with its preliminary findings and recommended the City continue to consider a neighborhood street and utility rehabilitation program. A public information meeting and hearing were to be held, the City was to develop and approve an "Assessment Stabilization Program ", the City was to consider upgrading street lights in the area as a part of any improvement program, and the City Engineer was directed to prepare a feasibility report including all the above information for City Council consideration. ' • On March 22, 1993, City Council received and discussed the City Engineer's feasibility report and directed staff to set up the public information meeting, survey study area residents, and set up April 22, 1993, as a public improvement hearing at Constitution Hall in the Community Center. ' 1 Splinter advised attenders that the purpose of this meeting was to provide them with all the ' information that staff had at this time. Splinter introduced Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works. Knapp introduced his staff of Mark Maloney, City Engineer and Diane Spector, Public Works Coordinator. Knapp gave an overview of the existing conditions of the area between 53rd and 55th Avenue ' from Logan to I -94. He noted the years each facility was installed (between 1952 and 1973) in the Study Area and presented choices for future operation and maintenance of utility systems and streets. Choice No. 1 is "Reactive" i.e., to continue past policy) which includes cleaning sewers ever ( P P Y) g Y 1 to 2 years, repairing streets and sealcoating them every 5 to 7 years (current annual cost of $600,000 and rapidly rising), and repairing public utilities on an emergency basis. Property owners are responsible for maintenance of service lines (roto- rooter cleaning, etc.), they must deal with maintenance of boulevards, repair or replace utility service line on an emergency basis (services have collapsed which has resulted in costs of $400 -500 for repairs between the house and street; costs have been between $2500 -3500 to go into the street and out to the main), owners face the continued aging and deterioration of all facilities, and there is no incentive for neighborhood revitalization. Choice No. 2 is "Proactive" (i.e., on a programmed basis whereby improvements are all done at the same time.) This would represent long -term cost savings for the City as well as short -term and long -term cost savings for property owners because they would realize reduced maintenance on utility service lines and on boulevards. It would also result in virtual elimination of , emergency repairs by the City, as well as virtually eliminate risk of a $500 -$3500 repair bill for property owners who may need to replace sewer service line. It also provides a strong incentive for neighborhood revitalization. ' Knapp showed slides of existing pavement conditions, boulevards, corners at intersections and street lighting in the Study Area. Slides were shown of 1968 construction which included curb and gutter in an area north of 59th Avenue. Pictures taken a week ago of the same area were shown as a contrast. Slides were presented of the television inspection of sewers in the Study Area which demonstrated bad joints, protruding service lines, roots, infiltration, broken pipe or missing pipe sections. Slides of the City of Osseo and its street reconstruction program of 1991 and the City of Robbinsdale in an area north of Crystal Lake provided attenders with an opportunity to see finished results of a neighborhood much like their own. In conclusion a slide ' was shown of a street light on West River Road. Mark Maloney, City Engineer, presented an overview of each of the proposed improvements as follows: Sanitary Sewer Improvements • The existing sewers are clay pipe 6 -9" in diameter, built in the early 50's, are fairly i fragile, with no gaskets in joints and are beginning to show their wear. The replacements costs would include sewer mains, service wye connection, and service from main to property line. The new sewers and service installations would include gasketed, PVC (plastic) pipe which represents the latest technology. These installation (p ) p p p gy s would result in a decrease in groundwater infiltration, invasion of tree roots and maintenance required by the City. The funding would come from the Public Utility Sanitary Sewer Fund. 2 Water Main Improvements ' • The existing water mains are 6" cast iron pipe which doesn't tolerate settling well and is fairly brittle. The replacement costs would be for existing water mains where sanitary sewer is being recommended for replacement, fittings and valves. The proposed ' replacements include water service connections at the main, water service line between the main and property line and curb stop (water shut -off). The proposed installations and services would be ductile iron pipe which is a lot more forgiving in case of settlements and copper pipe for the water services. The funding would come from the Public Utility Water Fund. Storm Sewer Improvements • Approximately half of the streets within the Study Area have storm sewers in place. The majority were installed in the early 1950's, with a few being added in the 1960's. Lack of curbs and gutters on the streets has allowed drainage patterns which have eroded the boulevards and cause flooding in some of the front yards. Most are shallow in depth, ' which reduces their effectiveness during successive freeze -thaw periods. 55th Avenue has been excluded from this study because the City is preparing a Local Water Management Plan and preliminary findings indicate that at least some portions of the trunk facility with 55th Avenue may not have adequate capacity for the established design storms. The funding would come from the Public Utility Storm Drainage Fund. Street Improvements ' • The proposed streets would be 31' with curb & gutter with the exception of Logan and Dupont Avenues which are designated as part of Brooklyn Center's Municipal State Aid system and according to those standards would be 32' wide. It is proposed that there ' would be on street parking on one side only of those two avenues. The proposed paving section would include Class 5 (gravel) base, paver -laid asphalt, concrete curb and gutter, ' restoration of boulevards and concrete driveway aprons. The funding would be provided by general revenues, special assessments and State Aid funds. Street Lighting_ Improvements ' • The existing street lighting in the area consists of NSP's standard installation of a 25' -35' high wood pole with a "cobra head" type fixture. The feasibility report examined the following three lighting alternates: cobraheads - adding more at mid -block shoebox - replace existing fixtures plus add more at mid -block shoebox /ornamentals- shoebox fixtures at the corners and ornamental fixtures evenly spaced throughout the length of the block. • The recommendation for shoebox fixtures at corners and mid -block will double the lighting level compared to existing conditions. The funding would be included as a street cost and would be provided by general revenues, special assessments and State Aid funds. Streetscape Improvements ' • The neighborhood has 7 entry points with intersections along 53rd and 55th and 4th Streets. Possible improvements would include plantings, decorative paving /crosswalks similar to Robbinsdale, and distinctive signage. A preliminary allowance of $25,000 for ' these improvements has been included in the street improvements costs. The exact level of improvements is undetermined at this time (Council would determine this level). Funding would be included as a street cost. ' 3 Park Improvements ' • Bellvue is the neighborhood park in the Study Area and no large scale plans for improvements are scheduled at this time. Several maintenance improvements that could coincide with the neighborhood improvement project include painting, tree trimming and some consideration for upgrading apparatus. Since projects have not been programmed 1 the costs are not included in the neighborhood improvements. Sidewalk/Trail Improvements ' • An on -street bike trail along Bryant Avenue from 53rd Avenue northward could be included with improvements proposed for Bryant Avenue. No sidewalk improvements are , proposed other than the possible replacement of damaged sections of existing sidewalks. The funding would be included as a street cost. Financing ' • The total estimated cost of all improvements within the study area is $2.8 million. ' The study area includes about three miles of streets. Maloney explained that staff recommends that a maximum of two miles of streets be improved. He showed two examples of a two mile program, "Area A" and "Area B". He explained that three blocks in the neighborhood were specifically excluded from the study area at the request of the EBNAC and the City Council. These were excluded because those property owners are still paying special assessments for recent alley improvements. , A resident in attendance, who lives on Dupont, asked why his block was not excluded, since his alley was recently improved. Knapp replied that he would have information t regarding when that improvement occurred available at the public hearing (Note: that alley project was 1982 -14). Diane Spector, Public Works Coordinator, resented the proposed project financing and special ' P P P P P J g P assessments. ' Utility costs would be funded by the water utility fund, the sanitary sewer utility fund and the storm drainage utility fund. She explained that these funds have been building up through the years as each resident pays his or her utility bills. Street, lighting and landscaping costs would be funded by a combination of special assessments (30%), and general obligation bonds and regular and local municipal state aid (70 %). In her overhead presentation Spector included ' special assessment policies of nine metro suburban communities. A pie chart broke down the funding sources for the proposed Southeast Neighborhood improvements as follows: Bonds /State Aid = 44%, Water Utility = 19%, Sanitary Sewer Utility = 14%, Storm Drainage Utility = 7%, Special Assessments = 12% and Assessment Stabilization = 4%. Spector said the benefits of the proposed project to property owners would include long -term ' maintenance savings for replacement or cleaning of sewer lines (roto- rooter). A more attractive, revitalized neighborhood with demonstrated increases in market value would benefit residents. Spector referred to enhancements (newly painted garages, painted and fixed up fences, cleaned up ' garbage) in the neighborhood where concrete alley improvements were done in 1989. People began to take pride in their neighborhood. Based on the findings of an independent appraiser who evaluated five properties in the study 4 ' area, it appears more appropriate to base the special assessments for this proposed project on a ' front foot basis, with a maximum frontage charge of 70 feet. Proposed special assessments would be spread out over a term of ten years at an interest rate of 8%, would be certified in the fall of 1994 and due with taxes in 1995. The proposed assessment rate would be a maximum of $24 per front foot for street improvements, $1.16 per front foot for ' lighting and $0.49 per front foot for streetscaping. Spector reminded the residents of the March 26, 1993 mailing they received which included ' special information about their individual property. She reviewed the calculation process so residents could arrive at an approximate monthly cost. She also reviewed the assessment stabilization program which City Council initiated to assist lower income property owners in paying for their special assessments. Based on gross income and family size, some residents may ' have incomes less than the "very low" HUD income guideline whereby the city would pay 100% of their special assessments. The HUD 1993 income guideline limits were shown. A little over one -third of the residents in the proposed study area might qualify for financial assistance through this program. Knapp concluded the formal presentation segment of the meeting by reviewing the proposed study ' area (53rd to 55th from Logan to I94). Humboldt Avenue was not included in this area because it is a County/State Aid Highway. Negotiations could extend 1 to 2 years to reach a cost agreement when dealing with a street of this type of designation. Perhaps sometime down the ' road Humboldt Avenue will be considered but is not budgeted in this proposal. The City Council and the Earle Brown Neighborhood Advisory Committee agreed that areas between Girard and ' Humboldt Avenues from 54th to 55th, between Fremont and Emerson Avenues from 53rd to 54th, and between Dupont and Emerson Avenues from 53rd to 54th should be excluded from this proposed study area because those residents are currently paying assessments for concrete alley ' pavement improvements done in 1990. Knapp reviewed the projected schedule for a two mile pilot program and emphasized the ' maximum number of miles of reconstruction recommended to City Council would be two with Council having the option of choosing less than that. ' Following a brief coffee break the meeting resumed with the question and answer segment. Q. If construction were to happen, let's say on Bryant, would you rip up the entire street? And what would happen to the MTC bus route? A. This project would include complete reconstruction which would require a lot of underground work. The street could not be open for traffic. Staff would look at the overall project area and set out requirements with the contractor whereby work would be done in ' one block sections so residents would be able to park within one block of their property at all times. Minimum problems were experienced on 69th Avenue this past year when major reconstruction occurred. MTC buses would be re- routed. ' Q. If you tore up Colfax, for example, how long would it reasonably take for me to get back into my driveway? A. Three or four weeks. This would be negotiated with the contractor. 5 Q. Why is this work necessary? It can't be that bad in this area. My family moved to Dupont over 80 years ago and the streets are still O.K. And how can it be effective to do this work ' piecemeal as you are proposing? A. Some sections in this neighborhood are in dire need of attention. Sanitary sewer pipes are , missing. This area was designated as needing immediate attention because of the size of pipes south of 55th. We feel a two mile project the first year and four mile projects in following years is the best approach to solving the City's problems. ' Q. I am not aware of the Earle Brown Neighborhood Advisory Committee Newsletter and have not received a copy of it. I was not notified of any meetings this committee had. Why ' hasn't any of this information been publicized? Why wasn't there something in the newspaper? I don't feel we have been adequately informed. ' A. Last October 2, 1992, a letter was mailed to everyone in the Study Area informing residents that data was being collected for a possible street and utility improvement project. You ' should have received the EBNAC newsletter. Q. You say the annual cost for maintaining the streets is $600,000 and this improvement project will cost $1.7 million. I think the $600,000 is a bogus figure. ' A. The $600,000 figure is the current annual cost for minimum maintenance of the entire City per year based on a 5 -7 year sealcoating program. That cost has been increasing each year. ' You really can't compare these two figures. Q. How long have the two of you been with the City (Splinter & Knapp)? ' A. Splinter - 16 years, Knapp - 14 years. Q. Why haven't you done your job of maintaining the sewers? A. Root saws are run through once every year, sometimes two times a year, from the house , services into the main sewer where most root growth occurs. The Southeast Neighborhood has been a particularly difficult area to maintain. Q. I have maintenance done on my sewer every two years and I have no problems. You can't convince me that you do it once a year. If you did, you wouldn't have these problems. How do you notify residents that this is bein g done? A. The service companies contracted by residents push all the roots into the main sewer causing complete blockage that necessitates maintenance by the City. Residents are notified through the City Newsletter and this is done twice a year. Q. We just paid $600,000 for computers and an addition to this building. Why don't you wait ' awhile before you hit us with more taxes? We don't think the conditions are that bad. A. We have shown you sections that need immediate attention. We will spend the same amount , of money over a 20 year period whether we have total reconstruction or annual maintenance. 6 ' Q. We aren't going to be required to replace the pipe from our house to the mainline, are we? A. No. We would consider ettin special rates from the contractor to do that e of g g P type replacement if residents were interested. Q. Would you be able to tell if our pipe is good or bad? A. No information is available at this time. There are questions on the survey that was sent out to you that address this issue and we hope people that know and have information will get it to us so that we can gather the data and try to establish a pattern. If repairs were made perhaps a plumber may know. One block may be good and the next one may not. If the majority of you say you have problems and there is a need to replace service to owners we ' will work with you to try to get a special rate from the contractor. Q. How long do you expect the new system to last? A. 40 -50 years. We would expect it to last for the life of the pavement. Clay pipe will last hundred of years. ' Q. I just received my survey today and feel that 10 working days is not ample time to respond to it. The letter we received dated March 26, 1993, also did not give us much time to prepare for this meeting. I think it is only fair to give residents more time to give consideration to a project that affects us to this degree. ' A. Previous experience has shown that the majority of people respond to a survey within the first week. The City sent out a survey for the Local Water Management Plan over a year ago and we still get an occasional response. The information collected from these surveys is ' timeless. Q. What percentage rate of the survey response (either supporting or opposing) will be required to determine the future of this project? A. The City Council will make the decision based on the survey data. They will take the time ' they feel is necessary to make the determination. They may request additional meetings, and if so, they will be announced on Cable T.V. and in the newspaper. The specific date that this item will be on the agenda will also be publicized. ' Q. I consider myself an informed citizen and I don't feel that I have been very well informed about this proposed project. Why did we just get this information last week? Why haven't we heard more about this? A. Staff just received data two to three weeks ago that was necessary to compile the information ' that was sent to you. We got the information to you as soon as we could. Q. Because this area was just hit with a 22 % tax increase for the District 286 school bond, do we need all of this work done at once? Could we just do the sewers now and streets later? ' Do we have to have curb and gutter? A. It wouldn't be practical to do this project in increments. The driving force is the condition of the sewers. With the combination of the sanitary sewer, water main and storm drainage 7 improvements about 80% of the existing street driving surface would be required to be ' removed. It is only practical to do street reconstruction at that time. Curb and gutter adds to the life of a street because it reduces maintenance costs, allows better control of drainage, and reduces boulevard erosion. The estimated cost of curb and gutter is $100 per property. I have a corner lot on 55th and Emerson. Does that mean only t Q. Y the Emerson Avenue side would be done? What about the rest? And how would I be assessed. ' A. Your street would be done on Emerson Avenue and would be blended and feathered in black top on the 55th Avenue Side. You would only be assessed on the Emerson Avenue side. City Council offers the owner the choice of being assessed now or deferring the assessment until reconstruction on 55th could be accomplished later. You pay only once and on the narrow frontage. ' Q. You refer to the future. When is that, and are there plans for 55th? A. The future could be 1 to 10 to 20 years from now. Following a guideline of 4 miles of ' street reconstruction per year it would be done over a 20 year period of time. If the Council were to put together a 20 year program the next area to be considered would be 55th to , 57th. The drainage problems on 57th Avenue are being addressed now by the Water Management Plan. Q. Could you give us exact figures so we will know right down to the penny what this is going t to cost us? I feel this is being shoved down our throats. I fall into the low income bracket and don't know how we can pay for this. A lot of people in this area will be moving out of , their houses because they won't be able to afford these costs. A. The letter you received dated March 26th provided you with your approximate property ' width and a formula to estimate your special assessment. You were also provided an assessment stabilization table to help you determine if this assessment could be adjusted lower because of your gross annual family income. Diane Spector can review this with you ' after the meeting. I want to remind you that you are being assessed only for the street improvements. The other improvements are being financed through utility funds. There is no mechanism in the state law for doing the same for streets, that is why that improvement , requires special assessment. At some time you have to start fixing things. For example, the roof on your house can only be repaired so many times and after about 25 or 30 years you need to replace it with a new one. If we initiate a comprehensive proactive plan rather than ' a patchwork plan we will save money and have a better product. Knapp reviewed the HUD 1993 Income Limits table and reminded residents the City may reimburse 100 percent of the special assessment for homeowners whose income is less than the "very low" guideline and a prorated amount on a sliding scale based on income greater than the "very low" guideline. If the City were to undertake a two mile project in the study area proposed about 60 homeowners would be eligible for reduced assessments. Knapp stated that residents could calculate the exact amount. That figure may be less, based ' on the actual project cost, and they can be assured it will not be more because staff has pledged that to be a maximum. 8 ' ' Q. Who pays for the overrun if the project exceeds your estimates? A. As now calculated 30% is paid by the resident and 70% is funded through general obligation ' bonds. It has been our experience in dealing with other projects that we try very hard to estimate higher. If the actual figures came in higher than we estimate, the City Council would need to review them and decide whether to accept or reject them and charge the ' overrun to the general obligation bonds or cancel the project At this point in time bids are very competitive because the volume of work is down considerably considering the cut backs the State has made. Q. If bids should come in lower how do you determine the costs? What is 30% or 70 %? ' A. 30% and 70% of the actual cost of the project. Q. In my neighborhood there is a garage in the alley with a driveway coming from the front yard to the back. Is it legal to have two entrances onto your lot? A. This seems to be a specific situation that we would have to look at. We may need to negotiate to make changes. Q. Why do we have only 30 days after the end of completion of the project to pay our assessment? This seems like such a short time. How will I know when I have to pay it? A. The assessment can be paid in full following certification to the County on the next years taxes. You will be sent a certified letter informing you of the public hearing and the exact dates that these payments may be paid in full. Q. How long would we be without water or sewer if they proceed with the project? A. Sewer service would be provided on a continuous basis. The old service would stay in place ' while the new service would be installed and tested. Water service would be interrupted for a few hours while that change would take place. ' Q. What about the car situation? Where would we park? A. When work would be done on your block you would park no farther than a block away. The City Council and the police department would pass a regulation not to tag vehicles for overnight parking in designated areas. Q. Does the $1.7 million figure cover 2 or 3 miles? A. $1.7 million is the total for 3 miles. We would not recommend 3 miles for the pilot project. ' Two miles would be the maximum and City Council may decide on less than 2 miles, perhaps 1 or 1' /z miles would be their recommendation. Q. How may miles of streets are there in Brooklyn Center? A. There are a total of 105 miles of streets. 82 miles are designated residential streets. 9 Q. Wouldn't it take 40 years to complete all the streets on a 2 mile per year program? A. The recommendation in the first year is to do 2 miles of streets because that is the maximum that staff could properly handle. Four miles per year would seem possible in future years. Q. How do you determine which area you choose next? A. Storm sewers determine the next move. We are talking in terms of a 20 year program. If , this pilot project was accepted we would put together options for the next several years. Q. Why is Logan a State Aid street? ' A. Because of the volume of traffic (2500 movements per day between 53rd and 57th). ' Q. How long will it take to repay the general obligation bond? A. A period of 10 years is recommended at an 8% interest rate. ' Q. If we were on a 20 year program of reconstruction at $1.2 per year part of my taxes will be paying for $20 million of improvements. Is that right? ' A. Yes - if a 20 -year improvement program is implemented, with 70 percent of the street improvement costs paid for with 10 -year general obligation bond issues, the City's ad valorem tax levy would rise each year for the first 10 years. Then during the following ten years that part of the tax levy would remain the same because it would become a rotating fund, that is — in "Year 11 " payments for "Year 1 " improvements would be completed, but payments would need to be made for the City's phase of the improvements completed in Years 2 thru 11. , Q. What is the City's bond rating. A. AA -1 1 Q. Why would interest rate be 8 % ... can't City sell bonds at a lower rate? ' A. Yes, right now the City could probably sell bonds at about 6 %. We've shown 8 % because (1) we don't know what the interest rate will be by the time we are ready to sell the bonds; ' and (2) because the rate the city charges to the property owner includes a service charge for handling the financing. At this time we prefer to estimate on the high side, rather than estimating low, then increasing it later. ' Knapp thanked the people for attending this information meeting to express their concerns and ask questions. He reminded them of the Public Hearing scheduled for April 22, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. in Constitution Hall at the Community Center. e 10 CHOICES FOR THE FUTURE: CHOICES FOR THE FUTURE: CHOICE NO. 2 "PROACTIVE" (i.e. —on CHOICE NO. 1 "REACTIVE" a programmed basis) (i.e.— continue past policy) • for City • for City ✓ clean main sewers every 1 to 2 years ✓ virtual elimination of emer enc it g y repairs s (reduce the risk of liability) ✓ repair utilities on a "spot repair" and emergency basis ✓ long-term Cost Savings (estimate 25% to 35% cost savings in 20 years) ✓ repair streets and sealcoat them every 5 to 7 years ...current • for Property Owners annual cost for entire City is $600,000 and rising rapidly ✓ replacement of sewer service line ✓ continued aging and deterioration of virtually eliminates risk of $500 - all facilities $3500 repair bill • for Property Owners ✓ short -term and long-term cost ✓ responsibility for maintenance of savings (reduced maintenance on service lines from house to main utility service lines and on sewer (roto- rooter cleaning, etc.) boulevards) ✓ repair or replace utility service lines • for Property Owners and City on an emergency basis ($500 to p Y Y $3500) ✓ neighborhood revitalization ✓ maintenance of boulevards PROPOSED PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS • BASED ON TELEVISED INSPECTION RESULTS & MAINTENANCE HISTORY • CONDITION OF EXISTING WATER MAINS • CONDITION OF EXISTING SEWERS • AFFECTED BY SEWER REPLACEMENT • REPLACEMENT OF SEWER MAINS AND SERVICES BETWEEN MAIN AND • REPLACEMENT OF WATER MAINS, PROPERTY LINE FITTINGS, VALVES, ETC. • NEW SEWERS & SERVICE • PROPOSED INSTALLATIONS AND j INSTALLATIONS SERVICES ✓ GASKETED, PVC (PLASTIC) PIPE ✓ DUCTILE IRON PIPE FOR MAIN IN STREET ✓ REDUCE OR ELIMINATE GROUNDWATER INFILTRATION, PROBLEMS RELATED TO TREE ✓ COPPER PIPE FOR SERVICES WHICH ARE ROOTS, MAINTENANCE REQUIRED BY CITY DISTURBED I PROPOSED PROPOSED STORM SEWER STREET IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS • PROP. 31' STREET WITH CURB & GUTTER ✓ UTILITY RECONSTRUCTION • EXISTING STORM SEWERS ✓ CORRECT EXISTING FLAT GRADES • LOGAN & DUPONT AVENUES ✓ 32' WIDE, ON STREET PARKING, ONE SIDE ONLY • REPLACEMENT AND INSTALLATION • PROPOSED PAVING SECTION OF LINES & INLETS ✓ GRAVEL BASE WITH PAVER -LAID ASPHALT ✓ CONC. DRIVEWAY APRON AND CURB & GUTTER ✓ COMPLETE RESTORATION OF BOULEVARDS • EXCLUSION OF 55TH AVE FROM • STREET LIGHTING STUDY ✓ SHOEBOX FIXTURES @ CORNERS & MID -BLOCK ✓ DOUBLE LIGHTING LEVEL COMPARED TO EXISTING • STREETSCAPE, SIDEWALKS & TRAILS ✓ PLANTINGS, DECORATIVE PAVING, SIGNAGE, AS APPROPRIATE ✓ REPAIR OF EXISTING SIDEWALKS ✓ ON- STREET TRAIL BRYANT AVE. ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY AREA STREET STORM SANITARY WATER TOTAL Est. Const. Cost $1,183,634 $144,372 $305 $365 $1 Lighting (Alt. 2) $59 $59 Streetscape $25 $25,000 Contingency (20 %) $253554 $28874 $61 $73 $416 Subtotal $1,521,324 $173 $366,264 $438,133 $2,498 Legal, Admin. , Engineering (13 %) $197,772 $22522 $47,614 $56.957 $324,865 Total Estimated Project Cost $1 7 719,096 $195,768 $413 1 ,878 $495 $2,823,832 � PROPOSED PROJECT � FINANCING 1 1 � • Utility costs from utility � construction funds � • Street/ lighting/ � landscaping costs from: 1 � 70% General Obligation � Bonds 1 1 30% Special 1 Assessments 1 1 1 • F und i ng For P roposed Storm Drainage Sanitary Sewer Utility Utility 7% 14% �. s Bonds/ State Aid 440 Water Utility�,��" 19% Special Assessment Assessments Stabilization 12% 4% BENEFITS OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROPOSED PROJECTS CONSIDERATIONS • LONG -TERM • CONCERN: SHOWING MAINTENANCE INCREASE IN VALUE SAVINGS • MORE ATTRACTIVE, • QUESTIONS OF REVITALIZED FAIRNESS NEIGHBORHOOD • INCREASE IN MARKET • REDUCE IMPACT ON VALUE LOW INCOME OWNERS i RESULTS OF APPRAISALS Market Value of Land Address Type of Property Width Before After Benefit 53xx Backs Up To Park 63' $18,100 $20,500 $2,400 Camden 53xx Narrow 40' $10,500 $1 1,500 $1,000 Dupont 54xx Corner 80' $17,900 $19,700 $1,800 Girard 54xx Wide 75' $19,300 $21,700 $2,400 Knox 54xx Deep 65' $16,500 $18,400 $1,900 4th St. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS EXAMPLE: A 63 FOOT LOT • TERM = 10 YEARS • INTEREST RATE = 8 % 63 feet x $25.65 p er foot = • CERTIFIED IN FALL, $1,615.95 1994 AND DUE WITH ' TAXES IN 1995 ® Monthly payment: RATE PER FRONT FOOT First year = $26.93 TOTAL PER FOOT $25.65 Last year = $14.54 ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT STABILIZATION STABILIZATION O BASED ON INCOME AND ® Family size two, annual FAMILY SIZE income less than $20,400 • CITY PAYS 100% OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT No special assessment FOR "VERY LOW - your cost is $0 INCOME" HOUSEHOLDS • Annual income between • CITY PAYS PART OF $20,400 and $30,900 ASSESSMENT FOR "LOWER INCOME" You would pay only HOUSEHOLDS some of the special assessment � ASSESSMENT � STABILIZATION 1 1 HUD 1993 INCOME LIMITS 1 � Family Very Lower � Size Low 1 1 PERSON 517,850 527,000 � 2 PERSON 20,400 30,900 � 3 PERSON 22,950 34,750 � 4 PERSON 25,500 38,600 � 5 PERSON 27 41,700 � 6 PERSON 29,600 44,800 � 7 PERSON 31,600 47,850 1 8 PERSON 33,650 950 1 1 f PROJECTED SCHEDULE � FORA 1993 PROGRAM 1 1 Public Hearing — Special � Council Meeting ........... April 22, 1993 � Council Approval of Project and � Order the Preparation of Plans , and Specifications .......... May 10, 1993 City Council Approval of Plans and ' Specifications, and Direct Advertisement for Bids ....... May 24, 1993 � City Council Acceptance of Bid and � Award of Contract ......... June 28, 1993 � Construction Begins ........... July, 1993 � Construction Completed ...... October, 1993 Assessment Hearing ...... September, 1994 � QUESTIONS MOST FREQUENTLY ASKED ABOUT THE SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS QUESTION 1: How much will my assessments be and what is the Assessment Stabilization Program? ANSWER: Special assessments would be levied only for the street improvements, a maximum rate of $25.65 per front foot for the width of your property, ' up to a maximum of 70 feet. So, for a 50 foot wide lot, (whether it is in the middle of the block, or if it is a corner lot), the maximum special assessment would be: $25.65 x 50 = $1,282.50 Regarding the assessment stabilization program, this is a program designed to reduce the special assessments for property owners whose ' family income is in the "very low" or "lower" income limits as defined by HUD. ' The amount of special assessment you would pay is based on your family size and your income. If, for example, your family size is two, ' and your annual income is less than $20,400, your special assessment would be $0 - these improvements would be done at no cost to you. If your income is between $20,400 and $30,900, your special assessment ' would be reduced. If you would like more information, please contact engineering staff members in person or call 569 -3340. ' QUESTION 2: My street looks fine. Why do we need new streets and do we have to have curb and gutter? ' ANSWER: In general, the streets appear fine because we have spent substantial amounts of money patching and sealcoating. This maintenance is a "band- aid, " fixing small problems, and stretching out the life of the ' streets. We could continue to patch and sealcoat. However, the cost of this type of maintenance continues to rise, and as the streets get older we have to patch more of the street and sealcoat more often. ' Most importantly, the digging required for utility repair and replacement will remove most of the street and the subsurface. When ' we restore the street after replacing the utilities, a complete replacement with concrete curb and gutter will extend the life of the streets and improve or eliminate the small drainage problems (such as ' the "birdbaths" at the ends of some people's driveways). The cost of concrete curb and gutter is relatively small compared to its value. QUESTION 3: Can't we just patch and sealcoat the streets like we have been doing ' in the past? ANSWER: Yes, this is an option. However, we believe that in the long -term it will be much more expensive to continue to patch and sealcoat than the "proactive, " investment approach we have recommended. e It is similar to the roof on a house. It is possible to continue to replace shingles indefinitely. But, over time, the appearance of a house with a patched roof reduces the value of the house, and there is an increase in the risk of additional damage because of leakage. At some point, the most cost - effective solution is to reshingle the house. ' QUESTION 4: Why do the proposed improvements have to cost me anything? Why am I being assessed? ' ANSWER: The only part of the improvements which property owners would be specially assessed for is the street improvements. All costs for water , system, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage improvements would be paid by the utility funds —which are available because the City's utility ' rates have been set to anticipate the need to eventually repair or replace sewer and water mains. However, there is no law which allows the City to build up a fund to , pay for street improvements. State laws do allow cities to sell bonds to pay for street improvements, but only if a portion of the costs of those , improvements are specially assessed. The special assessments reflect the fact that property owners receive some direct benefit from the improvements: drainage is improved, the drivability and ridabilty of the ' streets is better, and the neighborhood is more attractive, all of which increase property values. About 30 percent of the cost of the street improvements would be assessed - the rest would be paid for by bonds. , QUESTION 5: I've never had any sewer service problems. Why do I need to have it replaced? ' ANSWER: The decision of whether to replace the sewer service between your house and the property line is yours. ' However, City staff has recommended to the Council that, if the proposed "City" improvements are approved, they should include ' installing a new service line between the main sewer and your property line, to assure that the new street would not have to be dug up (at the , property owner's expense) to repair a future sewer failure. Also, the Page 2 ' private utilities such as Minnegasco would be required to complete any necessary work before the new streets would be built. The property owner is responsible for maintenance, repair or replacement of the entire sewer service line from the main sewer to the ' house. We know that a number of homeowners in the neighborhood have had their sewer service repaired or replaced in the past several years. If a plumber has to dig in the street to repair or replace your ' sewer, it can cost $1,500- $2,500. Replacing the service to the property line will help you avoid the risk of a large repair bill. ' QUESTION 6: How did the sewers get so bad? Haven't you been maintaining them throughout the years? ' ANSWER: The sewer mains in the Southeast neighborhood are cleaned and root sawed every year in May or June. Some property owners in this ' neighborhood have their sewer services cleaned and root sawed yearly. In compiling information for the feasibility report, we televised ' (actually ran a small video camera through the sewers) all the sanitary .sewers in the area. Those video tapes show that tree roots have invaded many sanitary sewer services, and are growing in the sewer ' lines out into the main in the street. We have also found a number of problems (where pieces of pipe are ' missing, where there are very bad joints, or where there is severely cracked pipe) which must be repaired very soon ... whether on a spot repair basis or as a part of a total improvement program. We believe that total improvement is the most cost - effective way of doing this, rather than digging up one spot and repairing it, then digging up another spot down the street the next year. ' QUESTION 7: Why are you picking on our neighborhood? We were just hit with a tax increase last year. ANSWER: This is the oldest neighborhood in Brooklyn Center. In the past several years we have developed some programs to help residents maintain and keep up their houses. These include: • The housing rehabilitation grant program ' • City purchase of dilapidated housing. The lots are then sold to developers who build new houses. ' • Encouraging more ownership in the neighborhood with the new rental- to -owned program Page 3 As a part of this neighborhood revitalization effort, we need to also look at our public facilities - streets, utilities, and parks. We believe that it doesn't do any good for property owners to work hard to keep , up or improve their houses if the streets and utilities are not also in good shape. QUESTION 8: Why haven't we been better informed about this proposed project? , ANSWER: This feasibility study has been discussed with the City Council and the Earle Brown Neighborhood Advisory Committee ( EBNAC) for about the last year and a half. Information about proposals was included in the EBNAC newsletters, most recently in the Winter, 1993 issue, ' mailed to all neighborhood residents in late February, 1993.. On October 2, 1992, we sent notices to all property owners to tell you ' about the project, and that surveys, etc. were being done. All property owners also were mailed notice of the informational meeting, which , was held on April 7, and of the public hearing on April 22. QUESTION 9: We don't feel we need additional lighting. Do we have to have it? ANSWER: No, this added lighting could be deleted from the "package" of improvements. The result of this would be to reduce the estimated , assessment rate from $25.65 per foot to $24.49 per foot. QUESTION 10: We have no storm drainage (flooding) problems. , ANSWER: AAeed there are no flooding problems in this neighborhood. However, a number of you have said that you have smaller drainage problems - "birdbaths, " "potholes, " etc. These minor problems contribute to the deterioration of the street, and increase maintenance costs. Solving the lesser drainage problems by slightly adjusting the ' street grade and installing curb and gutter will lengthen the life of the street. QUESTION 11: Why do I have to pay interest on my assessment? Why 8 %? The City would sell bonds (borrow money) to finance the street ' improvements. Current interest rates are 6 -7 %. You may pay your special assessment in full without interest up to 30 days after the assessment is certified. If an improvement project is approved, that would be in September, 1994. Page 4 ' MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CLN'1'ER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 22, 1993 CONSTITUTION HALL ' QALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in special session and was called to order by Acting Mayor Pro tem Celia Scott at 7.05 p.m. ' ROLL CALL Acting Mayor Pro tem Celia Scott, Councilmembers Barb Kalligher, and Kristen Mann. ' Also present were. City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, City Engineer Mark Maloney, Public Works Coordinator Diane Spector, and Council Secretary Nancy Berg. PUBLIC HEARING - _ C RIN'Cx SOUTHEAST NEIGH13OnHiO17 IMPROVEMENTS The City Manager explained the purpose of the meeting was a public improvement hearing. He further explained everyone who could possibly be affected by an assessment had received notice of the meeting. He continued to explain the history and background of the proposed ' Southeast Neighborhood improvements. The Director of Public Works used overhead slides and films to show the proposed ' Southeast Neighborhood improvements. The City Engineer presented the engineering report and cost estimates for the proposed ' Southeast Neighborhood improvements. The Public Works Coordinator outlined the details regarding funding and the proposed assessment stabilization program. The City Manager explained the procedure for addressing the Council to the public. ' Councilmember Kalli her questioned whether non uali in residents would have to a for g rl c 9 fY g pay the qualifying residents under the assessment stabilization program. The Public Works ' Coordinator explained there were some local state aid funds to pay the cost of the assessment stabilization program. 4/22/93 - 1 - h Actin Mayor Pro tem Cott opened the meeting far the purpose of a public hearing a S e Acting Y P g P P P $ to consider the proposed Southeast Neighborhood improvements at 8 p.m. Slic inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. Donald Welch, 5311 Dupont Avenue North, addressed the Council stating he has lived in Brooklyn Center for 38 years. He said if it wasn't broken, don't fix it. He agreed there may be a need for repair and asked for the results of the resident survey on the street improvement project. The City Manager stated 147 surveys had been returned. He explained of the 147 surveys, 86 residents were against the improvement project, 27 were undecided and 33 were in favor of the project. , Mr. Welch suggested the Council let the majority rule and reminded Council the public was fed up with taxes and special assessments. ' Cliff Painter, 5339 Fremont, stated the street conditions were much worse in Minneapolis because Brooklyn Center maintains the streets better. He disagreed with installing curbs ' explaining this would be more to maintain. He also disagreed with replacing sewers at this time. He also agreed the public did not need any more takes. He further stated he opposed the improvements. The Director of Public Works noted the City of Minneapolis has programmed reconstruction of the area just south of 53rd Avenue for 1994. Norma Rydholm, 5307 Dupont, asked if putting in new storm sewers would decrease the sewer and water bills, The Public Works Coordinator explained the improvements would , reduce the cost for maintaining the water and sewer system. She further explained this would not reduce the amount of the bills but would slow the rate of increase. The Director of Public Works reiterated the cost for water and sewerage charges would not be reduced, but the rate of increase would be lessened. Mike Ronning, 5452 Dupont Avenue North, stated he was associated with the Harron Methodist Church on Dupont. He asked if the church's parking lot would be assessed separately. The Director of Public Works answered it would be assessed according to the width on Dupont Avenue. He further explained both the parking lot and the church property would be assessed if improvements arc made adjacent to those properties. Mr. Ronning asked how the City would view the church's income as a non- profit organization. The City Manager answered the assessment stabilization program was not intended for churches, only for single family homes. 4/22/93 -2- ' Boyd Will, 5350 James Avenue North, stated he has lived in Brooklyn Center for 40 years. He further stated there could be problems with the sewer in the future, and he asked that ' improvements be done on a timely basis. He also stated he agreed with the project. Paul Thour, 5425 James Avenue North, asked about the HUD income limits for the assessment stabilization program. The City Manager suggested Mr. Thour see the Public Works Coordinator after the hearing and she would explain the program. 1 Mr. Thour asked if the street improvement program was not approved, could the City still replace the sewer because there was an odor problem in his area. The City Engineer ahrecd with that assessment and explained in this area there was a sanitary sewer main in the street ' and one in the boulevard on James Avenue. He recommended removal of both and rcPhl cluent With one in the street. Mr. Thour again asked if the street improvement program was not approved, could the City just replace the one in the yard. The City Manager answered he did not believe so. Roger Dusbabek, 5400 Logan, asked what size the new sanitary sewer would be. The City Engineer answered it would be 8 inches, which he stated would be more than adequate. Mr. Dusbabek agreed the residents were getting a lot for the money with this program. He ' added the area over the last 40 years had been deteriorating, and he thought some improvements would be beneficial, Jack Kramer, trustee of the Harron Methodist Church, asked if the church would again be assessed when 55th Avenue was improved, Acting Mayor Pro tem Scott answered no, a corner lot was only to be assessed for one street. t Patricia Dobbs, 5315 Camden, asked where the residents would park during reconstruction. ' Acting Mayor Pro tem Scott answered the residents would have to park on the side streets. Ms. Dobbs asked how long the streets would be under construction. The City Engineer explained the construction company would try to phase the construction to allow for ' maxitnum usage of the road. He further stated staff would require the contractor to keep parking as close as possible, ' Ms. Dobbs explained Camden was two blocks long and asked if this street would receive additional street lighting. The Director of Public Works answered the proposal iucludcd additional lighting on Camden, ' Bill Johnson 5317 Colfax Avenue explained he had an underground sprinkling system and > P $ P g Y asked how far construction would go into the yards. The City Engineer cxplained the ' construction company would go as far up the driveway as needed to match grades and not make any new problems. He asked all residents with irrigation systems contact staff, and 4/22/93 - 3 - staff would inform the construction company. He further explained if the construction , company had been notified of the system and it was damaged, the construction company would be responsible for repair of the system. , Mr. Johnson stated some streets in Minneapolis had been replaced with concrete, and he asked if there was an advantage to that. The Director of Public Works answered yes Minneapolis had been using concrete for about 10 years but had changed to bituminous because of the high cost of concrete. Mr. Johnson inquired if this was an all or nothin g package. The Director of Public Works answered it was not an all or nothing package. He explained it did not have to be an entire 3 -mile area. He also explained from an engineering 7 stand oint it was recommended the p g standpoint, b basic improvements be included -- the street including curb and gutter, sewer, and water. He added the landscaping, street lighting, and signs did not have to be included. Mr. Johnson asked if curb and gutter was an option. The Director of Public Works answered this was actually a small cost and staff highly recommended including curb and gutter, Mr. Johnson stated he approved of the project. i Gerald Shudy, 5447 Bryant Avenue North, explained he was 24 years old and had owned his home for 3 years. He stated the sewer in front of his home was not being considered for replacement and he asked why. The Director of Public Works explained the decision as to what parts of the sanitary sewer would be replaced was based on the televised inspection. He further explained existing sewers which staff believes will last an additional 25 to 30 years ' would not be replaced under this program, Mr. Shudy sked how man dollars would b removed m the Public Utility Construction Y y o uld e from t ' funds. The Public Works Coordinator explained the Public Utility Construction fund grows through interest earnings and through a small amount of each resident's water bill. She further stated the construction fund was generally between $2 million and $3 million. The City Manager added the auditors had reviewed the funds and the project and believed the funds would accommodate the program. Mr. Shudy questioned how much the general obligation bonds would cost the residents. The Public Works Coordinator explained the resident would pay about $4 to $5 per year per ' bond. Mr. Shudy asked that additional parking be provided at Bellvue park. The City Manager stated staff would take the suggestion into consideration. He further explained the Park and Recreation Commission would be given the suggestion, and he would notify Mr. Shudy of the date the Commission would be reviewing the recommendation. , Mr. Shudy complimented staff on the nice presentation and said he would leave the decision up to the Council members. 4/22/93 - 4 - ' Acting Mayor Pro tem Scott agreed there was a problem with the parking at Bellvue Park. She suggested diagonally striping the lot to allow for additional parking. She suggcstc cd Mr. Shudy and other neighbors should attend a meeting of the Park & Recreation Commission ' to share their concerns. ' Floyd Stewig, 5455 Colfax Avenue North, stated he had never had a problem with the sewer in his area, however he was aware there were problems with the flow into Minneapolis. He further explained he had a problem when he tried to install a bathroom in his basement. He stated he was unable to because of the sewer. He asked about the watershed charges on his sewer bill each month. The City Manager explained the watershed charge was to pay for the storm sewer improvements in this area and for future project areas. The City ' Engineer agreed to investigate further into why Mr. Stewig was unable to install a lower - level bathroom. ' Mr. Dusbabek stated the annual cost for street repair was $600,000. He asked what percentage his district represented. The Director of Public Works explained the $600,000 was the cost for all streets in the City. He calculated there were 100 miles in the City, so the cost would be $6,000 per mile, He, also explained the seal- coating would cost $2,000 per mile and would still be an expense whether the streets were new or old. He stated it was the $4,000 per mile for patching that would not have to be expended if the streets were new. Norm R d Norma y holm, 5317 Dupont Avenue North, asked how wide Dupont was. The City Engineer answered it was between 30 and 31 feet, Ms. Rydholm also asked how it was ' determined which side of the street would allow parking. The City Manager explained staff would consult with the residents before making a decision. Ms. Rydholm asked if Dupont ' would ever have sidewalks. The City Manager answered the City's.policy had been to install sidewalks only on main thoroughfares and on streets connecting to schools. He further added there were no new proposed sidewalks in this area. Ms. Rydholm stated Dupont is ' a busy street and sidewalks should be considered. Wayne Paulson, 5330 Colfax Avenue North, stated he wanted more street lights installed, ' but not expensive ones. He agreed with the need for a new sewer and asked if the xlcw sewer would be maintained like the old one. The City Manager answered the pipes in his area were too shallow, and the new pipes would be of higher quality requiring less ' maintenance. Acting Mayor Pro tem Scott stated one of the purposes of the proposed program was to eliminate the property owners' problems. The Director of Public Works explained the proposed street lighting was at the same cost as the current lighting on a per light basis and the only increase would be for additional lighting. Mrs. Forystek, 5332 Emerson, asked if the City was going to do the same on her street. The ' City Manager answered no improvements were proposed for her street this year. Acting ' 4/22/93 -5 - Mayor Pro tem Scott explained this area had just been assessed for the alley, and Council ' did not want to add an additional assessment to these residents. June Scofield, 55th & Fremont, stated the project did not directly affect her now, but she ' reminded Council the current results of the survey indicated the people did not want it. The City Manager agreed the survey results would be a part of the Council's consideration. , Irene Seburg, 5407 Dupont Avenue North, asked if there would be any additional sidewalks. The City Manager answered the existing sidewalks would be repaired, but no additional ' sidewalk construction was being proposed. Johanna Mills, 5517 Logan, stated Logan was a busy street, and she discouraged widening ' the street. She stated if the street were widened, it would further encourage traffic. Acting Mayor Pro tem Scott explained the 32 -feet width was mandated by the State. The Director of Public Works explained the street could be narrowed to 26 feet, but then the State would ' not allow any parking, Mr. Hanson asked why the City was not considering a sidewalk on Dupont and Logan. The City Manager stated this was the first two times anyone has spoken in favor of sidewalks. Stan Waletko, 5323 Camden Avenue North, stated he was against the project. He further stated he felt the street lighting was more than adequate. He also recommended asphalt curb rather than curb and gutters. The City Engineer explained staff had given , consideration to asphalt, but maintenance of the asphalt curb was higher. Mr. Waletko stated he felt the Southeast Neighborhood was in excellent condition, and he recommended the City maintain the streets more often. He reiterated he was against the project. ' John Kalligher, 5548 Girard, recommended a city -wide program rather than special assessments to pay for the project. The City Manager explained Council and staff had been encouraging the Legislature to authorize cities to establish a transportation utility for some time. Mr. Kalligher asked if there could be a City -wide referendum to pay for the whole City over a 20 -year period. The City Manager stated legally this could not be done. He ' explained the bond money would have to be expended within a certain amount of time following the issuance of bonds, and the streets in the entire City could not be reconstructed in that amount of time. , Mr. Kalligher stated he would like to have a nice street, but he worried about how to pay for it. If recommended finding a procedure to spread the assessment over a longer period of time. Acting Mayor Pro tern Scott explained the City had been working with the local Legislators to get the transportation utility bill passed, and they had been very supportive. She further stated an assessment was never easy for the Council or for the homeowner. She went on to explain she had her home appraised before and after a street improvement program, and it was appraised at $2,000 more after the project was complete. 4/22/93 .6- ' ' Elmer Peterson stated he felt all residents should be equal in paying for the improvements. He explained sonic of the residents who would qualify for the assessment stabilization ' program did not need the help, Acting Mayor Pro tern Scott thanked everyone for attending the meeting. She asked ' residents to talk to their neighbors and encourage them to return their survey to City Hall or to write a note letting the Council know their feelings on this project. She appreciated the residents coming to the meeting and sharing their views with the Council. She noted this ' matter will again be considered by the City Council at its May 10, 1993, meeting. Councilmember Kalligher thanked everyone for attending the meeting and also encouraged ' everyone to return their survey. The Director of Public Works encouraged anyone with questions call the engineering ' department at 569 -3340. Elmer Peterson stated he was definitely in favor of the project, but asked that everyone pay equally. There was a motion by Councilmember Kalligher and seconded by Councilmember Mann to close the public hearing at 9 ;2$ p.m, The motion passed unanimously. ' RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 9:28 p.m. and reconvened at 9:42 p.m. ' The City Manager asked for direction from the Council. Councilmember Mann asked staff contact the remaining residents that had not yet ' responded to the survey Acting Mayor Pro tern Scott recommended waititl� on such action. Councilmember Kalligher stated two residents informed her during recess they had responded negative earlier, and now have agreed with the proposed project. ' Councilmember Mann stated she was concerned about oran ebur and asbestos p The g S pp Director of Public Works explained if the orangeburg and asbestos were underground, they ' were of no danger to anyone. The City Manager assured Council staff would double -check the requirements for working with these materials. Councilmember Kalligher stated she was concerned about contacting the residents about the survey. She felt the residents might feel the City was pushing them into making a dacision. Acting Mayor Pro tem Scott and Councilmember Mann agreed. ' 4/22/93 - 7 - ADIQURNIVII�NT ' There was a motion by Councilmember Kalligher and seconded by Councilmemher Mann to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously, The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 9;50 p.m. , Deputy City Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor ' Recorded and transcribed by; Nancy Borg ' Timesaver Off Site Secretarial 4/22/93 .8 - PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD NAMES & ADDRESSES OF RESIDENTS WHO SPOKE AT THE HEARING 5311 DUPONT DONALD WELCH ' 5339 FREMONT CLIFFORD PAINTER 5307 DUPONT NORMA RYDHOLM t 5452 DUPONT HARRON METHODIST CHURCH ' MIKE RONNING, JACK KRAMER, PASTOR JEAN OTTENSMANN ' 5350 JAMES BOYD WILL 5425 JAMES PAUL THOUR 54 00 LOGAN ROGER ' DUSBABEK 5315 CAMDEN PAT (TRISH) DOBBS 5317 COLFAX WILLIAM (BILL) JOHNSON 5447 BRYANT GERALD SHUDY, JR. ' 5455 COLFAX FLOYD STEWIG 5330 COLFAX WAYNE PAULSON ' 5332 EMERSON ELIZABETH FORYSTEK 5543 FREMONT JUNE SCOFIELD 5407 DUPONT IRENE SEBURG ' 5517 LOGAN JOHANNA MILLS 5323 CAMDEN STANLEY WALETKO 5548 GIRARD JOHN KALLIGHER 5350 LOGAN ELMER PETERSON Survey Dear Property Owner, ' On March 26, a packet of information was sent to you regarding proposed improvements to streets and utilities, in your neighborhood. Information contained in that packet described the proposed improvements, the costs of these improvements, the proposed project financing plan, and the Assessment Stabilization Program which would assist low income property owners with payment of special assessments. An informational meeting to discuss that material was held on ' April 7 in the auditorium of Brooklyn Center High School. The purpose of this survey is to obtain further information about existing conditions and to ' determine property owner interest in the proposed improvements. Thank you for your cooperation. 2� Gerald o. Splinter, City Manager P � tY g Part 1 : What has been your experience with your sewer service i.e. —the line from the main in the street to your house)? ' I have had no P roblems ' I have had a few problems I have had extensive problems (cleaning more than once a year, collapse, or repair) ' I have had my sanitary sewer service line replaced (approximate year 19 .) I know or suspect that my sanitary sewer service is constructed of Orangeburg (asbestos and bituminous) material If the City Council decides to proceed with the proposed improvements I may be ' interested in having my sanitary sewer service line from the property line to my home replaced at the same time. Please provide me with more information, including cost estimates. ' Comments regarding sanitary sewers and /or sewer service lines: ' Part 2 : What has been your experience with your water service (i.e. —the line from the main in the street to your house)? ' I have had no problems I have had a few problems ' I have had extensive problems ' Comments regarding watermains and /or water service lines: (Please continue on the other side) Part 3 : What has been your experience with storm drainage and the condition of the street , in front of your house, and /or the neighborhood? Comments r drainage: e ardin storm regarding ' Comments regarding condition of streets: Part 4 . Do you see a need for additional street lights? Yes No Comments Part 5 : Did you attend the April 7 informational meeting? Yes No ' Part 6 . Should the Council approve an improvement project with special assessments as ' proposed on your street at this time? Yes No General Comments , Should you have questions or need more information, please contact the Engineering Department ' at 569 -3340. Your Name: Address: ' Please return by April 16, 1993 to: Engineering Department, 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 ' Reminder The Brooklyn Center City Council will conduct a public hearing regarding the ' proposed improvements at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 22, 1993 in Constitution Hall in the Brooklyn Center Community Center, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway. ' We encourage and will appreciate your attendance and participation in that hearing. What has been your experience with your sanitary sewer service? No Response Extensive Problems A Few Problems No problems Street Name Count % Count % Count % Count % Grand total 4TH ST 11 61% 0 0% 1 6% 6 33% 18 54TH AVE 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 1 BRYANT 17 55% 0 0% 5 16% 9 29% 31 CAMDEN 19 53% 0 0% 5 14% 12 33% 36 COLFAX 16 44% 1 3% 5 14% 14 39% 36 DUPONT 20 54% 0 0% 6 16% 11 30% 37 EMERSON 16 76% 0 0% 1 5% 4 19% 21 FREMONT 17 77% 0 0% 0 0% 5 23% 22 GIRARD 9 56% 0 0% 4 25% 3 19% 16 HUMBOLDT 2 50% 0 0% 1 25% 1 25% 4 IRVING 20 59% 0 0% 5 15% 9 26% 34 JAMES 18 56% 0 0% 6 19% 8 25% 32 KNOX 18 55% 0 0% 7 21% 8 24% 33 LOGAN 24 71% 1 3% 0 0% 9 26% 34 No Street Specified 0 1 2 Grand total 207 58% 2 1% 47 13% 102 29% 355 What has been your experience with your water service? No Response Extensive Problems A Few Problems No Problems Street Name Count % Count % Count % Count % Grand total 4TH ST 12 67% 0 0 6 18 54TH AVE 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 1 BRYANT 18 58% 0 0% 1 3% 12 39% 31 CAMDEN 20 56% 0 0% 0 0% 16 44% 36 COLFAX 16 44% 0 0% 0 0% 20 56% 36 DUPONT 20 54% 0 0% 2 5% 15 41% 37 EMERSON 16 76% 0 0% 0 0% 5 24% 21 FREMONT 17 77% 0 0% 0 0% 5 23% 22 GIRARD 9 56% 0 0% 1 6% 6 38% 16 HUMBOLDT 2 50% 0 0% 0 0% 2 50% 4 IRVING 20 59% 0 0% 1 3% 13 38% 34 JAMES 18 56% 1 3% 0 0% 13 41% 32 KNOX 18 55% 0 0% 0 0% 15 45% 33 LOGAN 24 71% 0 0% 0 0% 10 29% 34 No Street Specified 1 0 2 Grand total 207 58% 2 1% 5 1% 141 40% 355 What has been your experience with the storm drainage in front of your house, and /or the neighborhood? No Response No problems Some Problems Street Name Count % Count % Count % Grand total 4TH ST 12 67% 5 28% 1 6% 18 54TH AVE 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 1 BRYANT 19 61% 9 29% 3 10% 31 CAMDEN 20 56% 14 39% 2 6% 36 COLFAX 18 50% 14 39% 4 11% 36 DUPONT 21 57% 11 30% 5 14% 37 EMERSON 16 76% 5 24% 0 0% 21 FREMONT 17 77% 5 23% 0 0% 22 GIRARD 9 56% 4 25% 3 19% 16 HUMBOLDT 2 50% 0 0% 2 50% 4 IRVING 22 65% 10 29% 2 6% 34 JAMES 18 56% 10 31% 4 13% 32 KNOX 19 58% 10 30% 4 12% 33 LOGAN 25 74% 6 18% 3 9% 34 No Street Specified 2 0 Grand total 218 61 % 106 30% 33 9% 355 i What has been your experience with the street in front of your house, and /or the neighborhood? No Response No Problems Some Problems Street Name Count % Count % Count % Grand total 4TH ST 12 67% 3 17% 3 17% 18 54TH AVE 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 1 BRYANT 20 65% 4 13% 7 23% 31 CAMDEN 20 56% 14 39% 2 6% 36 COLFAX 20 56% 15 42% 1 3% 36 DUPONT 24 65% 10 27% 3 8% 37 EMERSON 17 81% 4 19% 0 0% 21 FREMONT 18 82% 4 18% 0 0% 22 GIRARD 11 69% 5 31% 0 0% 16 HUMBOLDT 2 50% 2 50% 0 0% 4 IRVING 23 68% 10 29% 1 3% 34 JAMES 19 59% 12 38% 1 3% 32 KNOX 22 67% 10 30% 1 3% 33 LOGAN 26 76% 8 24% 0 0% 34 No Street Specified 2 0 Grand total 234 66% 104 2 9% 19 5% 355 Do you see a need for more street lights? No Response No Yes Street Name Count % Count % Count % Grand total 4TH ST 11 61% 4 22% 3 17% 18 54TH AVE 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 1 BRYANT 20 65% 5 16% 6 19% 31 CAMDEN 20 56% 12 33% 4 11 % 36 COLFAX 17 47% 10 28% 9 25% 36 DUPONT 20 54% 14 38% 3 8% 37 EMERSON 16 76% 5 24% 0 0% 21 FREMONT 17 77% 3 14% 2 9% 22 GIRARD 9 56% 6 38% 1 6% 16 HUMBOLDT 2 50% 2 50% 0 0% 4 IRVING 20 59% 10 29% 4 12% 34 JAMES 18 56% 6 19% 8 25% 32 KNOX 19 58% 7 21% 7 21% 33 LOGAN 24 71% 9 26% 1 3% 34 No Street Specified 3 0 Grand total 213 60% 97 27% 48 14% 355 Should the Council approve an improvement project with special assessments on your street at this time? Did Not Attend the Info Meeting Attended the Info Meeting No Response Approve a Project? Approve a Project? Grand total % STREETN Count % No % Undec % Yes % Total % No % Undec % Yes % Total 4TH ST 11 61% 3 17% 2 11% 2 11% 7 39% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 18 54TH AVE 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 BRYANT 18 58% 4 13% 2 6% 3 10% 9 29% 2 6% 1 3% 1 3% 4 13% 31 CAMDEN 19 53% 11 31% 3 8% 2 6% 16 44% 1 3% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3% 36 COLFAX 16 44% 9 25% 3 8% 6 17% 18 50% 0 0% 1 3% 1 3% 2 6% 36 DUPONT 20 54% 5 14% 1 3% 4 11% 10 27% 7 19% 0 0% 0 0% 7 19% 37 EMERSON 16 76% 5 24% 0 0% 0 0% 5 24% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 21 FREMONT 18 82% 3 14% 0 0% 1 5% 4 18% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 22 GIRARD 9 56% 6 38% 0 0% 0 0% 6 38% 0 0% 1 6% 0 0% 1 6% 16 HUMBOLDT 2 50% 1 25% 0 0% 0 0% 1 25% 0 0% 1 25% 0 0% 1 25% 4 IRVING 20 59% 11 32% 1 3% 2 6% 14 41% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 34 JAMES 18 56% 5 16% 2 6% 4 13% 11 34% 0 0% 1 3% 2 6% 3 9% 32 KNOX 18 55% 5 15% 5 15% 4 12% 14 42% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3% 1 3% 33 LOGAN 24 71% 8 24% 1 3% 1 3% 10 29% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 34 No Street Specified 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 0 1 Grand total 209 59% 22% 20 6% 30 8% 129 36% 10 3% 6 2% 5 1% 21 6% 355 Should the Council approve an improvement project with special assessments as proposed on your street at this time? No Response No Undecided Yes Street Name Count % Count % Count % Count % Grand total 4TH ST 11 61% 3 17% 2 11 % 2 1 1% 18 54TH AVE 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 1 BRYANT 17 55% 6 19% 4 13% 4 13% 31 CAMDEN 19 53% 12 33% 3 8% 2 6% 36 COLFAX 16 44% 9 25% 4 11% 7 19% 36 DUPONT 19 51% 12 32% 1 3% 5 14% 37 EMERSON 16 76% 5 24% 0 0% 0 0% 21 FREMONT 17 77% 4 18% 0 0% 1 5% 22 GIRARD 9 56% 6 38% 1 6% 0 0% 16 HUMBOLDT 2 50% 1 25% 1 25% 0 0% 4 IRVING 20 59% 11 32% 1 3% 2 6% 34 JAMES 18 56% 5 16% 3 9% 6 19% 32 KNOX 18 55% 5 15% 5 15% 5 15% 33 LOGAN 24 71% 8 24% 1 3% 1 3% 34 No Street Specified 2 1 1 Grand total 206 58% 90 25% 27 8% 36 10% 355 Comments from SE Neighborhood Questionnaire ' Part 1 ' 1. For preventive purposes, I have a 100 ft. tape that I use about twice a year. The problem is about 55 ft. from clean -out, about at the curb. 2. We have to have line rooted out about every 2 or 3 years. A lot of tree roots in line. 3. Has been clogged several times from tree roots. 4. Low spot or root damage about halfway to the street, we have line cleaned out at least ' once a year. 5. We just moved into our home in December and already have had the lines cleared. The main line was full of roots. 6. Cleaning more than once a year, probably 3 times. ' 7. Water stands at alley due to grade. ' 8. The first 20 years I had to have it cleaned twice a year now the rest of the years about once every two years. 9. Our sewer and water lines are not that old on Colfax Ave. I don't remember the installation date but I think it was late 1950's or early 60's. 10. The sanitary sewer in the street has not been adequate because it is too shallow in the street and I have to use a sump pump for basement water. ' 11. I've only lived here one year but I've had a clogged drain recently. 12. A waste of taxpayers money. 13. I've never seen the sewer lines in the street backed up, jetted or rodded. I'm sure they would be fine with proper maintenance. 14. I would consider sanitary sewer line replacement if it would be significantly cheaper ' than normal replacement cost. 15. We have an awful lot of rust in our water - our water heater drains clear. ' 16. I think this has been cleaned only twice since we moved here in June 1, 1960. 1 ' Part 2 ' 1. I have seen city workers servicing the system at the manhole each year. 2. We've had trouble with city line plugging, and backing up into our basement twice. 3. Have problem with build up of sediment in water pipes. ' 4. Starting to break up. 5. A make work project funded by the overburdened taxpayer. ' 6. Because the watermains are in good shape, I would add their replacement cost to the cost of replacing the sewers and see if sewer work is still justified. ' 7. I work with the Water Dept. in St. Louis Park and your mains are very good - no breaks on our block. Part 3 ' 1. Drain in the alley is inadequate; it backs up after heavy rain and in the spring. ' 2. Heavy rain leaves a pool at 54th & Logan. 3. Corner of 54th & Logan floods during heavy rain. 4. We have a "river" on the street in front of our house after a heavy rain or heavy thaw. ' 5. Streets not too bad but our alley is bad. Poor drainage, not enough grade, bituminous falling apart with potholes etc. ' 6. Water stands in street at base of walk on Knox Ave. when it rains or at time of snow melt. ' 7. Storm drainage in alley not very good. g Y rY g ' 8. Always floods during heavy rain. 9. Often have a foot of water standing after hard rain. 2 10. Streets drain very good at our corner. ' 11. Edges breaking up badly. ' 12. 54th and James backs up during heavy rains. 13. Streets seem o.k., I don't like curbs and sidewalks. 14. Poor drainage around corner. Parts of street are disintegrating. ' 15. My curbline has standing water after each rain. 16. Good, although water stands at end of driveway. ' 17. Street not in bad shape. Hope that level will be better than the last time you paved ' our street. It always had drained away well before it was worked on. 18. No problems - streets look real good. 19. Drainage is excellent. 20. Curbing was of poor quality when you put it in but street seems o.k. Curbing has crumbled. Should have done a better job at first. , 21. 57th Ave. - no drainage from Logan to Bryant. 22. Cracked where Gas Co. dug up last summer, otherwise they are in good shape. Beats ' Mpls. - pothole haven! 23. Have needed better storm drainage for years. Why wasn't some of this work done 5 ' years ago. We sure don't need those cow path streets you propose and also don't need fancy curb cuts. Just good concrete ones. , 24. Some poor drainage, standing water on corners, etc. Streets look tired. 25. Need repairs every year mostly because of bus service (MTC). , 26. Fill potholes. 27. Appears to be adequate for majority of storms. Streets need some sort of upgrading. 28. I think it needs reseal done. 29. Judging from the speed of the cars in front of my house, the street is too good. , 3 ' ' 30. Streets are very clean and straight with very few patches you could extend their life be sealcoating. ' 31. We have a lot of traffic on 4th Street, I would like to have street sealcoated. ' 32. Some potholes. 33. Streets are basically good, some potholes. ' 34. Streets are in P oor condition. 'll ' 35. Water accumulates and drains slowly. 36. Street has a few cracks in it but I would be surprised to see a City truck in our neighborhood filling them in. ' Part 4 ' 1. Street lights at each corner and one or two mid -block would be nice. 2. We have long felt the need for more lighting for safety and anti -crime in our street ' and alley. 3. Street lights are very poor and too far apart. ' 4. It's too dark and the blocks are long. 5. Need street lights in mid -block and alleys. 6. I think lights should be placed 1/3 up from every block and use two lights per block ' so you can see intersections and the whole block. 7. Not shoebox lights. 8. This has always been a dark street. 9. I hardly have any light on my side of the street. 10. I live in the middle of the block and there doesn't seem to be enough light either way ' north or south from my place. 11. Lights needs in the middle of the block. ' 4 Part 6 ' 1. I see the point in repairing sanitary and storm sewers before they collapse. It seems ' that curb and getter & street replacement is not warranted at this time. 2. Our area - 5400 Logan, has not experienced any of the aforementioned problems. ' 3. I have lived on Logan Ave. since before 1953. Logan is in very good condition with no problems whatsoever. ' 4. We have no data on conditions of storm drains or sanitary sewer systems. 5. Undecided - Only if property owners agree percentage -wise. ' 6. Am much in favor of this project. , 7. My wife passed away Dec. 8, 1992, I'm living along now. Her S.S. was cut off, so I'm $500 a month short. t 8. Depends on cost - we are on a fixed income. ' 9. I think it should be taken care of before we do have a big problem. 10. How much taxes can a person stand? ' 11. Sewer and water should be done first, we don't need curbs and more lights. I feel , this would be a waste of money. Improvement the streets but leave the curbs out. 12. Have someone come to see me as I can't do on the phone. I can't hear. ' 13. No one is happy about special assessments, but as a former planning student I realize the necessity of maintaining our city's infrastructure. My concern is can the work be , done speedily and adequately for homeowners like myself to sell their properties. 14. 15 % tax increase and now a big fat new assessment al to pay on a $500.0 a month , pension (How ?) 15. We have just had a school tax levy. Taxes up over $100 this year as value went down. We seniors get struck with it all. Enough is enough; if my husband would go, I'd leave Brooklyn Center. 16. We really see no need to make any improvements our street is in very good ' condition. 5 , ' 17. It seems as if you are trying to drive all of us older people out of Brooklyn Center. 18. I don't seem to have serious problems to warrant new improvements. 19. I feel the streets are in good condition. I only see a need for patching holes, etc. 1 ' feel the streets will be fine for quite a few years. 20. Why fix what isn't broke? ' 21. We did pass a large school bond issue, which increased taxes. At this point I do not want more assessments. 22. I'm elderly and have lived in this house since 1954. So any assessments will put a hardship on me as on many other retired people in area. ' 23. Can't afford it. 24. Sewer and water has increased 8 times since I moved into my house 17 years ago. I can barely put food on my family's table anymore. I feel it is quite foolish to talk about adding over $300 a year to my tax burden for special assessments on sewer and ' road repairs. ' 25. We believe some improvements, however, we live on Dupont and do not want the street wider. We feel this would speed up traffic and reduce property value by reducing our yards. 26. Yes, street surfacing only - we do not need sidewalks or curbs. ' 27. Happy with existing conditions. I do not want any of the suggested improvements, trying to keep up now on Brooklyn Center taxation, and not succeeding too well. ' 28. The longer we wait the more it will cost. 29. I have occupied the property since 1947. If it can be avoided, I'd like to be spared ' the expense of $27.00 per month or whatever the remainder is for the rest of my life. 30. You talked about upgrading the area. Why have we been considered the "slums" for ' years. Regarding curb cuts, there are curb cuts on existing sidewalks, would you replace them? Also is there money for upkeep as that fancy brick don't last. We do not need sidewalks. 31. 1 would like to know more about other people's concerns who live on this block. 32. Yes, it would improve looks and property values. 6 33. I have no problems at this time. 34. I think our street doesn't need any major improvements done. Minor repair work is , all that is needed right now. (Filling potholes, etc.) 35. We see no need to spend Brooklyn Center's money on this project. Our taxes are high enough as it is. This wouldn't increase the resale value of home! 36. I am one person with low income - less than poverty. ' 37. Need new road and curb to make it look better. ' 38. If Engineering Dept. finds it necessary for the repairs then I approve. 39. If Bryant is to remain basically the same width, then the bus route should be moved ' to Dupont which is being widened. 40. A special assessment would probably be the "straw that broke the camels back" and ' P p Y force me to move out of the area that I have lived in 30 years. ' 41. Bryant was dug up in 1976 and repairs were made and water installed in street at that time along with resurfacing the road. ' 42. Yes, as long as costs are under $2,000. 43. I do not want to lose my trees. , 44. If you need expert opinion on your mechanical joint lines, ductile or any ideas for ' maintenance improvements feel free to call me. 45. It was implied at said meeting that City Council made the decision - our input was ' unimportant - so why bother? 46. If the City feels it is necessary. We are on Social Security so we couldn't pay but we ' understand if our income is low we will not have to pay. 47. The area of 53rd to 55th on 4th Street seems to be functioning very well and I've , heard of no complaints or any inconveniences or repairs being made. 48 During construction I just want to get in and out of my driveway without any major , hassle. 7 ' 49. We do not feel that the improvements are needed at this time. However, if the "experts" say it's necessary, we don't object. ' 50. Last year we just paid off assessment for new sewer and water lines on our street just put in about 20 years ago. ' E: \ENG \PROJECnNE[GH \COM MEW. SUR 8 � PROPOSED � SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS � SE NEIGHBORHOOD 1 1 1 ' PER FRONT FOOT: ' STREET IMPROVEMENT $24.00 � STREET LIGHTING $1.16 ' I STREETSCAPING $0.49 � $25.65 ' Street By Street Comments By Staff Note: Seven survey respondents said no, the Council should not approve a project, giving the reason ' that they could not afford it because of their low income. An additional five were undecided, also saying that they were low income and could not afford it. One respondent replied yes, the Council should approve a project, knowing that they were low income and couldn't afford it but understood ' that the Assessment Stabilization program would pay the entire special assessment for them. ' LOGAN AVENUE, 53rd Ave. to 55th Ave. Engineering Comments /Concerns ' Two of the three existing runs of sanitary sewer are being recommended for replacement as there are severe grade and tree root problems. The extensive sewer work will require ' replacement of a corresponding amount of water main and reconstruction of the entire street segment. The existing storm sewer system is adequate, however, changes in street geometrics may require minor modifications in the storm sewer layout. ' • Reconstruction of this street will require adherence to State Aid standards for pavement thickness, width and parking. The existing driving surface is approximately 31 feet wide with ' mature trees located fairly close to the edge of the pavement; the reconstructed width would be 1) twenty -six feet wide, with no on- street parking, 2) thirty -two feet wide, with on- street parking allowed on one side only, or 3) thirty -eight feet wide if parking is necessary on both sides of the street. The recommendation is for either the 26 or 32 foot width, however, input ' from the neighborhood regarding parking requirements is still needed. In addition, the reconstruction plans for this street (similar to all State Aid designated routes) would require submission and ultimate approval of the Office of State Aid; a process which is expected to ' take 6 weeks. Summary of Residents' Comments • Residents have concerns about amount of traffic, what can be done to slow traffic down 1 KNOX AVENUE, 53rd Ave. to 55th Ave. Engineering Comments /Concerns ' • All three existing runs of sanitary sewer are being recommended for replacement as there are severe grade and tree root problems. The extensive sewer work will require replacement of a corresponding amount of water main and reconstruction of the entire street segment. This ' entire length of street is currently devoid of any storm sewer system; storm sewer construction is recommended. Summary of Residents' Comments • Twice as many residents said the Council should approve a project, or were undecided, than , were against a project • Almost half the survey respondents said they had sanitary sewer problems ' • Half the residents responding saw a need for additional street lights • Belief that there is a need for more street and alley lighting for safety and to deter crime ' • Alley needs work ' JAMES AVENUE, 53rd Ave. to 55th Ave. Engineering Comments /Concerns , • A combination of sanitary sewers in the boulevard and in the street currently serve the area. ' Based on the televised inspection, these sewers represent by far the worst that we have seen anywhere in the City. All sanitary sewers in this street segment have serious grade and tree root problems, and show evidence of groundwater infiltration. These existing sanitary sewers , are being recommended for complete replacement. The extensive sewer work will require replacement of a corresponding amount of water main and reconstruction of the entire street segment. The existing storm sewer system is adequate, however, changes in street geometries ' may require minor modifications in the storm sewer layout. Summary of Residents' Comments ' • More residents said the Council should approve a project, or were undecided, than were against a project • Almost half the survey respondents said they had sanitary sewer problems • More than half the residents responding saw a need for additional street lights ' • Alley needs work ' • Concern that things should be taken care of before there is a "big problem" IRVING AVENUE, 53rd Ave. to 55th Ave. Engineering Comments /Concerns • Two of the three existing runs of sanitary sewer are being recommended for replacement as there are severe grade and tree root problems, and evidence of groundwater infiltration. The ' extensive sewer work will require replacement of a corresponding amount of water main and reconstruction of the entire street segment. The entire length of street is currently devoid of any storm sewer system; storm sewer construction is recommended in conjunction with the street reconstruction. ' Summary of Residents' Comments • Residents who responded to the survey were overwhelmingly opposed to a project GIRARD AVENUE, 53rd Ave. to 54th Ave. Engineering Comments /Concerns ' • The existing sanitary sewer in this street segment is being recommended for replacement as there are severe grade and tree root problems. The extensive sewer work will require ' replacement of a corresponding amount of water main and reconstruction of the entire street segment. The existing storm sewer system is adequate, however, changes in street geometrics may require minor modifications in the storm sewer layout. ' Summary of Residents' Comments • Over half the survey respondents reported having some sewer problems, some drainage problems ' Residents who responded to the survey were overwhelmingly opposed to a project FREMONT AVENUE, 54th Ave. to 55th Ave. ' Engineering Comments /Concerns • The existing sanitary sewer in this street segment is being recommended for replacement as ' there are severe grade and tree root problems. The extensive sewer work will require replacement of a corresponding amount of water main and reconstruction of the entire street segment. The existing storm sewer system is adequate, however, changes in street geometrics may require minor modifications in the storm sewer layout. ' Summary of Residents' Comments • Three - fourths of the residents did not respond to the survey EMERSON AVENUE 54th Ave. to 55th Ave. Engineering Comments /Concerns • One sewer sections considered "fair ", however all exhibit at least minor root problems and grade deficiencies. Sections considered worse than fair recommended for replacement. The ' recommended sewer work will require replacement of a corresponding amount of water main and reconstruction of the street segment. The existing storm sewer system is adequate, ' however, changes in street geometries may require minor modifications in the storm sewer layout. 1 Summary of Residents' Comments • Three- fourths of the residents did not respond to the survey ' DUPONT AVENUE, 53rd Ave. to 55th Ave. ' Engineering Comments /Concerns • All of the existing runs of sanitary sewer are being recommended for replacement as there are ' severe grade and tree root problems. In addition, there is at least one location where a emergency type repair may be warranted. The extensive sewer work will require replacement ' of a corresponding amount of water main and reconstruction of the entire street segment. The storm sewer system in this segment will require moderate modifications to accommodate the construction of more or relocated inlet structures. ' • Reconstruction of this street will require adherence to State Aid standards for pavement thickness, width and parking. The existing driving surface is approximately 31 feet wide; the ' reconstructed width would have to be either 1) twenty -six feet wide, with no on- street parking, 2) thirty -two feet wide, with on- street parking allowed on one side only, or 3) thirty - eight feet wide if parking is necessary on both sides of the street. The recommendation is for , either the 26 or 32 foot width, however, input from the neighborhood regarding parking requirements is still needed. In addition, the reconstruction plans for this street (similar to all State Aid designated routes) would require submission to and ultimate approval from the ' Office of State Aid; a process which is expected to take 6 weeks. COLFAX AVENUE 53rd Ave. to 55th Ave. Engineering Comments /Concerns ' • All of the existing runs of sanitary sewer are being recommended for replacement as there are severe grade and tree root problems. In addition, there is at least one location where a emergency type repair may be warranted. The extensive sewer work will require replacement of a corresponding amount of water main and reconstruction of the entire street segment. The existing storm sewer system in this street segment is very shallow, and the pipe materials are severely deteriorated; complete replacement is recommended. ' Summary of Residents' Comments ' • More residents said the Council should approve a project, or were undecided, than were against a project ' • Half the residents responding saw a need for additional street lights ' BRYANT AVENUE 53rd Ave. to 55th Ave. ' Engineering Comments /Concerns • Over half of the inplace sanitary sewer is being recommended for replacement as the televised inspection revealed tree root problems and grade deficiencies. The recommended sewer work will require replacement of a corresponding amount of water main and reconstruction of the entire street segment. The existing storm sewer system in this street segment is shallow, and the pipe materials are severely deteriorated; complete replacement of the storm sewer is recommended. ' Summary of Residents' Comments • Residents are concerned about bus traffic • Half the residents responding saw a need for additional street lights CAMDEN AVENUE, 53rd Ave. to 55th Ave. Engineering Comments /Concerns • All runs of sanitary sewer are being recommended for replacement as there are severe grade and tree root problems and evidence of groundwater infiltration. Sections of sanitary sewer in ' this segment show numerous cracked and broken pipes, and have been identified as a very high priority. The extensive sewer work will require replacement of a corresponding amount of water main and reconstruction of the entire street segment. This entire length of street is ' currently devoid of any storm sewer system; storm sewer construction is recommended. 4TH STREET, 53rd Ave. to 55th Ave. Engineering Comments /Concerns ' The existing sanitary sewer in this street segment appeared to be serviceable, and no replacement has been recommended. Accordingly, no water main replacement would be necessary. A small amount of storm sewer work is being recommended for the northerly portion of the segment. The east side of the street already has concrete curb and gutter installed, and the recommended street improvements consist of either a overlay or complete reconstruction with the addition of curb and gutter on the west side. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 05/10/93 Agenda Item Number Eh 0 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: PRESENTATION OF TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT DEPT. APPROVAL: z 4e Sy Knapp, birector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEWlRECOM ENDATION: • No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Submitted herewith is a draft copy of the "North Brooklyn Center Transportation • Study" as prepared by consulting engineers Strgar- Roscoe - Fausch, Inc. (SRF), as authorized by the City Council on July 13, 1992. This report provides traffic analyses of Brooklyn Boulevard, analyzes the impact of future "3rd lane" construction on I- 94/694 west of Brooklyn Boulevard, and provides traffic volume forecasts and an evaluation of needs for other arterial and collector streets in the northern half of Brooklyn Center. One item of immediate interest to the City is SRF's evaluation of traffic volumes and needs on Brooklyn Boulevard. We wish to call the Council's attention specifically to following findings and recommendations by SRF: • Construction of an interchange at I94/694 and Zane Avenue (in Brooklyn Park) would reduce the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on Brooklyn Boulevard by only approximately 5000. Accordingly, the study concludes that the construction of such an interchange would not be cost - effective. • Construction of the "3rd lanes" on I94 -694 westerly from Brooklyn Boulevard to I494 (in Maple Grove) will divert approximately 5000 vehicles per day from Brooklyn Boulevard to T.H. 81 (in Brooklyn Park). • The existing ADT on Brooklyn Boulevard between I94/694 and 69th Avenue is 46.700. North of 69th Avenue the existing ADT is 36.500. By year 2010 those volumes are expected to increase to 54.000 and 41.000 respectively. • The existing "level of service" at various locations on Brooklyn Boulevard ranges from D to F, with very high accident rates along this corridor. • ■ The study proposes a system of improvements to Brooklyn Boulevard which will dramatically reduce congestion and accident problems, while accommodating future growth. ■ The study concludes that the proposed improvements to Brooklyn Boulevard and to I94/694 (i.e. - construction of the "3rd lanes" westerly from Brooklyn Boulevard )will significantly reduce the volume of traffic which • now uses Shingle Creek Parkway -69th Avenue as a short -cut during peak traffic hours. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION • a representative from SRF and City staff will present the draft report to the City Council. • discussion by City Council. • direction to SRF regarding finalization of the report. Note As a separate item on the Council's agenda, staff is recommending that the Council approve a follow -up agreement with SRF to prepare a "conceptual layout plan" — to present SRF's recommendations regarding Brooklyn Boulevard improvements in graphic form — to facilitate public discussion of these proposals, and to provide a basis for continuation of the Brooklyn Boulevard redevelopment process. - DRAFT - NORTH BROOKLYN CENTER TRANSPORTATION STUDY . CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER STRGAR - ROSCOE- FAUSCH, INC. MAY 1993 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................... ............................... 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................. ............................... 1 • Traffic ................................................................. ............................... 1 • Capacity Analysis ............................................... ............................... 3 • Accidents ........................................................... ............................... 4 • Current Traffic Patterns ..................................... ............................... 5 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD -- PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ..................... 5 IMPACTS OF 1 -94 RECONSTRUCTION ...................... ............................... 6 FUTURETRAFFIC ....................................................... ............................... 7 • OTHER PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ...................... ............................... 7 • C.S.A.H. 130 (69th Avenue North) ..................... ............................... 7 • Humboldt Avenue North of Freeway Boulevard . ............................... 9 • Shingle Creek Parkway ...................................... ............................... 9 • 63rd Avenue North ............................................. ............................... 9 OTHER ACTIONS TO REDUCE CONGESTION ....... • Additional North -South Roadways ..................... ............................... 10 • Slip Ramp Off Westbound 1 -94 .......................... ............................... 12 • Implement Land Use Controls ........................... ............................... 12 ROLE OF TRANSIT AND TDM .................................... ............................... 12 i i INTRODUCTION The North Brooklyn Center Transportation Study was conducted in order to assess the adequacy of the roadway system in the area north of 61st Avenue North, especially Brooklyn Boulevard. Specific issues addressed in this analysis are: • Current and future role (and capacity) of Brooklyn Boulevard • Need for additional north -south roadways • Impact of 1 -94 reconstruction on Brooklyn Boulevard • Impact of future growth on Brooklyn Boulevard, 69th Avenue North, Shingle Creek Parkway and other streets in the study area • Traffic impacts of an interchange at Zane Avenue and 1 -94 In addition to the above issues, this study looks at current traffic and accidents on . Brooklyn Boulevard and recommends improvements required to accommodate anticipated development. EXISTING CONDITIONS Traffic The level of current traffic is shown in Figure 1. At present, Brooklyn Boulevard is the primary north -south arterial serving the City of Brooklyn Center and, to the north, Brooklyn Park. It carries approximately 36,000 to 47,000 vehicles per day north of 1 -94, and 25,000 to 31,000 south of 1 -94. Several factors contribute to the high level of traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard: • It is the only continuous arterial with a full interchange with 1 -94 providing both local and subregional access. i 1 P CD 7'1 FD O _ 15 BROOKLYN 64 0 CENTER 252 O c 152 36,500 5,5 0 2 p Pa ,0 0 Pa r •` 130 11,300 400 �" ssln A� N. 9, 00 11,000 6,400 = 5,600 53,00 6,700 0 2, 694 - - 52 94 ID5,0 ? 11,800 - 4 0 11,800 , 3 200 Aye. 4,8 10,40 6200 ,20 N. 2 00 152 C _ 63rd Ave. N. 6 694 9,600 � 8,5 0 ,20 40 0 2 ,000 X ` CD CD CRYSTAL 52 41 0 z Crystol Airport 0 1000 2000 3000 Sources: 1991 MSA counts, Mn /DOT, Hennepin County SCALE FEET NORTH BROOKLYN CENTER TRANSPORTATION STUDY FIGURE SRF EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) • T.H. 169, which is the next interchange to the west, is almost two miles away. • West of Brooklyn Boulevard, 1 -94 experiences a reduction in capacity from six lanes to four lanes. Other than Brooklyn Boulevard, there are no continuous north -south arterials in the study area. Both Shingle Creek Parkway (with just over 19,000 daily vehicles south of 1 -94 and about 12,000 north of 65th Avenue North), and Humboldt Avenue (with almost 12,000 vehicles per day north of 65th Avenue North), serve a more local function. Capacity Analysis Brooklyn Boulevard is presently configured as a six lane arterial including side -by -side continuous center turn lanes and a through and through -right lanes in each direction. Capacity analysis of this facility indicates that there are capacity problems (Level of Service F) or potential problems (D) at the following intersections: • 69th Avenue intersection is at Level of Service F • 1 -94 north ramp intersection is at D • 1 -94 south ramp intersection is at D (See Appendix A for a description of Levels of Service.) The current design of Brooklyn Boulevard also causes several operational problems, namely: • Weaving problems between traffic exiting the 1 -94 north ramp destined to westbound 69th Avenue North, and northbound traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard. • Numerous driveways serving business along Brooklyn Boulevard. Uncontrolled left turns to and from driveways significantly affect the capacity of the system. 3 Another area where the traffic volume exceeds the capacity of the roadw is p Y Y 69th t Avenue North, between Brooklyn Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway. Traffic volume in this segment exceeds 11,000 vehicles per day. However, this facility is currently being improved to a four -lane section which will adequately handle this traffic. Accidents Accidents and accident rates for Brooklyn Boulevard were obtained from Hennepin County. The data shows that between 1988 and 1990 (three years), the segment of Brooklyn Boulevard between 63rd Avenue North and 69th Avenue North experienced the following accident rates: Rate Per Intersections Million Vehicles 63rd Avenue 0.96 65th Avenue 0.48 69th Avenue 1.79 1 -94 Interchange( 1.60 For comparison purposes, the average accident rate in Hennepin County ranges from 0.98 to 1.08 (based on 57 similar intersections). The accident rate at the 69th Avenue intersection is significantly higher (almost twice the average rate). The 1 -94 interchange rate of 1.60 is just over twice as high as the average rate for 53 interchanges in Hennepin County (0.79 accidents per million vehicles). The fact that the westbound off ramp sometimes backs up to the mainline may help explain why the accident rate at this interchange is as high as it is. The accident rates for segments of Brooklyn Boulevard are as follows: I Rate Per Segment Million Vehicle Miles 63rd to 65th Avenue 0.66 65th to 1 -94 South Ramps 1.86 1 -94 North Ramps to 69th Avenue 9.30 (1) Accident statistics for interchange areas include accidents on mainline within 150 feet of ramp. 4 The segment between 63rd Avenue and 1 -94 south ramps is below the range of accidents for four -lane undivided roads (2.41 accidents per million vehicle - miles) and continuous left turn lane segments (3.50 accidents per million vehicle - miles). However, the segment between the 1 -94 north ramps and 69th Avenue North, with a 9.30 rate per mvm, far exceeds these average values and is among one of the highest in the region. Current Traffic Patterns I Approximately two- thirds of the northbound traffic using Brooklyn Boulevard between 1 -94 north ramps and 69th Avenue North in the p.m. peak hour are destined to Brooklyn Park. However, few of these trips go beyond Zane Avenue. Similarly, 30 percent of the northbound traffic on Shingle Creek Parkway north of 1 -94 are destined to Brooklyn Park, east of Noble Avenue. It should be pointed out that not all of this traffic represent through traffic. Many of these trips is made by Brooklyn Center residents and workers on their way to and from work. BROOKLYN BOULEVARD -- PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS A thorough analysis of the traffic operations, geometrics and traffic signals on Brooklyn Boulevard was conducted. The aim was to maximize the vehicle - carrying capacity of Brooklyn Boulevard in order to eliminate current congestion while providing additional capacity to accommodate future growth. On the basis of the analysis, it was concluded that elimination of the center side -by -side continuous left turn lanes would increase the capacity of the roadway significantly with minimal additional right -of -way requirement. The following changes are chan proposed: P ro P • Reconstruct Brooklyn Boulevard to provide a median island and center single left turn lanes at intersections. • Add third through lane in each direction between 65th Avenue and 71st Avenue /Noble. • In the southbound direction between the 1 -94 south ramps and 65th Avenue, provide two through lanes plus a right -turn lane. The right turn lane would serve a proposed park- and -ride lot. 5 • Reduce weaves between 1 -94 north ramps and 69th Avenue by eliminating the free right turn lane from westbound 1 -94 off -ramp. Replace capacity with a two -lane right turn and exclusive signal phase. The two right -turn lanes will provide additional storage capacity which will reduce the potential for backups into the 1 -94 mainline. • Construct right turn lanes at major cross - streets (65th Avenue and 69th Avenue). • Construct free right -turn lanes from Brooklyn Boulevard to major intersections (65th, 69th and Noble Avenue). • Consolidate driveways, particularly between 1 -94 north ramps and 69th Avenue. Explore options for serving multiple businesses from single access drive or service road configuration. • Optimize the traffic signal system and examine the warrants for a traffic signal at 68th Avenue. IMPACTS OF 1 -94 RECONSTRUCTION The impacts of 1 -94 reconstruction on Brooklyn Center traffic will depend on the staging of the work. City involvement in the planning is required to ensure that all lanes on 1 -94 are kept open to traffic -- particularly during peak periods - -to avoid overburdening the City roadway system. Once Mn /DOT develops a staging plan for the project, a detailed traffic operations analysis should be prepared indicating what steps should be taken to limit diversion from 1 -94 onto city and county roadways. Once 1 -94 is reconstructed and the third lane is added, the additional capacity will divert trips away from Brooklyn Boulevard to T.H. 169. This diversion is estimated at approximately 5,000 vehicles per day. 6 FUTURE TRAFFIC Year 2010 traffic forecasts for the roadway system in the study area are shown in Figure 2. These forecasts were made using the regional forecasting models. They assume that the third lane will be added to 1 -94 west of Brooklyn Boulevard and that Brooklyn Boulevard will be improved as discussed earlier. Based on these assumptions, traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard is expected to grow to 54,000 trips per day north of 1 -94, and to 39,000 trips per day south of 1 -94. The proposed improvements will enable Brooklyn Boulevard y to accommodate this amount of traffic at Level of Service C or better. (See Appendix B for the capacity analysis results.) The future addition of a third lane on 1 -94 west of Brooklyn Boulevard will reduce traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard by approximately 5,000 vehicles per day. This reduction, combined with the capacity improvements proposed for Brooklyn Boulevard, gives Brooklyn Boulevard the ability to serve traffic that was previously diverted from it because of congestion. The principal beneficiary of the increased capacity is Shingle Creek Parkway /69th Avenue. Shingle Creek Parkway is expected to experience a growth of just over 2,000 trips per day north of Freeway Boulevard. OTHER PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS In addition to the Brooklyn Boulevard improvements, the following improvements are recommended for other roadways in the study area: C.S.A.H. 130 (69th Avenue North) • West Approach: provide separate left -turn, through and right -turn lanes. • East Approach: provide separate left -turn, through and through /right lanes. • West of the intersection, the cross - section should be either two lanes with left -turn lanes at intersections, or three lanes with continuous center left -turn lane. Both lane configurations will operate at similar levels of service. 7 CD T m m Z 25 9 0 0 BR ENTER n 252 152 41,000 40 80 0 l Z CD S P Ime co 130 5,00 b oo Lake 69th Av N. Ak Z 11,00 15,000 9,000 qw 7,600 65,000 4,000 - g 4 G 1 ' 0 694 ' - - -��� 52 94 30, 14 000 ? 14 ,000 s 000 8 0 A��. 7,0 15 8,000 5,0 � 4 00 1 52 � I 63rd Ave. N. 9,000 a 11, 12,00 00 6 0 0 694 ,000 X CD CD CRYSTAL 100 94 Y r, 50,0 U 52 Crystal o Airport 0 1000 2000 3000 SCALE FEET NORTH BROOKLYN CENTER TRANSPORTATION STUDY FIGURE SRF 2010 DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) • The east approach through lanes should be maintained through the intersection to the west leg. However, the transition should be made far enough to the west that traffic operations at the intersection is not adversely affected. Humboldt Avenue North of Freeway Boulevard As an extension of T.H. 100, Humboldt Avenue will function as a minor arterial to the north. As such, the following improvements are recommended: • A traffic signal warrant analysis should be prepared for the 69th Avenue intersection. • North of 69th Avenue the cross - section should be either two lanes with left turn lanes at intersections, or three lanes with center continuous left -turn lane. From a traffic standpoint, the three -lane configuration is preferable. However, two lanes with left -turn lanes at intersections, coupled with no parking, will accommodate the traffic adequately. Shingle Creek Parkway This roadway functions as a minor arterial and, together with 69th Avenue, Brooklyn Boulevard and 58th Avenue (County Road 10), forms a traffic distribution ring around 1 -94. It is recommended that the traffic signal system between John Martin Drive and Freeway Boulevard by optimized to extract the maximum capacity from the roadway. 63rd Avenue North This road is expected to serve as a "low density" minor arterial because it serves primarily residential uses. However, because of its continuity and connectivity, consideration should be given to improve future operations by providing left -turn lanes at intersections. 9 Figure 3 shows the proposed Functional Classification of the roadway system in the study area. The hierarchy is intended to maintain an adequate balance between access and mobility for residents and businesses, for local, subregional and regional trips. OTHER ACTIONS TO REDUCE CONGESTION In addition to the improvements listed previously, there are several actions that potentially could reduce the overall traffic volumes on Brooklyn Boulevard and other existing north -south streets. These are analyzed next. Provide an Additional North -South Roadway with an Interchange at 1 -94 The presence in Brooklyn Center of significant natural constraints (Palmer Lake, Twin Lakes and Shingle Creek) as well as developed residential neighborhoods, make it very difficult to add a north -south roadway within the City proper. The best options for such a roadway, in terms of ability to relieve Brooklyn Boulevard, is at the west city boundary with Brooklyn Park, or at Zane Avenue in Brooklyn Park. From the most recent aerial photos available to us, it appears that the west boundary area has been developed to such an extent as to preclude construction of a facility through the area. An interchange at Zane Avenue would attract many of the trips that originate in Brooklyn Park and that currently use Brooklyn Boulevard. The traffic analysis indicates that a Zane Avenue half diamond interchange (to the east) could reduce current traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard by approximately 15 percent (7,000 vehicles per day). This interchange would also relieve T.H. 169, which would experience a similar reduction in daily traffic. However, Zane Avenue, which currently carries about 11,000 trips per day, would see its traffic increase to approximately 17,000 trips per day if an interchange were built today. This increase in traffic is of particular significance because of the presence of three schools along Zane Avenue. Given the cost and disruption, added to the safety and environmental concerns related to constructing a new interchange at Zane Avenue, and given the relatively low traffic reduction on Brooklyn Boulevard, it does not appear that the interchange option is cost - effective. 10 z < CD CD BROOKLYN CENTER 152 V Palmer Lake IOU LL� M52194 ° .... 152 ---� �a •,. -- - ; � i 694 1[ A - -------- --- - KIM - KK% > 100 CRYSTAL P I t r Crys 1! 1 Principal Arterial Airport Minor Arterial (High Density) ggg Minor Arterial (Low Density) 0 1000 2000 3000 Collector SCALE FEET NORTH BROOKLYN CENTER TRANSPORTATION STUDY FIGURE SRF ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION 3 Slip Ramp from Westbound 1 -94 to Frontage Road Another way to relieve Brooklyn Boulevard would be to construct a slip ramp off westbound 1 -94, between Brooklyn Boulevard and Zane Avenue. This off -ramp would feed a frontage road that would connect to a north -south street and to 69th Avenue North. This scheme would reduce traffic on both Brooklyn Boulevard and on 69th Avenue west of Brooklyn Boulevard. To provide for adequate weaving distance between the westbound on -ramp at Brooklyn Boulevard and the slip ramp, the connection back to 69th Avenue probably would occur just east of the City limits. As a result, the amount of traffic diverted would be relatively low, in the order of 3,000 to 4,000 vehicles per day. This option should be explored further, with special attention given to the potential intrusion and disruption to the residential area north of 1 -94. Implement Land Use Controls Another way to reduce traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard would be to implement some form of land use control in the area. However, since much of the area is already developed, it would be difficult to apply changes retroactively. Nevertheless, as redevelopment occurs, the City might want to consider encouraging a better balance of land uses. For example, limiting the number of fast food drive -in restaurants, auto dealers and other heavily auto - dependent commercial uses. ROLE OF TRANSIT AND TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT The use of non - capacity based solutions to reduce roadway congestion has gained broad acceptance in the transportation field. As mentioned above, controlling the mix and density of land uses can reduce travel. Other ways to reduce the amount of vehicular travel is to increase transit and carpooling. The City of Brooklyn Center has two park- and -ride lots (Brooklyn Center and Church of Nazarene) with a capacity of 93 spaces which are used by 103 cars per day. The City is served by seven express bus routes (48 one -way trips per day) and three local bus routes (99 one -way trips per day). 12 The City f the Metropolitan Transit Commission are current) developing plans for a Y P Y p 9 P 350 -space park- and -ride lot on the southwest quadrant of 1 -94 and Brooklyn Boulevard. It should be pointed out that, while this facility will decrease the vehicle -miles of travel on the regional highway system, it will increase traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard, as it becomes a focal point for car trips that would have used a different facility were the lot not at this particular location. Some of the impacts of this additional traffic needs to be mitigated as part of the lot design (e.g., provision of a continuous right -turn lane between the eastbound 1 -94 off -ramp and 65th Avenue). Another travel demand management option might be to work with the car dealers along Brooklyn Boulevard to keep vehicles being test - driven away from Brooklyn Boulevard. It may be necessary to examine their access to determine if additional side or rear access can be provided to reduce the use of Brooklyn Boulevard for this and similar purposes. 13 • APPENDIX A Level of Service Descriptions i • GENERALIZED LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS The operational characteristics of roadways can be expressed as one of six levels of service (L.O.S.), described as A through F. • Levels of Service "A" through "C" describe free to stable flow conditions where there are few problems in using the roadways. • Level of Service "D" describes conditions approaching unstable flow where problems begin to occur on the roadway, especially for turning traffic. • Level of Service "E" describes unstable flow conditions where traffic volumes on the roadway are at capacity levels and many problems develop, i.e., long delays, much congestion and long queues (a queue is a waiting line of vehicles). • Level of Service "F" describes forced flow and failure conditions on the roadway, characterized by severe congestion and extremely long delays. As an example, under L.O.S. "F" conditions, a motorist would experience a delay of at least one full cycle length at a signalized intersection. . DESCRIPTION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS L.O.S. Description A Traffic moves freely. The free -flow condition is accompanied by low volumes. All waiting vehicles clear on one green phase. The major movements have a low percentage of stops (average delay per vehicle < 5 seconds). B Traffic moves fairly freely. Volumes are still somewhat low. Waiting vehicles will still probably clear on one green phase. Traffic on this major movement can expect less than a 50 percent chance of stopping (average delay per vehicle < 15 seconds). C Traffic moves smoothly. Volumes are beginning to increase. Some minor movements may not clear on one green phase. Traffic on the major movement can expect a 50 percent chance of stopping (average delay per vehicle < 25 seconds). D Traffic approaching unstable flow. Acceptable intersection operation for peak periods. Many intersection movements may not clear on one green phase. Traffic on the major movement can expect a greater than 50 percent chance of stopping (average delay per vehicle < 40 seconds). E Unstable traffic flow. Volumes are at or near capacity. No vehicles are able to go through the intersection without having to stop (average delay per vehicle < 60 seconds). F Saturation condition. Volumes are over capacity. All vehicles will stop and will probably require more than one green phase (average delay per vehicle > 60 seconds). APPENDIX B Capacity Analysis of 69th Avenue /Brooklyn Boulevard Intersection - .. l9B5 ��M: ��GNALIZED INTERBECTION S SUMMARY REPORT A* �K* �K�*****��*��*� INTERE TION''69TH A«E/BROOKLYN BLVD REA TYpE'''''OTHER ANALYST.,'..,'J.BEDWAR/SRF DATE''.'.'.''' TIME,....-,'..PM PEAK HOUR COMMENT ....... 20i0 FORECASTS/IMPROVED GEOnETRIC� __________________________________________________________________________ VOLUMES ; GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB S8 LT e5 145 305 195 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L I2'0 TH 300 Z60 1595 1 l95 : T 12.D T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT l50 21 100 ; R l2,0 TR 12.0 T I2.� T l2,0 RR 75 O 165 50 : lZ.D 12.0 T l2.0 T 12'0 : 12,0 12.0 R l2.0 R 12.0 ; 12'0 12.0 12.0 l2),O __________________________________________________________________________ ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES pHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N O 0 0.90 0 Y 37.B 3 WB 0.00 2.0O N 0 g 0,90 0 Y 37.B 3 NB 0,0O 2,00 N 0 0 0.90 0 Y 25.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 m 0 0 0.90 0 Y 25.B 3 __________________________________________________________________________ SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 90.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 pH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD WB LT x BB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN _2.9 0.0 0.0 0,0 GREEN 19.5 35.6 0.0 0'0 YELLOW 4.O 0.0 0,0 0'0 YELLOW 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE BRP, V/C B/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.443 0.277 21.4 C 18.7 C T 0.676 0.277 20.9 C R 0.107 0.516 7,2 B WB L 1.133 0.277 171.4 F 53.5 E TR 0.596 0.277 1 B.9 C NB L 0.B38 0.239 34.7 D 19.8 C T 0.873 0.4lB 18.0 C - R 0.281 0.419 ll,Z B S8 L 0.536 0.239 23.B C 15.1 C T 0.654 0.41B 1.4.0 B R 0.087 0.4I9 10.2 B ---------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 22.6 (sec/veh) WE = 0.956 LOS = C ���� � - .. l985 HCM: BIBNALIZED 7NTER5ECTIONB �UMMARY REPORT :NTERSECTION'.69TH AVE/3ROOxLY'\1 BLvD ARE" TYPE ..... OTHER AMALYS T...,..'J.8E_ DArE.......... TIr"E .......... AM PEAK HOUR CCMMENT ....... 20lO FOjRECASTS/IMPR0VED 13 E0 ill ETR IC S __________________________________________________________________________ VOLUMES ; GEOMETRY EB WB NB B8 WB 0B SB LT 0 250 l05 1B5 : L l2.1) L 12' L l2.0 L 12.0 TH 165 lZ5 465 1730 ; T l2' 0 RT 3:;5 60 7O 60 : P 12 ,o TR l2,O T 12.0 T l2.0 RR l65 0 35 30 ; l2.O 1Z.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 R l2.0 : 12,0 12.0 l2.0 12.0 __________________________________________________________________________ ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ pKS BUSES PHF PEDB PED. BUT, ARR. TYPE Y/N N Nb Y/N. min T E 0.00 2.00 N 0 O 0.90 Y 32.5 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 O 0.90 0 Y 32.5 3 NB 0.10O 2,00 N 0 0 O.90 0 Y 20.5 3 �B 0.00 2.00 ` N � 0 �,9O 0 Y 20.5 3 __________________________________________________________________________ SIGNAL 'o CYCLE LENGTH = 90.0 EB LT PH- X 1 PH-2 pH-3 NB LT �H-4 PH- X 1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 TH X TH X RT x RT X PD RD �B LT x SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X RD RD GREEN 24.B 0.0 0.0 0 .0 GREEN 1 2.Z 41.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 4,0 0.0 0,0 O.0 YELLOW 4,O 4.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE BRP, V/C B/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APR. LOS EB L 0,087 0,Z9B l7.3 C �3.3 B T 0.345 0,2qB 1 6, 7 C R 0.274 .456 9.9 B W8 L �.729 0.�9B 26,3 D 21.5 C TR 0.214 0.29B 15,3 C NB L 0.437 Q.158 26.8 D 11.7 B T 0.223 0.473 8.9 B R 0.054 0.47B 9.1 B So L 0,770 D.l58 36'3 D 16.9 C T 0,B52 0.479 15'2 � R O.047 0.479 -------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- INTERSECT TON: Delay = 16.2 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.799 LOB = C �� S'I'R( 'XAlt- ItOSCOE- I''AUSCII, INC. CONSUE.I'ING ENGINEERS COMM NO SHE�EQT � OF PROJECT NAME_ BY DATE'L COMPUTATIONS FOR - Z0 10 � ��.J1 F- I `7.� CHND.BY DATE PLANNING g ( IDY NING APPLICATION � WORKSHEET �� G{ PLANNING APPLICATION WORKSHEET Intersection: �;Rr p t .�y, � (� l ' L — Date: 4- C - ICJ In f6f 1c Date: ` Analyst: - �" "� `� / `�, h-• f 1 Time Period Analyzed: kA ff h �� Rn � Analyst: Ys Time Period Analyzed: •- Project No City /State: t . Project No City /State: SO TOTAL N -S STREET SBTOTAL N -S STREEF - c,,o WBIOTAL I Wit TOTAL I i J�r'1 F1 T T T (oq'(�a A.V. E -K' STREET l / �K' STREET 'tlP ® Ib6 ► �� -� I r-?° 53.. J o0 3b5-, (r- 325 ED TOTAL Ell TOTAL 335 N451 I� 2ZZb NB TOTAL NO TOTAL Ell LT - NB LT - MAXIMUM Ell IT NB IT WBTH - �� SBTH - �1��L SUM OF CRITICAL CAPACITY VOLUMES LEVEL gTH W Q(� SUM OF CRITICAL CAPACITY MAXIMUM 'n � 2 ✓ 5B Tit - 1 0 0 L �D _ :J� � VOLUMES LEVEL ' WB IT - - SEI LT 0 TO 1,200 UKUER Wg LT SB LT _Lq 1_ 0701,100 Ut -UER Ell TH - I (6 OR NB TH - 1 ✓J 1,201 to 1,100 NEAR f OR EB TH s 2 Ng TH � ✓� 1,201 to 1,100 NrAK { (/ > 1,100 OVER (fit j�/ > 1A00 f OVER `#I_GL_ —� -- i — � 1dL —.J ` - - -- STATUS? 161 1), -;2J— + — —ALL__ _ �:__�� - E -W CRITICAL STATUS? N -S CRITICAL E -W CRITICAL N -S CRITICAL CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5/10/93 Agenda Item Number Ci REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO BROOKLYN BOULEVARD DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp; ector of Kul6iic Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes • As referenced in the memo regarding SRF's draft transportation study report, staff recommends that the City contract with SRF to prepare a conceptual layout plan for Brooklyn Boulevard from 65th Avenue to the north City limits, and for 69th Avenue between Major Avenue and Indiana Avenue. Such conceptual layout plan would graphically depict SRF's recommendations as described in their report and the consensus for future improvements to this section of Brooklyn Boulevard which has been developed between City staff and Hennepin County during the process of SRF's study and the Brooklyn Boulevard study by Dahlgren Shardlow and Uban (DSU). The proposed conceptual layout plan would be developed on a base map made available to the City by Hennepin County. That base map has been developed from current aerial photographs of the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor which accurately depict all roadway information and private properties and facilities within 250 feet of Brooklyn Boulevard. HCDOT has agreed to make these base maps available to the City and consultant in DXF (computer) format. The proposed layout plan would show the following elements in a graphic format which can easily be understood: • proposed roadway configuration, i.e. through lanes, turn lanes, medians, islands, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, transit facilities, boulevards, etc. • access provisions and /or restrictions, i.e. - driveways, service drives, median openings, etc. ■ right -of -way needs so as to define the future property line which new development plans should be based on The reason for proceeding with the development of this proposed layout plan on a fast -track basis include the following: • • During development of the two studies (i.e. - SRF's Transportation Study and DSU's Brooklyn Boulevard Study) we have had excellent cooperation from, and developed a working rapport, with HCDOT staff. Accordingly, we believe the City is now is excellent position to develop a conceptual plan and obtain HCDOT concurrence and approval of the elements of that plan which most directly affect property owners' and the City's ability to accomplish redevelopment goals as defined by the two studies. • HCDOT has advised us that they intend to submit an application for ISTEA /STP funding for reconstruction of this portion of Brooklyn Boulevard this fall. Approval of that application could make funding for such a reconstruction project available as early as 1995. • The parcel of property which probably "holds the key" to redevelopment opportunities in the northeast quadrant of the Brooklyn Boulevard /69th Avenue intersection is now being actively marketed. For the City (staff, Planning Commission, City Council and EDA) to react meaningfully to any private redevelopment plans for this parcel, it is very important to have a plan which reflects the consensus of the City and HCDOT, to relate to such development plans. • The proposed "streetscape amenities study" (see next item on agenda) will need to be based on a firm plan for future roadway improvements. The proposed layout plan will provide that base. • With the availability of this plan and development of the streetscape • amenities study, the City will be in excellent position to submit an ISTEA /Enhancements grant application. As a "sister" to HCDOT's ISTEA /STP grant application, these two applications will be mutually supportive and complimentary, thereby increasing each application's chances for receiving grant approval. Because the preparation of this conceptual plan layout is so dependent on the information and relationships developed between HCDOT, SRF and City staff, it is recommended that the City Council declare SRF to be a "sole source" provider for this professional service. Staff has reviewed SRF's proposal copy attached and we believe that their cost estimate of $6800 is fair and reasonable. It is recommended that funding for this study be appropriated from the "local" Municipal State Aide street account. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION • Review... • Discuss... • A resolution accepting SRF's proposal is provided for consideration by the City Council. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FROM STRGAR- ROSCOE- FAUSCH INC. TO PREPARE A CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO BROOKLYN BOULEVARD BETWEEN 65TH AVENUE AND THE NORTH CITY LIMITS, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFORE WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study has recently been completed, providing recommendations for a comprehensive improvement program for the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor through Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, the City Council has also received and reviewed a draft copy of the North Brooklyn Center Transportation Study as prepared by Strgar- Roscoe- Fausch Inc. (SRF) in accordance with authorization granted on July 13, 1992; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that it is necessary and beneficial to the City of Brooklyn Center that a layout plan be developed to graphically illustrate the essential elements of a plan for future improvements to Brooklyn Boulevard between 65th Avenue and the north corporate limits so as to maximize and coordinate opportunities for proper redevelopment within this segment of the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor by private developers, by the Hennepin County Department of Transportation ( HCDOT) and by the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has advised the City Council that, in his opinion, the firm of SRF is the only firm which at this time can provide the continuity of information and professional relationships between the City and HCDOT which is needed to assure the successful development of a plan which is mutually acceptable to the City and to HCDOT; and WHEREAS, SRF has submitted a proposal to prepare a conceptual layout plan at an estimated cost of $6800, and the Director of Public Works and City Manager have advised the Council that, in their opinion, this is a fair and reasonable cost. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. SRF is determined to be a "sole source" provider of these professional services, in compliance with the policy for procurement of professional services as approved by the City Council on August 12, 1991. RESOLUTION NO. 2. The proposal submitted by SRF is hereby accepted. 3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into agreement with SRF to develop the layout plan in accordance with their proposal, with the provision that the cost for said study shall not exceed $6800 without subsequent authorization. 4. All costs for preparation of this plan shall be charged to Municipal State Aid Account No. 2911. The amount of $6800 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. STRGAR- ROSCOE- FAUSCH, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS & PLANNERS TRANSPORTATION ■ CIVIL ■ STRUCTURAL ■ ENVIRONMENTAL ■ PARKING SRF No. 0921709 April 30, 1993 Mr. Sy Knapp, P.E. Director of Public Works CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 RE: BROOKLYN BOULEVARD GEOMETRIC DRAWING Dear Sy: Based on our conversation of March 22, 1993, we are pleased to submit this estimate of cost to prepare a final concept drawing of the recommended improvements for Brooklyn Boulevard between 65th Avenue and north city limits, and on 69th Avenue between Major Avenue and Indiana Avenue. This drawing will be used for discussion purposes with Mn /DOT and Hennepin County and with business and resident groups. The following work ork will be completed: 1. Collect data including half- sections and right -of -way plans. 2. Prepare acetate overlay on aerial photographs using previously developed geometrics. 3. Include the following geometrics in the overlay: • lane configuration • median /islands • median openings • driveway locations and possible access drive or service road configuration • existing right -of -way line and additional right -of -way required on east side • intersection approaches between 65th Avenue and north city limits 4. Annotate overlay as necessary: • recommendation for signal revisions • driveway access restrictions • changes in intersection geometrics Suite 150, One Carlson Parkway North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 554474443 (612) 475 -0010 FAX (612) 475 -2429 Mr. Sy Knapp, P.E. -2- April 30, 1993 We understand that the County will furnish a digitized planimetric map for use with the acetate overlay. The scale will be 1 inch = 50 feet. It is understood that the concepts shown on the plan must receive approval by Hennepin County prior to public presentation. The cost estimate for this work is $6,800. This estimate assumes a total of three meetings, but does not assume revisions or changes after the product is completed. We will complete this drawing within three weeks of authorization to proceed. We believe this scoped -down version of the layout will be suitable for discussing the project with affected agencies and groups. Please let us know if we need to provide any additional information. Sincerely, STRGAR- ROSCOE- FAUSCH, INC. Ferrol O. R binson Approved by City Council Resolution Principal Igo. on 1993. Accepted for City of Brooklyn Center FOR:bba b City Manager and by Mayor CITY OF BROOKLYN CEN'T'ER Council Meeting Date May 10, 1993 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: BROOKLYN BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT REPORT DEPT. APPROVAL: d A rY Brad Hoffman, IM-rector of Community Development MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUABIARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )Les As an expression of the City's desire to help facilitate the redevelopment along Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center commissioned a study by Dahlgren, Shardlow and Urban, Inc. (DSU). The intent of the study was to identify impediments to redevelopment (City zoning, finance, etc.), create a unique identity that is Brooklyn Boulevard, improve the overall appearance and maintenance of the Boulevard and help define specific roles the City /EDA could play in that process. At the February, 1993 Council meeting, the City accepted the report from DSU. In turn, the Council has asked staff to report back to them on procedures for the implementation of the study's recommendations. The study has listed eight (8) areas that need to be addressed in one manner or another. As one would expect, the 8 areas, while separately listed and addressed in the study, are interrelated and do not lend themselves to an orderly sequential process whereby we address each item one at a time until the process has been completed. As a result, staff will be recommending four (4) specific actions the Council should initiate to start the implementation process. The study's recommended steps include the following: 1. Adopt the Brooklyn Boulevard Study as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; • 2. Revise the Zoning Ordinance; 3. Communicate with Hennepin County; 4. Communicate with Brookdale; 5. Communicate with the MTC; 6. Proceed with Boulevard development; 40 7. Establish an oversight process; 8. Promote the vision for Brooklyn Boulevard. In essence, the initial steps and indeed in some ways most important are to establish a more detailed design criteria, formalize the design criteria that carries forward the goals and objectives of the study through ordinance adoptions and /or amendments, make other interested parties (governmental agencies and Brookdale) aware of Brooklyn Center's plans and indeed involve them in the planning process and, finally, while redevelopment will be a dynamic process, establish a review or oversight process that monitors the implementation of the study and brings balance to the ever present conflicting needs found in every development process. __ It is recommended that the City take, the following steps to establish and implement the proposed redevelopment objective set forth in the study. It would also be the intent that these steps would be completed by the year's end. It should be noted that this process will be further complicated__ by the continued requests to develop specific sites along the Boulevard.. First, Monday evening the Council will receive the Strgar, Roscoe Fausch (SRF) report from the Director of Public Works. SRF has been conducting a traffic analysis of Brooklyn Boulevard. The study is a basis upon which the City should seek roadway improvements along the Boulevard. Hennepin County has been very much involved in this process. Indeed Hennepin County will be seeking ISTEA funds this year for a Brooklyn Boulevard project. Before Brooklyn Center can start • developing a detailed plan for lighting, corner treatments, sidewalks, curb cuts, plantings, setbacks or anything else, it would seem prudent to know things such as future roadway widths, islands, turning lanes and so forth. It would be our recommendation that the City have SRF develop a layout map (see Sy Knapp memo) of the Brooklyn Boulevard roadway improvements. This is an important piece because all other developments or design criteria would be based upon the extent and location such roadway improvements happen (i.e. will Brooklyn Boulevard be widened or not? Will there be an island at a particular location ?) Second, Monday evening the Council will be given a resolution approving an RFP and authorize its publication. The RFP is to develop a more specific detailed design criteria for public right of ways as well as for developments seeking public assistance. The study refers to local materials. The City needs to define the same. We need to develop criteria by which the City can assess development proposals. While the study calls for landscaping and lighting themes and entry node areas, the RFP would develop specific plans such as the types of trees and numbers, the design and location of walkways, sign packages and so forth. The RFP would result in a very specific plan for the Boulevard and would help establish criteria by which the City would write its ordinances and Comprehensive Plan amendments. Attached is a draft of an RFP for Council consideration. If it meets with Council /EDA approval, the process of selecting the appropriate design plan should begin. It would be our recommendation that the plan, as developed under the RFP, be used to apply for ISTEA funds (streetscape) in conjunction with Hennepin County's application and the ISTEA application for the park and ride on 65th and the Boulevard. To a larger degree, the City's ability to implement the desired changes depends upon funding sources and opportunities. While an area of the Boulevard may be deemed our first priority, opportunity might dictate a project elsewhere. Currently, there seems to be some opportunities between 65th and 70th, hence the proposal for the ISTEA application. In response to the RFP, the proposal would be sent to the following: 1. Westwood Planning 2. Dahlgren, Shardlow and Urban 3. Derek Young, Inc. 4. Barton- Aschman Association • 5. BRW, Inc. Based upon a review of the proposals received, 2 or 3 will be chosen for an interview process . Funding for this project would come from the EDA contingency fund. I would estimate this study to cost about $25,000. Third, it is recommended that the Planning Commission function as the body monitoring the application of the principals of the DSU study. The Council should direct the Planning Commission to review the recommendations of the DSU study and start the formal process of amending or changing our ordinances and Comprehensive Plan as may be necessary (see attached memo from Planning Specialist Ron Warren). While the study recommends a number of ordinance changes, I concur with Ron Warren that it would be better and probably easier to develop an overlay ordinance along Brooklyn Boulevard. If the current zoning laws were left in place (we know it is difficult to redevelop under them) with a more flexible ordinance in place over them that allowed the City to negotiate a variety of things such as setbacks and so forth, it should prove easier to implement the City's desired design criteria. The Council should direct the Planning - -- Commission to consider both approaches. As a timing issue, much of the work called for in the RFP will or should be used in the development of our ordinance. In essence, the two actions should parallel each other in time. Fourth, the economic impact of Brookdale on Brooklyn Center and the surrounding area is immense. It is the dominant single retail center in northwest Hennepin. Because of the influence of the center, all of Brooklyn Center's attempts to redevelop Brooklyn Boulevard and indeed much of the City will hinge on the future of the center. One of the major impediments to any redevelopment of Brookdale and the surrounding area is the new storm water ponding requirements. Currently, staff is completing an RFP for a feasibility study to pond storm water runoff in Minneapolis. Obviously, we have been coordinating with Minneapolis. The site would be adjacent to Centerbrook Golf Course on the south side. Hopefully, Brooklyn Center should have an answer to this question /problem later this year. The ability to pond storm water off site will make redevelopment much easier. Because of the importance of this single development, it is proposed that a small task force be established: The objective of the task force would be to seek a major renovation and expansion of Brookdale. Because of the regional nature of the center, the task force should include several legislators, not limited to just Brooklyn Center representatives. I would also recommend having a representative from Brookdale management. If it is going to require a financial incentive package (note that Southdale and Rosedale did not), the task force would be extremely valuable because in all probability Brooklyn Center will have to seek special legislation, and our area representatives would have a leg up on the problem. It would be the charge of the task force to develop a common coordinated approach to seek the redevelopment of Brookdale. Finally, a number of potential projects could occur yet this year. Brookdale Chrysler would like to expand. The DSU study would simply amend the ordinance so that the use would be nonconforming. While that may be appropriate, it would not allow the City the kind of latitude to obtain the type of redevelopment called for in the DSU. Also, a number of developers have been in contact with the Community Development department about the northeast corner of 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard. I believe any development on that corner will take some time to occur, but it could also come quite fast and impact the process as the City develops its design criteria. Monday evening I will be available to discuss each of these issues in greater detail. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION • 1. Authorize a Brooklyn Boulevard base map be drawn by SRF. 2. Pass the resolution accepting the RFP. 3. Direct the Planning Commission to undertake Comprehensive Plan review and related ordinance changes. 4. Discuss and direct staff regarding establishment of a Brookdale task force. • • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS STREETSCAPE AMENITIES STUDY FOR BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has accepted the Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Urban (DSU) Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center desired to implement the recommendations of the DSU Study which calls for the development of a Streetscape /Design plan for the Boulevard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Brooklyn Center does approve the attached RFP and directs staff to solicit proposals for the development of a Streetscape /Design criteria plan for Brooklyn Boulevard. 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. MEMORANDUM TO: Brad Hoffman, Director of Community Developme FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist DATE: April 15, 1993 SUBJECT: Implementation of the Brooklyn Boulevard Study You have requested me to provide you with a list of items that will need to be accomplished to implement the recommendations made by DSU in their Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study. Their first recommendation is to adopt the Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study as an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Section 35 -202 of the Zoning Ordinance (copy attached) establishes the procedure for adopting Comprehensive Plan Amendments and requires the Planning Commission to hold at least one public hearing to consider a proposed amendment. As a matter of practice, the Planning Commission also refers all Comprehensive Plan Amendments (as well as rezonings) to the respective neighborhood advisory groups for review and comment prior to making a recommendation to the City Council on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The zoning ordinance also requires that notice of the Planning Commission's public hearing be published in the official newspaper at least 10 days prior to the hearing and copies of the proposed amendment be transmitted to the City Council prior to the publication of that notice. Following the review and recommendation by the Planning Commission, the City Council may then adopt or reject the proposed amendment by resolution. To approve a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the City Council must accept the resolution by a two - thirds vote. All Comprehensive Plan Amendments are also required to be reviewed by the Metropolitan Council regarding the regional significance of the proposed amendment prior to adoption of said amendment by the City Council. I do not believe this proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment has "metropolitan significance" and we should be able to accomplish the Metropolitan Council review between the time the Planning Commission might make a recommendation and the City Council might consider adopting such an amendment. As part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process, we would also need to verify that the land use recommendations of the new Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study are consistent with the Land Use Revisions map in the Comprehensive Plan. One change which would have to be accomplished in order to be consistent with the DSU recommendations would be to change the recommended land use for the Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth property from Service /Office to Commercial Retail. Also, to be consistent with the new Brooklyn Boulevard Study we would need to expand the Commercial Retail designation of land currently bounded by Brooklyn Boulevard on the west, 63rd Avenue on the north, 62nd Avenue on the south and Chowen Avenue on the east to Beard Avenue on the east. Referral of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment should be jointly to the Central, West Central and Northwest neighborhood advisory groups. Such a Comprehensive Plan review would take at least 60 days for Planning Commission review, including neighborhood advisory group comments, before the matter could be on the City Council agenda. DSU's implementation plan also proposes various ordinance amendments and reviews listed on page 52 of their study. These include developing performance standards for C -1 and C -2 abutment with residential areas with an eye on eliminating the prohibition of certain special uses in the C -2 zone, such as gasoline service stations, motor vehicle repair, car washes and convenience food restaurants, from abutting residential property either at a property line or a street line. The recommendation also refers to developing landscape requirements and guidelines in the boulevard area; sign regulations; minimum lot sizes for C -1 and C -2 development; and review of Brooklyn Boulevard parking requirements. Furthermore, the DSU recommendations propose rezoning Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth as a conforming use and rezoning existing uses in designated redevelopment areas. If the Comprehensive Plan is amended regarding the future designated use of the Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth property to Commercial Retail (as mentioned above) and the zoning ordinance is amended to allow motor vehicle repair to abut residential property under certain circumstances, then the Brookdale Chrysler property will not need to be rezoned because it will be a comforming use, of the property. Also, I believe the Planning Commission and City Council should take a serious look at the desirability of rezoning the designated redevelopment areas to create nonconforming uses prior to a redevelopment proposal or package coming forward as recommended by DSU in point f on page 52. The City has had some bad experiences attempting to deal with nonconforming uses created through rezonings before redevelopment is ready to proceed. The review of minimum lot sizes, particularly the C -1 (Service /Office) minimum requirements of 150' of frontage and one acre minimum lots along major thoroughfares, is also very critical. C -2 developments are required to have minimum lot widths of 100'. These ordinance provisions stem from our current Comprehensive Plan. One thought that has been discussed is to consider a Brooklyn Boulevard overlay ordinance that would incorporate the recommendations into an ordinance that would only affect the Brooklyn Boulevard area. Some of the provisions of such an ordinance are outlined on pages 50 and 51 of the study. We will need to decide on the course of action to be taken regarding the property abutment issue and commercial district minimum lot requirements as to whether these issues should be City wide or confined only to the Brooklyn Boulevard area. Such ordinance amendments will need to be formally reviewed with public hearings by the Planning Commission prior to consideration for adoption by the City Council. The DSU recommendations on page 53, including communication with Hennepin County, with Brookdale and with the Metropolitan Transit Commission will need to proceed. With respect to proceeding with development proposals, the Phillip 66 site has been addressed. Some Memorandum - orandum 4 15 93 2 immediate pressure for an ordinance amendment regarding property line abutment restrictions because of a potential redevelopment at 63rd and Brooklyn Boulevard has subsided with a decision by the potential developer not to proceed. This, however could change rather quickly if another developer steps forward with plans. Regarding options for an oversight process as noted by the consultants, I'd recommend the Planning Commission be the primary mechanism for monitoring the application and implementation of the study. Obviously the staff and the City Council will be heavily involved in the review process for redevelopment proposals as well. I hope this memo adequately addresses the information you have requested. If you need additional input or care to discuss this further, please contact me. Memorandum 4 -15 -93 3 35 -111 4 . If a nonconforming use occupies a building and ceases for a continuous period of two years, any subsequent use of said building shall be in conformity to the use regulation specified by this ordinance for the district in which such building is located. 5. Any nonconforming use shall not be continued following 50% destruction of the building in which it was conducted by flood, fire, wind, earthquake, or explosion, according to the estimate of the Building Inspector, approved by the City Council. 6. Upon the effective date of this ordinance, where there is a nonconforming use of land on a parcel with no structure or where there is a nonconforming use of land (such as storage of equipment and supplies), on which there is a conforming structure such use shall be terminated within two years following the effective date of this ordinance. Section 35 -201 PLANNING COMMISSION. A Planning Commission of — seven - members is hereby established and continued as a planning agency advisory to the City Council. The Planning Commission shall have the powers and duties conferred upon it by statute, charter, ordinance or resolution. The Planning Commission shall serve as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for the purpose of considering variances and appeals. Section 35 -202. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING. 1. Comprehensive Planning. The City Council hereby undertakes to carry on comprehensive study and planning as a continuing guide for land use and development legislation within the municipality. For this purpose the City Council has adopted, by Resolution No. 82 -255, a Comprehensive Guide Plan for the City of Brooklyn Center, and designates an advisory planning agency by Section 35 -201 to aid in such planning. The Planning Commission shall, from time to time, upon its own motion or upon direction of the City Council, review the Comprehensive Plan and by a majority vote of all members of the Planning Commission recommend appropriate amendments to the City Council. Before recommending any such amendments to the City Council, the Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing to consider the proposed amendment. The Secretary to the Planning Commission shall publish notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing once in the official newspaper of the municipality at least ten (10) days before the date of the hearing. Furthermore, the Secretary shall transmit copies of the proposed amendment to the City Council prior to the publication of the notice of hearing. Following the review and recommendation by the Planning Commission, the City Council shall consider the proposed amendment and may, by resolution of two - thirds of its members, amend the Comprehensive Plan. 35 -202 2. Coordination with Other Agencies. In the performance of its planning activities, the Planning Commission shall consult with and coordinate the planning activities of other departments and agencies of the municipality to insure conformity with and to assist in a development of the comprehensive municipal plan. Furthermore, the Planning Commission shall take due cognizance of the planning activities of adjacent units of government and other affected public agencies. Section 35 -208 REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. 1. Purpose The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the comprehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaluation of periodic proposed changes to this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution No. 77- 167, the City Council has established a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. 2. Policv It is the policy of the City that: a) zoning classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and b) rezoning proposals shall not constitute "spot zoning ", defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner, and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles. i May 1993 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS STREETSCAPE AMENITIES STUDY BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, BROOKLYN CENTER, MN PURPOSE The City of Brooklyn Center recently completed a study for the redevelopment of Brooklyn Boulevard. — ,A. _ significant amount of the recommendations included in that report related to site oriented theme development within the corridor. In order to affect theme development, the City is soliciting for proposals to: 1) elaborate on theme alternatives; 2) identify the character of accepted theme elements to a level of refinement to clearly assist in public and private development and redevelopment; and 3) to focus on detail solutions and cost estimates for implementation on selected areas. Tlcsc end products become components of a late 1993 grant application. PROJECT AREA The study area for this project shall be along Brooklyn Boulevard from the north Brooklyn Center City limits to just south of the Brooklyn Boulevard access loops tolfrom Highway 100. SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work for the selected consultant shall include the following generalized task areas. PHASE 1 I. Review the recommendations included in the recently completed "The Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study" by Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban, Inc. and the traffic analysis by Strgar, Roscoe Fausch (S.R.F.) soon to be completed, and the geometric concepts for Brooklyn Boulevard curbs and lanes, and the plans for a stormwater pond and park -and -ride facility also by S.R.F. Comment on the implementation issues of the plan as now recorded there. 2. Summarize the vernacular of the public streetscape theme recommendations from the study. Streetscape theme elements should include as a minimum: a. Use and type of signage b. Use of plantings in the right - of-way (generalized specie selection) e. Use and type of street furniture d. Use and type of "theme" lighting. ,, IREETSCAPE AMENITIES STUDY BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, BROOKLYN CENTER PAGE 2 e. Use and type of special paving or retaining wall materials. f. Other (buffering, fences, berms, etc.) 3. Develop the vernacular of private development recommendations that Nvill include site and exterior architectural materials. 4. Identify additional theme elements as appropriate. 5. Develop case studies of how other cities are implementing design criteria as identified in the plan. The selected case studies should include "after" comments on the effectiveness of the techniques. Possible alternatives for study should include P.U.D., Overlay zoning districts, design review committees, other, etc. PHASE R 6. Work with the Community Development Department in drafting development parameters for the redevelopment of both the northeast and southeast quadrants of 69th Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard. These parameters shall elaborate on the required site features for projects which are consistent with the "plan" (as summarized in Phase I work) and identify the nature of planned city and county improvements in the corridor. These parameters shall be utilized by the Community Development Department as supplemental guidelines in soliciting redevelopment proposals for the EDA from potential developers. PHASE IN AND IV 7. Develop Master Plan for how theme elements are applied to the corridor, the following features should be considered, a. t` ratewaylarrival effects (I -44 and Highway 100) - groundform sculpting - plantings - special features (signs, fountains, pools, lighting, etc.) - integrate to existing and planned access ramps and roads b. Stroctscape planning - street furnishings and amenities width of roadways and boulevards - width of walks/bikeway interrelationship of plantings and buffering e. Two special node areas: - 63rd Avenue - 58th Avenue to Highway 100 STREETSCAPE AMENITIES STUDY BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, BROOKLYN CENTER PAGE 3 8. Plan Development The City, with the Hennepin County Department of Transportation shall be developing a geometric layout for roadway improvements from 64th Avenue to the north city limits. 'These plans shall illustrate the improvement$ which will be the project of an application for iSTEA/STP grant funding. a. This area shall be evaluated and schematic solutions prepared using the elements and features (from Tasks 2, 3, and 4). This shall be an advancement of clarity and detail beyond what exists in the current plan. It shall include the following information: - Graphic identification of construction 'stems - Quantification of construction units - Cost estimate for construction items b. The Consultant shall assist the City in preparation of an application for an ISTEA/Enhancement application to be submitted as supplemental and complementary to Hennepin County's application for funding on the Brooklyn Boulevard project. END PRODUCTS The consultant shall provide at Ieast the following: 1. Meetings with Staff" a. Staff (periodically) b. Council at the end of each Phase c. Other 2. 50 copies of the final report 3. Reports shall include. graphics as necessary for use in the report and for public presentations. BASE MAPPING PROVIDED BY THE CITY Recent aerial photography of Brooklyn Boulevard is currently being digitized by Hennepin County for use on this project. The area from 65th Avenue to the north City limits will be ready at the time of project initiation. The balance (south of 65th Avenue) will be available approximately August 1, 1993. This material shall be made available in both a DXF file and a hard copy. l i�cc 11A-:A It Ati].k: NI'l'WS SI'UDX BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, BROOKLYN CENTER PAGE 4 TIMING I. Proposals are due by June 1, 1993 at 4:30 P .m. 2. Council will act on proposals rune 14, 1993 3. Phase I Study - Scope of Work Tasks 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 complete by September 13, 1993 4. Phase II Study - Scope of Work Task 6 (69th Avenue area only) complete by September 24, 1993 5. Phase III Study - Scope of Work Task 7, 64th Avenue to north city limit recommendations completed by November 18, 1993 6. Phase IV Study - Scope of Work Task 3 complete by December 17, 1993 7. Review Ice Tea Crant Application by Dcc=ber 17, 1993 SUBMISSION Potential planning consultants should submit 3 copies of their proposal to: Mr. Brad Hoffman, Community Development Director, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430. Proposals should restate their approach to the scope of work, identify eam members qualify fY , q ify the team members and firm, identify fees on an estimated basis. ldcntifv hour commi tments and fee to the various e - ta Provide an hourly ate for non-spec Y £�c cxt pee ra services and a specific cost per event for presentations of plans beyond the two identified_ The i C tv reserves the ri t to delete task areas. - � eas. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5/10/93 Agenda Item Number e i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: PRELIMINARY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP), 1994 -1998 DEPT. APPROVAL:�� r Sy Knapp, ctor ofKblic Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Attached is a preliminary version of the 1994 -1998 CIP. This preliminary version • includes a listing of projects submitted by staff. The Council had requested an opportunity to review and comment on the preliminary CIP before it went to the Commissions for their review and input. It should be emphasized that it is very early in the CIP process. Much prioritizing and information gathering is yet needed. Many of the ideas listed in this preliminary CIP are listed for discussion; the inclusion of a project or an idea does not necessarily mean a project will be recommended for inclusion in the final version. In accordance with the City Council's direction at your work session with the Financial Commission on 5/3/93, a process will be developed and incorporated which provides an opportunity for the City Council to develop and adopt policies which will be used in evaluating and prioritizing proposed improvements. As also discussed at that work session, we will also attempt to restructure the CIP to focus more on program development than on the traditional line -item budgeting process. Major items listed in the CIP for which no cost estimates are yet shown are: park shelter building repair /replacement and playground equipment replacement (both items are being reviewed in detail by the Park and Recreation Commission) and ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act) Compliance. The ADA Compliance Committee is actively collecting information, and should have more detail by the time the Council again addresses the CIP. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Review and discuss. TABLE 1 - Capital Improvement Prog - Summary by Fu tional Area "Where The Funds Would Be Spent" f71� 4 05-Ma ....:...... >:.::::::. J:.:::::::.:;: ::::::...................... 9:...:::::::.::::..:::::..::::::::.:............................... 99T...: ............................�.. 8................. ...........1:g9.2b3............ PUBLIC UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS: Water Utility Capital Projects 389,000 551,000 3,747,000 469,000 244,000 2,536,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility Capital Projects 1,056,000 1,355,000 355,000 455,000 356,000 1,900,000 Storm Drainage Utility Capital Projects 874,000 2,549,000 569,000 1 569,000 1 569,000 2 SUBTOTAL $2,319,000 $4,455,000 $4,671,000 $1,493,000 $1,169,000 $7,281,000 SIDEWALK/TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS: Off - Street Trails 125,000 330,000 80,000 0 0 150,000 On- Street Trails 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 Sidewalks 90,000 0 62,000 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL $225,000 $340,000 $152,000 $10,000 $10,000 $200,000 PARK IMPROVEMENTS $970,550 $560,500 $628,000 $0 T$O $0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $400,000 $650,000 $1,400,000 $950,000 $1,100,000 $6,850,000 PUBLIC BUILDINGS $1,633,800 $9,698,000 $450,000 7$0 $ $$0 STREET IMPROVEMENTS: Sealcoating 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 700,000 Signals 275,000 0 150,000 0 0 0 Regular MSA Account #2613 Street Projec 1,100,000 2,286,000 349,000 582,000 642,000 2,638,000 Other Street Projects 1,930,000 1,930,000 1,930,000 1,930,000 1,930,000 9,650,000 Landscaping 170,000 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL $3,615,000 $4,356,000 $2,569,000 $2,652,000 $2,712,000 $12,988,000 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT: Data Processing 374,000 253,800 190,000 120,000 80,000 150,000 Other Equipment 189,000 55,900 4,500 711,000 6,000 0 City Vehicles 755,950 660,930 494,500 510,000 571,000 1,619,920 SUBTOTAL $1,318,950 $970,630 $689,000 $1,341,000 $657,000 $1,769,920 GRAND TOTAL $10,482,300 $21,030,130 $10,559,000 $6,446,000 $5,648,000 $29,088,920 TABLE 2 - Capital Improvemerogram - Summary F d "Where the Funds Would Come From" ? r . .. -93 >> >'< > ><:: > > >? > ` > > > »> : > > < >?> > >::: 8 .:::::::::::::::..:::::::::.::::..::::........................... .............................:: ..........:.:..::::::.:::: ::..::::::::::::::::::::::.1.99 .. ...3......... Y ::.:..::.:::.::::.:::::::::::.:.::::::::::::::::::: ::.:::.;:.:::::::.:::;......... 05 -Ma WATER UTILITY $486,000 $716,000 $3,903,500 $573,000 $266,000 $2,677,000 SANITARY SEWER UTILITY $1,141,500 $1,448,000 $482,500 $504,000 $358,000 $2,021,000 STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY $1,267,500 $2,729,000 $614,000 $713,200 $601,000 $3,045,000 MSA- REGULAR ACCOUNT #1496 $404,000 $1,527,000 $188,000 $336,000 $514,000 $1,654,000 MSA - LOCAL ACCOUNT #2911 $451,000 $490,000 $320,000 $20,000 $41,000 $72,000 MSA - LOCAL ACCOUNT #2900 $120,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND $2,130,000 $0 $225,000 $700,000 $0 $0 EDA LEVY $229,900 $319,000 $262,500 $337,500 $325,000 $1,825,000 CDBG FUNDS $180,000 $205,000 $205,000 $230,000 $230,000 $1,250,000 GOLF COURSE FUND $0 $15,500 $74,500 $0 $0 $0 LIQUOR STORE FUND $55,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 OTHER FUNDS $466,000 $430,900 $1,067,000 $573,500 $681,000 $4,425,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS $1,260,000 $11,306,500 $1,860,000 $1,260,000 $1,260,000 $6,300,000 GENERAL FUND $1,336,400 $1,022,230 $752,000 $540,800 $791,000 $2,430,920 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS $715,000 $821,000 $605,000 $658,000 $581,000 $3,389,000 OTHER GOVERNMENTS $240,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 GRAND TOTAL $10,482,300 $21,030,130 $10,559,000 $6,446,000 $5,648,000 $29,088,920 *ABLE A - Capital Improvement Program detail of Capital Outla h k 4 � 7 y Water Utility Capital Improvements .x� 141 1 w L s l Y S 4 05-May-93 > > >: '`' ' '`«' "'> >' > > : >.,. >. :..> i > i > >> :. >.::. >.,.: > > »> >> : >.. i > > <> ; .: ;.::, ..::..:..... Y 4 .... .....:.::.::.::.:::'.� '119 "I 1::9..:Q;.; :........SU:Ffi±:.;::.;:.::.; EXPENDITURES: WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 69th Avenue, Shingle Creek Pkwy to Oliver 150,000 $0 All water utility 69th Avenue, Oliver to Dupont $150,000 Neighborhood Street Improvements 164,000 164,000 164,000 164,000 164,000 $820,000 WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM 2 MG Reservoir & Pumping Station 3,300,000 $0 Construct Well #11 $1,000,000 MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS Pave access drives, wells 9 &10 12,000 $0 New Electric Controls at Wells 5, 6, 7 90,000 $0 1694 & Dupont (South) 24" steel main 60,000 $0 Emergency tie -in to Brooklyn Park 225,000 $0 WATER TOWERS Paint Tower #1 $166,000 Paint Tower #2 150,000 $0 Paint Tower #3 158,000 $0 i MISCELLANEOUS $0 Routine Well Maintenance 50,000 50,000 50,000 55,000 55,000 $275,000 Cathodic Protection 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 $125,000 SCADA System Update 50,000 $0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $389,000 $551,000 1 $3,747,000 j $469,000 1 $244,000 1 $2,536,000 FUND SOURCES: Water Utility 389,000 551,000 3,747,000 469,000 244,000 $2,536,000 TOTAL $389,OOOT $551,000 $3,747,000 $469,000 $244,000 $2,536,000 TABLE B - Capital Improvement Program - Detail of Capital Outlays Sanitary Sewer Utility Capital Improvements 1 05-May-93 >::»::::>:::>: >:'! .0. 1.R E:.::::::: EXPENDITURES: All San Sewer Utility LIFT STATIONS Lift #1 Rehab, Replace Forcemain 600,000 $0 Replace Lifts 8 & 9 100,000 $120,000 SEWER REPLACEMENT: 53rd Avenue (By Brookdale 10 Apts) 32,000 $0 James Avenue (55th to the South) 70,000 $0 Trunk line, 69th Avenue to Lift Station #1 1,000,000 $0 Neighborhood Street Improvements 326,000 326,000 326,000 326,000 326,000 $1,630,000 MISCELLANEOUS Annual Televising Program 8,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 10,000 $50,000 1/1 Remediation Program 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 $100,000 i TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,056,000 $1,355,000 $355,000 $455,000 $356,000 $1,900,000 FUND SOURCES: Sanitary Sewer Utility 1,056,000 1,355,000 355,000 455,000 356,000 $1,900,000 TOTAL $1,056,000 $1,355,000 $355,000 $455,000 $356,000 $1,900,000 TABLE C - Capital Improvement6bgram - Detail of Capital Outlays Storm Drainage Utility Capital Improvements R x VIA,3, ry h ELI .. .. . ...... .... ........ ...... ... . ... X. ...... .. ...... ..... ... .. :XXiX .. ...... ....... ........ ......... . 9 $MID . .. .... ...... ....... ..... ....... . ........... ..... W 04-M-93 ay 9 ...... . All Storm Drainage EXPENDITURES: utility Repair or Replace Defective Sections of System 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 $400,000 Watershed Commission Capital Improvements 20,000 20,000 20,000 $100,000 Miscellaneous improvements 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 $125,000 Water Quality Improvement Projects 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 $500,000 Neighborhood Street Improvements 344,000 344,000 344,000 344,000 344,000 $1,720,000 Brooklyn Gateway Pond 325,000 $0 Brookdale Pond 2,000,000 $0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $874,000 $2,549,000 $569,000 $569,000 $569,000 $2,845,000 FUND SOURCES: Storm Drainage Utility 874,000 2,549,000 569,000 569,000 569,000 2,845,000 TOTAL $874,000 J$2,549,000 1 $569,000 1 $569,000 1 $569,000 1 $2,845,000 1 Note: More detail will be available on completion of the City's Local Water Management Plan. TABLE D - Capital Improvement &gram - Detail of Capital Outlays Sidewalk and Trail Improvements R E'L I a u N ARI ..... .. . . ...... .......... .... ........ .... .... .... ........ .. ... 4- - 0 M EXPENDITURES: OFF- STREET TRAIL: Brookdale Center Trail 300,000 $0 Local State Aid Hennepin Parks' Riverridge Trail 50,000 $0 Hennepin County NSP Easement Trail, Knox to Dupont 50,000 $0 Local State Aid Willow Lane, 1694 to West River Road 25,000 $0 Local State Aid Palmer Lake Dual Trail 80,000 $0 Local State Aid 69th Avenue, Shingle Creek Parkway to Oliver 30,000 $0 Local State Aid 69th Avenue, Oliver to TH252 $150,000 Local State Aid ON- STREET TRAIL: Marking and Signage 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 $50,000 Local State Aid SIDEWALK: Northway Drive 25,000 $0 Local State Aid 73rd Avenue, Humboldt to TH 252 35,000 $0 Local State Aid 55th Avenue, Lions Park to Logan 35,000 $0 Local State Aid 73rd Avenue, Humboldt to Penn 30,000 $0 Local State Aid 71st/72nd Avenues, Noble to Halifax 27,000 $0 Local State Aid TOTAL EXPENDITURES $225,000 $340,000 $152,000 $10,000 $10,000 $200,000 FUND SOURCES: State Aid - Local Accounts #2611/ #2600 175,000 340,000 152,000 10,000 10,000 200,000 General Fund 0 Other Governments 50,000 0 0 TOTAL $225,000 1 $340,000 $152,000 $10,000 110,000 1 $200,000 TABLE E - Capital Improvement Sgram - Detail of Capital Outlays Park Improvements "::::::::.: ::. ;:; ; ;:;::;:;::;:;:i;:" :>' . ... : `.....:•::.: ": ; :::::::i:::::::::::::;:::: >;..; :..;...> ...:::::::::r :::::::::i:::'>..:.. :: :.n: < { � is::i>:.> :..::..>...:...»::..::..>...:: ,:>;. a; c;i>i;;:,,:::.'.:.::::::..::... , . �..:..: .:...:....:....:;;:>:;;; Y........................................................................................................:...:..:::.:::::: :::::::::.::.:.::::::::: ........ EXPENDITURES: R epair ped bridges in parks 74,550 Replace Bleachers 28,000 28,000 $0 Acquisition of New Park Land 200,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Twin Lake /Preserve /Kylawn Improvements 400,000 $0 GO Park Bonds ADA: Trails & curb cuts $0 Local State Aid Brooklyn Gateway Park 800,000 $0 Cap Impr Fund, ISTEA INDIVIDUAL PARK IMPROVEMENTS Bellvue Shelter $0 Playground equipment $0 Enlarge parking lot $0 Brooklane Shelter $0 Central Playground equipment $0 Fix Ball Diamonds 20,000 $0 Evergreen Shelter $0 Playground equipment $0 Ball field lights 100,000 $0 Move hockey rink 40,000 $0 Storage buildings 10,000 $0 Satellite encl;osures 5,000 $0 Firehouse Shelter $0 Playground equipment $0 Trail lights 7,000 $0 TABLE E - Capital I m provement *gram - Detail of Capital Outlays Park Improvements �::::::: i::: : '.. : '......:::::.::....:.....:.::.:.::. �:......::::::... ::::.::......:........:........ :...:. ..................:......:..:.: .:.:..::..... ::....... ..... ... .... i:�iiiiii: i:' :.. :. ii:.iiiiif :�::•; i:.: iii' ::::.iiiii:.iiiii }i:.ii:: .. . �.,��.��.:::::::::::::::::: Freeway Trail lights 7,000 $0 Garden City Shelter $0 Playground equipment $0 Enlarge parking lot 30,000 $0 Grandview Shelter $0 Playground equipment $0 Move rink 12,000 $0 Ball field lights 100,000 $0 Trail lights 14,000 $0 Happy Hollow Shelter $0 Playground equipment $0 trail lights 7,000 $0 Kylawn Shelter $0 Playground equipment $0 Ball field lights 50,000 $0 Lions Shelter $0 Playground equipment $0 Marlin Playground equipment $0 Northport Shelter $0 Trail lights 7,000 $0 Storage buildings 10,000 $0 TABLE E - Capital Improvementgram - Detail of Capital Outlays Park Improvements Y Orchard Shelter $0 Playground equipment $0 Trail lights 7,000 $0 E Palmer Shelter $0 Playground equipment $0 Fix ball diamond $0 Trail lights 7,000 $0 W Palmer Shelter $0 Playground equipment $0 Storage buildings 10,000 $0 Trail lights 7,000 $0 Nature Area Shleter $0 Enlarge parking lot $0 Riverdale Shelter $0 Playtground equipment $0 Twin Beach Shelter $0 Playground equipment $0 Fishing pier 64,000 $0 Extend trail 7,500 $0 Wangstad Playground equipment $0 TABLE E - Capital Improvement &gram - Detail of Capital Outlays Park Improvements L L :::::::.t,..:::::::.99> .:::::.::::: :::9�7'..:::.:::::::::::::.1i�1 1.2#>.::.::::::::::.1CJIE ......: Y ................................................................... ............................... :::::::.::::::::.:::..::::::::......... ..............:................ Willow Lane Shelter $0 Playground equipment $0 Ball field lighting 50,000 $0 Tennis court 50,000 $0 Trail lights 7,000 $0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $970 ,550 $560,500 $628,000 $0 $0 $0 FUND SOURCES: Capital Projects Fund 730,000 0 General Fund 150,550 59,000 28,000 0 0 0 Other Funds 90,000 GO Bonds 501,500 600,000 0 0 0 TOTAL $970,550T $560,500 $628,000 $0 $0 0 TABLE F - Capital Improvement Ggram - Detail of Capital Outlays Public Building Improvements ' s c e : :::1: .::...:.. .... .. .. 05-May-93 :: »» > � .......... <<> > :::::: : ::: € : ::i > >> < ... >< < < >> : >:; > << .. ` .:.: <> :.> > > :.................... ��..................$:... .......::..�.'`2.::.:::::::.:.. :.: Y.:tCJ.;C1E.i. >::.;:.:. EXPENDITURES: CITY OFFICES OPTION 1: Comprehensive Approach Construct Public Safety Building 6,000,000 $0 GO Bonds Remodel existing City Hall space 1,000,000 $0 GO Bonds OPTION 2: Piecemeal approach Remodel Community Development offices 30,000 $0 Some combination of Remodel Finance Department reception ? $0 GO Bonds, Capital Projects Remodel Administration (Main) reception ? $0 Fund, General Fund Add 2 conference rooms ? $0 Remodel Engineering offices ? $0 Cage phone /MIS area in basement ? $0 Construct MIS Center ? $0 Expand Police into file storage room ? $0 Remodel Council Chambers ? $0 Replace HVAC system ? $0 Replace roof 110,000 $0 ADA Compliance ? $0 COMMUNITY CENTER Senior Center /Elevator 1,000,000 $0 GO Bonds Replace carpet 86,300 $0 General Fund Replace pool filter disks 12,300 $0 General Fund Ozonation system 37,800 $0 General Fund Renovate wading pool 46,000 $0 General Fund Insulate & replace brick facia ? $0 General Fund ADA Compliance ? $0 Capital Projects Fund TABLE F - Capital Improvement &gram - Detail of Capital Outlays Public Building Improvements .::..:::::::::::::::.:::::::.:...:.......................... .............:::::.:::::.:::::. X97'::.::::::::::::::: x.:.::;:.;::.::.;:.;. t. 2..... ........El.:5!E.U.R..!:._: Y .............::::::::::::::.:::::: :::::::.:::::::::::::: CITY GARAGE IMPROVEMENTS Functional improvements 650,000 $0 Capital Projects Fund Site improvements 200,000 $0 Capital Projects Fund ADA/Code compliance 550,000 $0 Capital Projects Fund Additional Storage 450,000 $0 Capital Proj, Utilities i FIRE STATIONS Remodel East Station 700,000 $0 '/ GO Bonds, '/ Capital Remodel West Station 375,000 $0 Projects Fund Replace East Station roof 70,000 $0 E & W station dumpster enclosures 10,000 $0 General Fund budget ADA Compliance ? $0 LIQUOR STORES Construct Liquor #3 400,000 $0 Bonds or internal borrowing, ADA Compliance ? repaid from profits HERITAGE CENTER ADA Compliance: Inn 22,750 $0 All EDA levy ADA Compliance: Commercial Space 11,700 $0 ADA Compliance: Convention Center 52,950 $0 Repair roof, Convention Center 27,000 $0 Replace carpet, dance floor, Conv Center 80,000 $0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1 $1,633,8001 $9,698,000 $450,000 $0 $0 $0 TABLE F - Capital Improvement *gram - Detail of Capital Outlays Public Building Improvements, py�� p jam` tM K4 ; X .0 N f FUND SOURCES: General fund 146,400 46,000 $0 Capital Projects 1,400,000 225,000 $0 Water Utility 112,500 $0 Sanitary Sewer Utility 112,500 $0 EDA levy 87,400 107,000 $0 GO Bonds 9,545,000 $0 TOTAL $1,633,8007 $9,698,000 1 $450,000 $0 $0 $0 - Capital Improvement Ogram - Detail of Capital Outlay s TABLE G Cap p y Street Improvements !p f } Y :..:. ::......................................... ... ..... ...............................................................................................................................:...................................................................................... EXPENDITURES: SEALCOATING 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 $700,000 General Fund SIGNALS Brooklyn Blvd & TH100 NB Ramp /Lilac Dr 150,000 $0 Local State Aid Brooklyn Blvd & 51st Avenue 150,000 $0 Local State Aid Summit & Earle Brown W (Target Entrance) 125,000 $0 Special Assessments STATE AID STREET PROJECTS 57th Avenue. Logan to Lyndale 1,100,000 $0 MSA- Regular #1496 404,000 $0 MSA - Regular #1496 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 126,000 $0 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 Water Utility 50,000 $0 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 4,000 $0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 326,000 $0 Storm Drainage Utility Hennepin County 190,000 $0 Hennepin County 63rd Avenue, W City Limits to Brooklyn Blvd 1,002,000 $0 MSA - Regular #1496 461,000 $0 MSA - Regular #1496 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 156,000 $0 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 Water Utility 95,000 $0 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 5,000 $0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 135,000 $0 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 150,000 $0 Special Assessments TABLE G - Capital Improvementgram - Detail of Capital Outlays Street Improvements F ) I , � ......................... �+ t 4: .. . ..... .. .. ......................... . .::. '. : i::::: i:::::::::i:::::i ::... ............ ..... .....:...:.. : ; ` {::::::::::' ..:'.' :i:: :: ::::::::::i::i:::.:.,.: ::.::::: ....:;: .;.:::....:i':. ' .?: ...... �.. �::. •... : : : .:::::::::::: .:::.::: �..:.�.�:::::::. .. .:: ....... 05 . 9.. 6...::::::::..::::::::::'. �9.:::::::..:.::::::.'. J�.:::::::..::::. 1 .A:.:.::::::::::.FI..#.::::.... :::::.::::.:::..::.................::::..:::::::::..:....................:::.:::::......................................................................................................... .... ..... .......:...... ..........................::::. $0 Noble Avenue, Brooklyn Blvd to N City Limits 87,000 $0 MSA- Regular #1496 51,000 $0 MSA - Regular #1496 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 (4,000) $0 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 Water Utility 13,000 $0 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 1,000 $0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 0 $0 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 26,000 $0 Special Assessments 69th Ave. Shingle Creek Pkwy to Oliver & Bridge 1,197,000 $0 MSA - Regular #1496 & Federal funds 1,015,000 $0 MSA - Regular #1496, Federa MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 (2,000) $0 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 Water Utility 32,000 $0 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 2,000 $0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 45,000 $0 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 105,000 $0 Special Assessments i France Avenue. 69th to N City Limits 349,000 $0 MSA - Regular #1496 188,000 $0 MSA - Regular #1496 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 18,000 $0 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 Water Utility 31,000 $0 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 2,000 $0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 45,000 $0 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 65,000 $0 Special Assessments TABLE G - Capital Improvement *gram - Detail of Capital Outlays Street Improvements , t r r E r 05-May - ;.::.::::. ::':�?.::.:::.:;::.::::::::::'9 ..:.::::::: :::":9.6:.:::::.::::::::::::97 98.. '1� F 53rd Avenue. France to 55th Avenue 403,000 $0 MSA- Regular #1496 196,000 $0 MSA - Regular #1496 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 51,000 $0 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 Water Utility 36,000 $0 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 2,000 $0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 51,000 $0 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 67,000 $0 Special Assessments 67th Avenue. Humboldt to Dupont 179,000 $0 MSA - Regular #1496 140,000 $0 MSA - Regular #1496 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 (41,000) $0 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 Water Utility 14,000 $0 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 7,000 $0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 8,000 $0 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 51,000 $0 Special Assessments Brooklyn Boulevard At Lilac Drive 571,000 $0 MSA - Regular #1496 474,000 $0 MSA - Regular #1496 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 23,000 $0 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 Water Utility 17,000 $0 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 1,000 $0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 24,000 $0 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 32,000 $0 Special Assessments 51 st Avenue. Brooklyn Blvd to Xerxes 71,000 $0 MSA - Regular #1496 40,000 $0 MSA - Regular #1496 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 8,000 $0 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 Water Utility 5,000 $0 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 1,000 $0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 8,000 $0 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 9,000 $0 Special Assessments TABLE G - Capital Improvement 41gram - Detail of Capital Outlays 0 Street Improvements ,. . r n 05 -May ................................................................................................... ............................... Y .:...:::.:.:::::::::::::::.:.::::::::::.::::::::::::::..::::::::::::::::...............::::::::::::::::::::::::....... ........................:..::.: ::.::::::::::: 1 .0 .R... .::::::::. ............................... ............................... 69th Avenue. Oliver to Dupont $867,000 MSA- Regular #1496 $544,000 MSA - Regular #1496 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 $63,000 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 Water Utility $45,000 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility $3,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility $64,000 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments $148,000 Special Assessments Humboldt Avenue. 69th to N City Limits $423,000 MSA - Regular #1496 $220,000 MSA - Regular #1496 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 $45,000 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 Water Utility $31,000 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility $2,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility $45,000 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments $80,000 Special As sessments Shingle Creek Parkway. 1 -94 to 69th Avenue $700,000 MSA - Regular #1496 $490,000 MSA - Regular #1496 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 ($170,000) MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 Water Utility $20,000 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility $10,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility $50,000 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments $300,000 Special Assessments TABLE G - Capital Improvement *gram - Detail of Capital Outlays Y Street Improvements ITM R M . I " Z 05 -May- 93 63rd Avenue, Brooklyn Boulevard to Xerxes $270,000 MSA- Regular #1496 $150,000 MSA - Regular #1496 MSA -Local #29111#2900 ($37,000) MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 Water Utility $17,000 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility $34,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility $22,000 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments $84,000 Special Assessments June Avenue, CSAH 10 to 63rd $378,000 MSA - Regular #1496 $250,000 MSA - Regular #1496 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 ($29,000) MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 Water Utility $10,000 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility $51,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility $19,000 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments $77,000 Special Assessments OTHER STREET PROJECTS Neighborhood Street Improvement Program 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 $9,000,000 70% bonds;30% sp assess Assessment Stabilization Program 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 $650,000 CDBG LANDSCAPING Co Rd 10 Streetscape 100,000 $0 'h MSA -2600, ' / 2 Sp Assess Xerxes Avenue Streetscape 70,000 $0 MSA -Local #2600 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $3,615,000 $4,356,000 1 $2,569,000 1 $2,652,000 1 $2,712,000 1 $12,988,000 TABLE G - Capital Improvement gram - Detail of Capital Outlays Street Improvements x '" 05-May-93 9• f.::::.::::.;;:.;:.::<.::.;':. BT;;:.;:' t'.IO•�:.;::.:fEI+ FUND SOURCES: MSA - Regular #1496 404,000 1,527,000 188,000 336,000 514,000 $1,654,000 MSA - Local #2911/ #2900 276,000 150,000 168,000 10,000 31,000 ($128,000) MSA - Local #2900 120,000 0 0 0 0 $0 MSA - Bonds #2912 Water Utility 50,000 140,000 31,000 50,000 22,000 $123,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility 4,000 8,000 2,000 9,000 2,000 $100,000 Storm Drainage Utility 326,000 180,000 45,000 59,000 32,000 $200,000 Special Assessments 715,000 821,000 605,000 658,000 581,000 $3,389,000 Bonds 1,260,000 1,260,000 1,260,000 1,260,000 1,260,000 $6,300,000 General Fund 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 $700,000 CDBG 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 $650,000 Hennepin County 190,000 0 0 0 0 $0 TOTAL $3,615,000 $4,356,000 $2,569,000 $2,652,000 $2,712,000 $12,988,000 TABLE H - Capital Improvement gram - Detail of Capit Outlays Equipment P� ` ;:ysy ^S>:.:.: ? ::......:. ::::i::::i::::i: ii::i:::'C ^} <. .:.>'.::. :. .:::: %::::C:.' < :ijjji ? ?.. ; ' +::.: , ii :y;;$; <;i': is i::::::.iS>:.»>:p ?. :: i:::i::::::::::::::::: ?:: +:`.:. .# ....................".!.....................'!:;«::>::::.<.:;;:;::::>::::>> 9�J: : :. : : :: : :: : : :: ::.!::::::::::::: x:'9.03::; EXPENDITURES: DATA PROCESSING Network Upgrades 36,500 $0 General fund; EDA levy Optical Disk Management 100,000 30,000 20,000 $0 General fund Specialized applications 105,000 10,000 $0 Various MDTs 24,000 $0 General fund Replace PCs 46,500 42,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 $150,000 General fund /EDA levy Pen based PCs 17,000 50,000 $0 General fund Mapping /imaging 45,000 50,000 $0 General fund Central Dictation 50,000 $0 General fund Replace cable 81,800 50,000 $0 General fund; EDA levy Radio networking 40,000 $0 1/2 GF; 25% each utility LOGIS Distributed site 130,000 $0 75% GF; 10% @ utility,5 %liq OTHER EQUIPMENT Replace phone system 200,000 $0 Capital Improvements Fund Replace pub safety/pub works radio system 500,000 $0 Capital Improvements Fund Replace chairs 10,000 $0 General fund Replace copy machine 28,000 $0 General Fund HERITAGE CENTER EQUIPMENT Additional chairs and dollies 64,000 $0 All Heritage Center revenue Additional tables 10,000 9,000 $0 Additional stage 29,000 $0 Repalce equipment 7,500 4,300 4,500 11,000 6,000 $0 Additional Catering equipment 69,500 $0 Replace equipment: Inn 13,600 $0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $563,000 $309,700 $194,500 $831,000 $86,000 $150,000 TABLE H - Capital Improvement legram - Detail of Ca , �� ®r Equipment' ` a x 05-Ma :.::.....>:.;:.:...:::.;:.;:.;;:.; :.:..............:.......::.;:..::::.;:.;...::::: .:.:.;.::..:.. >:::: >:: >:.:.:... FUND SOURCES: General Fund 339,500 241,800 164,000 50,000 80,000 $150,000 EDA levy 17,500 12,000 50,000 $0 Liquor Store Fund 55,000 $0 Capital Improvements Fund 700,000 $0 Water Utility 13,000 10,000 $0 Sanitary Sewer Utility 13,000 10,000 $0 Heritage Center Revenues 151,000 55,900 4,500 11,000 6,000 $0 TOTAL $563,000 $309,700 $194,500 $831,000 $86,000 $150,000 TABLE I - Capital Improvement *gram - Detail of Capital Outlays City Vehicles -M -9 >> 05 a 3 :; .:...........................::.:::......:........................................ ............................... ............................... ................ ......... .... . FU Y .................................................:..:::::..::::::::::::::::::::.:.........:..: :. EXPENDITURES: STREETS Ford 800 Dump (7) 59,000 120,000 61,000 $127,000 General Fund Ford Tandem Dump (2) 74,000 76,800 $0 General Fund Ford 700 Dump $32,000 General Fund Ford 800 Flat Bed /Sander 53,250 $0 General Fund Water Truck 79,000 $0 General Fund Pickups: Light Duty (6) 13,400 12,800 15,000 $48,820 General Fund Pickups: Heavy Duty (2) 35,000 30,680 $0 General Fund Paint Striper $40,000 General Fund Vacuum Sweeper 85,200 $0 Storm Drainage Utility Truck Mounted Vacter (Shared w /sewer) 67,500 $0 Storm Drainage Utility Grader 112,000 $0 General Fund ICI Loader (2) 75,000 $112,000 General Fund Trackless Sidewalk Plow (3) 53,400 58,600 $63,000 General Fund Dozer $29,800 General Fund 3/4 Ton Van 26,600 $0 General Fund Roller 15,000 $0 General Fund Air Compressor 15,000 $0 General Fund Chipper 23,500 $0 General Fund Crack sealing kettle /router 35,150 $0 General Fund Truck mounted pothole patcher 32,000 $0 General Fund Bobcat loader with planer 40,500 $0 General Fund $0 General Fund PARKS $0 General Fund Pickups (2) 14,000 $22,000 General Fund Ford 350 Dump (2) 27,000 27,000 $0 General Fund Tractors (2) 18,000 1 $18,500 General Fund TABLE I - Capital Improvement 1 - Detail of Capital Outlays City ehicles �* Y (`�x{� 1N h � ' S yt. I " 1 tJ !� T• j7.. 05 -May . - .:::::..:::::::::::::::. ... .:::.::::::::.:::.:.:.::::::::.::.:.:.:.:::::::::::::::::::: :::::::.::::::::.:::::::::::::: Mowers (4) 77,000 79,000 $32,000 General Fund Concession trailer $20,800 General Fund 16' rotary mower 60,000 $0 General Fund Van 13,500 $0 General Fund PUBLIC UTILITIES Emergency Utility Van 30,000 $0 Water Utility Truck mounted vacter (shared w /streets) 67,500 $0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Sewer Rodder $21,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility Sewer Jet 85,000 $0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Pickups (5) 31,000 44,000 $18,000 Water & Sewer Utilities Drill Rig 25,000 $0 Water Utility Ford 350 Dump /Utility Box 30,000 $0 Water & Sewer Utilities GOLF COURSE 3/4 Ton Pickup 15,500 $0 Golf Course Fund Gang mower 74,500 $0 Golf Course Fund FIRE DEPARTMENT Vans 145,000 $190,000 General Fund Pumpers 140,000 $0 General Fund Autos 21,000 $0 General Fund Ladder $0 General Fund POLICE Autos 99,000 127,000 140,000 154,000 169,000 $845,000 General Fund Boat 10,000 $0 General Fund TOTAL EXPENDITURES $755,950 $660,930 $494,500 $510,000 $571,000 $1,619,920 TABLE I - Capital Improvement ^rarn - Detail of Capital Outlays City Vehicles y`� C � , ` � yy 'I ? s. a Y FUND SOURCES: General Fund 559,950 535,430 420,000 350,800 571,000 1,580,920 Water Utility 47,000 25,000 0 44,000 0 18,000 Storm Drainage Utility 67,500 0 0 85,200 0 0 Sanitary Sewer Utility 81,500 85,000 0 30,000 0 21,000 Golf Course Fund 0 15,500 74,500 0 0 0 TOTAL $755,950 $660,930 $494,500 $510,000 $571,000 $1,619,920 TABLE J - Capital Improvementgram - Detail of Capital Outlays Community Development P P Xwlb 04-May-9 EXPENDITURES: Acquire single family houses 100,000 150,000 150,000 200,000 200,000 $1,200,000 1/2 CDBG, 1/2 EDA levy Acquire apartments 300,000 500,000 750,000 750,000 900,000 $4,900,000 1/4 EDA levy, 3/4 other Acquire land north of Heritage Center 500,000 $0 Other revenue Construct G barn $750,000 Other revenue TOTAL EXPENDITURES $400,000 $650,000 $1,400,000 $950,000 $1,100,000 $6,850,000 FUND SOURCES: TIF revenue CDBG 50,000 75,000 75,000 100,000 100,000 $600,000 EDA levy 125,000 200,000 262,500 287,500 325,000 $1,825,000 Other Funds 225,000 375,000 1,062,500 562,500 675,000 $4,425,000 TOTAL $400,000 $650,000 $1,400,000 $950,000 $1,100,000 $6,850,000 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date May 10, 1993 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: EARLE BROWN COMMONS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP II REQUEST DEPT. APPROVAL: Brad Hoffman, Director Community Development MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMIMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ******************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SU1VIrVIARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes • � PP ) The attached letter from John Parsinen requests the EDA to release his partnership from our development agreement (Earle Brown Commons). Mr. Parsinen indicates that the project is having financial problems that could be substantially reduced if the development agreement were set aside. While it is probably true that an agreement to set aside the development agreement would substantially reduce the partnership's economic problems, such an agreement would only transfer those problems to the EDA and the TIF District. The request translates to an estimated $130,000 tax reduction that would have to be made up by the TIF District. The TIF District does not have the capability of absorbing such a loss. The agreement would be further complicated because Ryan Construction would make the same request for the glass office building. The office building has endured even greater hardships. If the EDA went along with this, the TIF District would lose approximately $250,000 per year. I would further note in the letter the statement that the project covers operating costs and debt service. Apparently, the item not covered is a return on the investment. While Mr. Parsinen finds himself in a financial bind over this building and I do believe him, the City /EDA is not in a position to help him out. I would strongly recommend against this request. I assume Mr. Parsinen will be available Monday to answer Council questions. I would also point, out that the building's value is closer to $6,000,000 than $3,500,000. Eventually, the partnership will be able to sell the building and recover part or all of their investment. a rIC M B rowfL April 23, 1993 Common VIA FAX: 569 -3494 Mr. Gerald Splinter City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Dear Gerrv: This letter will reconfirm the request of Earle Brown Commons Limited Partnership II to have the current and future real estate values for our project reduced. The PIN is 35- 119 -21 -44 -0012. I would like our request to formally come before the city council requesting a reduction in our value. Notwithstanding the development agreement, which placed our value at $6.1 million, severe economic hard times have impacted the project so much that the real value has been reduced to the neighborhood of $3 to $3.5 million. As indicated, we are finally getting our occupancy up; however, cash flows barely cover operating expenses and debt service. Our occupants live on fixed incomes and cannot readily respond to price increases in excess of cost of living increases. As indicated, we must work to reduce our debt and our taxes in order for the project to survive. I think a project for independent -care senior citizens is important to the community; however, we must face the realities of current economic times in order to survive. I would like the city council to take into consideration the following matters: 1. The project has suffered slow leasing because of economic times and an excess of units available in the general market. We only achieved near full occupancy v.itb.in the iast six months. There are 14U units and our occupancy level hovers around 135. 2. The limited partnership injected approximately $1.4 million of proceeds into the project to cover past losses and short - falls. I, personally, have over a million dollars injected into the project. Neither the partnership nor I have the ability to fund any more short - falls. 0026735.02 e o e e e�ooeo ooeaae 6100 (Summit. Drivc,J ort.}_ Brook lyr_Ccnlcr. _9innc6ot_ 55430 Pliotic (612) 560 - 6829 a rte Mr. Gerald Splinter April 23, 1993 Brow r�_Page 2 C OMMO M 3. Property values city -wide and in the City of Brooklyn Center have dropped precipitously over the past several years. 4. The underwriters involved in our bond issue rewrote the bonds several years ago and did a refunding reducing the interest rate from over 10% to 7 %. They have indicated a willingness to remarket the bonds and drop the rate once again if we can obtain reasonable concessions with respect to the taxes. I have previously given you budgets and projections. We recognize that business and commercial interests have been suffering throughout the metropolitan area and, more particularly, in the Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park areas, which are the principal areas in which we market units to seniors. If the city could help us with our restructuring, it would assist us in avoiding insolvency. In order to preserve our ability to carry on discussions and negotiations with the city, we plan on filing a tax appeal yet this year. I would appreciate it if you could reconsider our requests and do whatever is appropriate to get us on the city council agenda as soon as possible. Yours truly, E LE BROWN COMMON LIMITED P T , II L John Parsinen General Partner JP:lce 0026735.02 e o o e s�oaoob ooaaoo 6100 6ummit Drivc JVorth Brooklyn Ccrnl.cr. f9inncsot!,A 55430 phone (612) 960 -6529 League of Minnesota Cities 1 C t • ti i ies u e Number 17 April 3O, 1993 Tax conference commJtt�e n , convenes Don Diddams and Gary Carlson school property tax relief. In contrast, and a distribution formula similar to The House and Senate have the House has separated the income the League's proposal. appointed conferees to reconcile tax in their tax bill from the school The Senate bill maintains current differences in their respective omnibus property tax reductions in their law for LGA and HACA. This would tax bills. The conference committee education finance bill. restore the cuts the governor proposed, held its first meeting on Monday This is a highly political issue, but that there would be no increased evening, April 26. The committee and as soon as the House and Senate funding for 1994. (For more details of outlined the components of each bill agree on an overall strategy on taxes the provisions contained in each bill, and agreed to several minor provi- and school finance, other elements of please refer to the side -by -side sions. The committee will continue the tax bill will fall into place. comparison. in last week's Cities meeting throughout this week and is Bulletin). expected to have a final conference Property tax relief Proposal completed some time during differences Governor's veto likely the first week in May. Both tax proposals contain The Legislativq response to the numerous provisions.that would affect- governor's.promise of a veto is Income t increase unclear. They could attempt to state aid to cities. The major differ- ences between the two tax bills are . override the veto, pass a new tax bill 1S key political iss The House and Senate are both related to the income and_ property tax tax i ncrease, or go home without a without any tax. bill in place. The proposing an income tax increase, provisions. In the House`tax bill, the revenue from the income tax increase, ability to pursue each of these options However, one of the key differences is will depend on how they structure the the size of the income tax increase', along with $165 million from city and initial budget bills they pass and send and how to present it to Governor Arne county homestead and agricultural credit aid (RAGA) would go [o reduce to the governor for his signature. One Carlson, who has already vowed to option would be to avoid a veto by veto it. The_Senate has put its income school levies. The House bill also contains a $15 million increase for the taking the income tax increase out of tax increase in the school finance .bill, their initial �rogosal. linked directly to school spending and local government aid (LGA) program The conflict with the governor over tax increases leaves city LGA and HACA in jeopardy. City officials should contact their legislators and House Members. Senate Members _ members of the conference committee + about,the importance of adequate Ann Rest (DFL =New Hope) Doug Johnson (DFL -Cook) funding for LGA and other property Dee Long (DFL- Minneapolis) Ember Reichgott (DFL -New Hope) tax relief programs. Although the s Jean Wa enius DFL -Minne debate seems to be focused on income g ( apolis) Carol Flynn (DFL - Minneapolis) tax increases, we urge city officials to Iry Anderson (I)FL Falls) John Hottinger (DFL - Mankato) remind legislators that property taxes Edgar Olson (DFL- .Fosston) William Belanger (IR- Bloomington) will also increase if LGA and other property tax relief programs are not adequately funded. 0 f The Cities Bulletin is a publication of the League of Minnesota Cities and includes an update of state legislative, C ontents administrative, and congressional actions that affect cities. It also includes reviews of metropolitan area 1 /Tax conference committee convenes issues by the Association of Metro - politan Municipalities. 3 / House and Senate tax bills would reduce farm property taxes League legislative staff members are 3 / Legislation would fully fund mandates available to answer your questions 3 / City chemical dependency counselors exempted from concerning legislation relating to mandatory state licensing cities. 4 / Campaign reform conference underway 4 / Bonding bill gives $12.9 million to environmental The Cities Bulletin lists authors of bill projects summaries and some articles by their 5 / LMC board of directors nomination due initials. 5 / Health limits for chemicals Joel Jamnik -- JJ 5 / Fees, not taxes, to fund some state programs 6 / MPCA board approves proposed wastewater treatment rules 7 / City achievement award: Deadline extended to May 10 8 / DOT proposes rules on testing transportation employees 8 / Bill summary 8 / New rules on state licensing of builders and contractors 9 I League legislative wrap -up session Executive Director 9 / Ambulance service, lead abatement in House Jim Miller appropriations bill Editors 10 / Federal outlook -- Clinton's budget proposal Jean Mehle Goad 11 / No liability when cities get data practices opinion Tim Busse 12 / C.C. Ludwig and Leadership Award deadline Typesetting and design extended to May 13 Gayle Brodt S -1 / Status of bills yellow / LMC Annual Conference registration forms Legislative mission statement Inside The League of Minnesota Cities will vigorously represent the policy positions _ back and interests of its members before the cover / Municipal ads Minnesota State Legislature in a positive and effective manner, characterized by timely, quality information provision and policy advocacy. This representation will be.based on greater LMC membership participation in the League's legislative program, which is to be facilitated by the Printed on recycled paper League board and staff. League of Minnesota Cities, 3490 Lexington Avenue North, St. Paul, MN 55126, (612) 490-5600. Page 2 LMC Cities Bulletin i House and Senate tax bills would reduce farm ro ert taxes p p Y City residents would pay more Gary Carlson one percent or less. However, in some rates in cities soared, especially in Rapidly rising agricultural individual cities the property tax rural Minnesota cities. During that property taxes over the past several impact could be more severe. Cities time, the state provided some tax relief years have prompted state lawmakers that include considerable farmland or to city residents through increased to search for legislative remedies for cities in heavily agricultural counties local government aid (LGA). the state's farmers. Numerous bills and school districts could see the most Although farm property tax would provide property tax relief for severe impact. increases are creating hardship for farmers. As a result, both the House many of the state's farmers, city and Senate tax bills, which are LGA could offset shift residents should let lawmakers know currently in the tax conference A similar shift took place during that farm relief at the expense of city committee, include farm tax relief. the mid 1980s when agricultural residents is not acceptable unless market values were plummeting. At accompanied by a reasonable increase 1 shift proposed that time, the burden of shifting county in LGA. The proposed shift in farm and school taxes was absorbed by taxes is one reason why increased In both the House and Senate omnibus tax bills the state would pay owners of other types of property and funding for LGA is so important to a directly a portion of the farm relief residents of urban areas. Total tax balanced package this year. 0 through the homestead and agricultural credit aid program (HACA). How- ever, a significant portion of the relief Legislation would full fund mandates would come from reducing the class Y rates on agricultural property and Sarah Hackett ending date - -a sunset for new or allowing taxes to shift to other types of expanded mandates. property. In some rural Minnesota Local governments still have The proposal would require the counties, these shifts could result in advocates on the issue of mandates. state auditor's office to maintain a significant increases in the county and Representatives Andy Steensma (DFL comprehensive list of all mandates on school property taxes city residents - Luverne) and Ted Winter (DFL - local governments. The state auditor pay. Fulda) have introduced a bill, would also need to review mandates Even city residents in the Twin H.F.1586, to change the way the and make recommendations about Cities metro area would feel the Legislature views mandates and their whether the mandate is necessary and impact of the proposed legislation. costs. whether the mandate requirement Changes in local taxable property The bill would require the could be accomplished at a lower cost. wealth strongly affects the state's Legislature to adopt a policy of No Senate companion bill has finance system for education. With a providing state or local funding for been introduced yet, but H.F.1586 may reduction in farm tax capacities, rural new mandates. New mandating stimulate some mandate discussion in farm areas would receive more state legislation would need to include an the next session. 0 assistance through the school aid system. Conversely, areas with little or no agricultural property, such as the City chemical dependency counselors exempted seven- county metro area, would from mandatory state licensing finance more of their school costs ' g through the property tax. Joel Jamnik of H.F.1751 (Greenfield, DFL- The magnitude of the farm tax shifts under consideration is difficult The omnibus human services Minneapolis) these agencies would not to predict. Legislative staff estimates appropriations bill says that state have to employ licensed chemical range from as low as $11 million to as licensing of city, county, and state dependency counselors. In fact, under much as $25 million. Statewide this agency chemical dependency counsel the bill, they could not require that would mean a tax rate increase of only ors is voluntary. their chemical dependency counselors According to article 3, Section 16 be licensed by the state. 0 April 30,1993 Page 3 i Campaign reform conference under way Ann Higgins would restrict individual contributions a two -year elective office could accept to city candidates to $200 in an annual personal campaign contribu- Conferees have begun meeting to election year, $100 in non - election tons of up to $500 per person. determine the final form of campaign years. In cities of the fast class, finance reforms. House and Senate contribution limits would be $300 for Ban on contributions from positions differ sharply. It's possible mayoral candidates during an election that the conference committee may not year; $100 in non- election years. In nonprofits, partnerships be able to reach agreement, although cities of the first class, mayoral Both bills would make it illegal that prospect is unlikely in view of candidates could accept up to $600 for nonprofit corporations or partner- strong public support for three reform from an individual contributor during a ships to contribute to local candidates measures. They are reducing the two- or four -year election cycle. City (or for candidates to accept such influence of political action commit - council candidates in all cities could campaign contributions). This tees (PACs); reducing large contribu- accept no more than $500 from each restriction would apply to contribu- tions to candidates; and eliminating contributor over a four -year period, lions to campaigns on ballot questions the transfer of campaign funds from only $300 over a two -year election as well as candidates for city elective one candidate to another for legislative cycle. office. and statewide elective office. H.F. 163 would prohibit the House bill Would set donation of office space, phone lines, Impact on local services or other items of value for P higher ceilings campaign activities or to support the campaign financing The House bill would set the limit nomination of local candidates. Both H.F. 163 (Sparby, DFL -Thief at $1,000 in a two- or four -year River Falls) and S.F. 152 (Marty, DFL- election cycle, effectively limiting No candidate fund Roseville) would limit contributions to annual personal campaign contribu- candidates for local office, including lions to no more than $250 per person transfers donations to both incumbents and for local candidates seeking four -year The bill would ban transfers or nonincumbents. The Senate proposal elective office; city candidates seeking contributions to or from campaign committees for congressional or presidential candidates. It would also ban accepting campaign funds or contributions from another candidate's Bonding bill gives $12.9 campaign committee unless that candidate's principal campaign million to environmental committee has been dissolved. Neither could a local candidate's proj principal campaign committee transfer ects funds of another local candidate unless the contributing candidate's committee Joel Jamnik is being terminated. The League is monitoring the The House capital bonding bill legislation. City policy has stated a P 8 Of the $13 million for environ- preference for establishing local (Ii.F.1749, Kalis, DFL- Walters) . mental projects, $4.2 million would c ampaign contribution limits and caps. would spend $13 million out of a go to PFA for the state match to use total $41 million dollar bond issue the state water pollution control on local campaign spending at the for projects of the public facilities revolving fund. The bill would local levels. Some cities have set controls b ordi w i authority FA y ordinance. Fe cities and the pollution y ( ) po uUon appropriate $8.7 million to the PCA control agency (PCA). The other for the state share of 1993/94 report candidates spending large sums, $28 million would go to a variety of combined sewer separation projects. but it is evident that lawmakers are building projects for education, prepared to impose statewide limits on ces and corrections the original human services, This amount is $5 million less than individual campaign contributions for n MPCA r equest.0 g among others. all candidates. 0 Page 4 LMC Cities Bulletin LMC board of directors F ees, not nominations due soon taxes,to Ann Higgins board representation: fund � ®� Nominations are now open for ® Population and geographic repre- four positions on the League of sentation - to ensure that cities of Minnesota Cities Board of Directors. differing size and from all geo- t t e The League will accept nominations graphic areas are represented; until Tuesday, June 9. League mem- ! Metropolitan/Greater Minnesota bers received information on the balance - to maintain balance process this week. The nominating between representation of metro progra committee will interview candidates and non -metro cities; on June 10 at the League's annual (In 1992, the Coalition of Greater . Joel Jamnik conference in St. Cloud. Minnesota Cities gained a board Up for election are positions position; beginning in 1993, the The sentiment "no new taxes" has currently held by Lyle Hanks, Mayor, Minnesota Association of Small Cities will also have an official seat pushed the state, like other levels of St. Louis Park; Jerry Dulgar, City, government including cities, to look at Manager, Crystal; Chuck Winkelman, o th board.) fee increases as a means of financing Mayor, St. Cloud; and Greg Sparks, In addition, the president of the Association of Metropolitan state government programs, instead of City Administrator, Worthington. p Muni general tax revenues. O Municipalities palities serves in an ex- Officials el Unfortunatel citizens or other positions will serve until June, 1996. elected to fill these officio capacity. governments accept pt fees when the League members will also elect a to p participation balance - want something, like swimming president, first vice president, and to encourage participation of both lessons for children or copies of data. second vice president. First vice elected and appointed officials and to achieve broad representation of Fees are not nearly so acceptable when president, Mayor Lee Swanson of League membership reflecting the payer of the fee would strongly Morris, becomes a candidate for LMC prefer not to have government in- president. St. Paul Councilmember gender and important contributions volved in the matter. Bob Long, LMC second vice presi- of city officials. Elected officials In spite of opposition, fees are dent, will seek the office of first vice usually fill a majority of LMC going up, including courts, environ- president. Each LMC member city board positions, but specific ment, licensing, etc. Cities and may cast one vote at the annual number of slots are reserved for residents will be forced to pay in- business meeting during the League appointed or elected officials. The creased state fees which may outpace conference. LMC president appoints the the cost of living or inflation. be held on Thursday, June 11.) Officer The Senate, for instance, has include representation from a an increase in al munici positions have one -year teems. proposed p Current LMC President Larry variety of city appointed positions. beard fees from $30,000 to $90,000 Bakken will serve as immediate past Board members usually serve only (there is some ambiguity yet since the president during the next year. one three -year term, although those bill has not been finalized). This The nominations committee will becoming officers are often serve would triple filing fees for annexation rely on the following guidelines for longer. 0 petitions which would further discour- age developing properties from becoming part of the community Health limits for chemicals w hich provides public service. Also, some cities are just now Joel Jamnik chemicals can cause illness or death finding out about last year's pollution The Minnesota Department of and establish maximum limits. The control fee increases, which in some Health intends to adopt new rules rules would classify DDT as a prob- cases quadruple the previous fees. relating to health risk limits (HRL) for able human carcinogen and establish Local governments will need to adjust the health risk limit at one microgram sewer rates upward to pay for these concentrations of substances per liter. Future laws and rules will increased costs, or find some other chemicals that are potential drinking specify what actions will be necessary means of paying for the higher permit water contaminants. to remove or treat those substances in fees. 0 The HRL rule would specify what the groundwater.0 April 30, 1993 Page 5 MPCA board Rank �� d popul Gr ant 1 William 00 s- 281.6317 212 S 500,0 S 500,000 approves 2 Danvers- 279.9561 98 S 500,000 S 500,000 3 MWCC- Mpls.East 368,383 S 0 S 17,600,000 Interceptor Phase n- 277.8315 proposed 4 MWCC -Mills. East 368,383 S 35,654,634 S 0 Interceptor Phase I- 277.8315 wastewater 5 Minneapolis- 277.8315 368,383 S 52,000,000 S 52,000,000 6 Saint Paul- 277.1747 272,235 $ 154,000,000 $ 154,000,000 7 So. St Paul- 271.5264 20,197 S 9,000,000 $ 9,000,000 t reatment rules 8 In S� 85,493 S S 6,700,000 269.6597 9 Gonvick- 262.4000 302 $ 45,240 S 45,240 Joel Jamnik 10 MWCC- stillwater Expansion - 260.7123 13,882 S 0 $ 21,500,000 At their April 27, 1993, meeting, 11 MWCC - Bayport Interceptor- 257.5257 3,200 $ 0 $ 2,000,000 the Minnesota Pollution Control 12 Delavan- 256.9458 245 $ 727,000 $ 727,000 Agency (MPCA) approved new rules 13 Callaway- 256.6317 212 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 regarding municipal wastewater 14 Bock- 255.3035 115 $ 551,000 $ 551.000 15 MWCC- Sm=Expansion- 111,000 $ 0 $ 66,383,000 treatment assistance. The proposed 255.2266 rules would change the method for 16 MWCC -Blue Lake 83,864 $ 0 S 66,700,000 ranking munic p rojects for state Expansion-254.6179 g P P .l 17 Dundas- 253.3743 473 $ 421,258 S 2,583,378 financial assistance. The ranking or 18 Saint James- 253.1994 4,364 $ 5,294,300 S 6,358,000 "needs list" sets priorities for projects. J9 MwCC -Joint Interceptor- 1,531,000 s 0 s 2,000,000 250.9249 These projects compete for shares of 20 MWCC -Fine Bubble 1,531,000 S ? S ? the wastewater infrastructure fund, retrofit- 250.9249 state revolving fund, state independent 21 250 C 4 MW WTP R B.S- 1,531.000 S ? S grants program, combined sewer 22 MW CC - MW W f' P Gravity 1,531,000 $ ? $ ? overflow program, corrective action Thickeners 23 MWCC- Regulator gulator 1,421,785 $ 1,800,000 S 1,800,000 grants program, capital cost compo- Improvements- 250.7642 nent grants program, and the indi- 24 Caledonia - 247.2712 2.846 $ 0 $ 236, 25 Madelia- 246.7483 2,237 $ 1,800,000 $ 1,800, vidual sewage treatment systems grant 26 Green Lake Sanitary 1,270 S ? S ? program. District- 246.4954 The League in an earlier Bulletin 27 Walker - 244.8896 950 $ 0 $ 300,000 28 MWCC- Cottage Grove 22,935 $ 0 $ 4,000,000 requested interested cities to submit Expansion- 241.8025 comments or concerns to the MPCA 29 Hector - 240.2940 1.145 $ 1,900.000 $ 1,900,000 regarding the rules. MPCA received 30 Morgan - 239.9226 965 $ 636,800 $ 636,800 re g g 31 Mabel- 239.3608 745 S 336,000 S 336,000 nine comments during the 30 day 32 Hancock- 239.2957 723 $ 884,300 $ 884,300 comment period. None requested a 33 walnut Grove- 238.9794 625 $ 328.000 $ 328.000 34 Litchfield-238.9055 6,041 $ 4,500,000 S 4.500,000 public hearing. MPCA staff recom- 35 Sacred Heart- 238.9016 603 $ 614,000 S 614,000 mended several minor amendments to 36 Claremont- 238.6214 530 $ 318,655 $ 324,735 the rules, but none constituted a 37 Jasper - 238.5967 524 $ 1.000,000 $ 1,000.000 38 Kandiyohi- 238.5208 506 $ 1,006,800 $ 1,006,800 substantial change. 39 Wykoff- 238.4642 493 $ 461,184 $ 461,184 The rules will.become final when 40 Emmons- 238.2123 439 $ 845,000 $ 845,000 41 McGregor - 237.8759 376 $ 446,000 $ 446.000 a published notice of MPCA board 42 Canton- 237.7935 362 $ 620,000 S 620.000 action appears in the State Register. 43 Kensington- 237.3491 295 $ 838,000 S 838.000 ]~anal publication 1S likely t0 occur 44 MWCC -Lino Lakes 2,885 $ 400.000 s 400.000 P y Interceptor- 237.3007 sometime in early to mid -May. 45 Paynesvitle- 236.7849 2,275 $ ? S ? The accompanying listing is of the 46 Pelican Rapids - 236.3777 1,886 $ 0 S 1,000,000 47 N iltona- 236.2884 181 $ 575,000 S 575,000 most current needs list under the old 48 Pengilly -Swan Lake 0 $ ? S ? rules. We have included it to help city Area- 235.6915 officials determine i the are immedl- 49 MWCC- MWWTPEmpire 1,340 $ 0 S 19.000.000 y Expansion- 235.6355 ately affected by the rule change. 5o Lake Henry- 234.7712 90 $ 718,000 S 718,000 When the new, revised needs list is 51 MWCC- BImm'mgton 86,335 $ 69,000 $ 527,000 Siphon-234.6M finalized by the state, we will publish 52 WmonaTownship- 232.9539 0 $ ? $ ? it in the Bulletin. 0 53 MWCC- Blaine Interceptor- 38,975 $ 0 $ 1,400, 2329539 V .1 54 New Auburn- 232.7995 363 $ 0 S 300,000 Page 6 LMC Cities Bulletin 55 St Peter- 229.8705 9,421 S 423,000 S 968,000 56 MWCC- RosemountWWTP 6,800 S 5,100,000 S 5,100,000 City achievement Expansion- 229.1625 57 Farmington- 228.8689 5,940 S 0 S 1,000,000 58 Cambridge- 228.5353 5,094 S 0 S 8,500, award: 59 Princeton- 227.8510 3,717 $ 2,000,000 S 2,000,000 60 Sauk Centre-227.7700 3,581 S 909.100 S 909,100 Deadline extended 61 St. Francis- 227.0225 2,538 S 1,600,000 S 1,600,000 62 Pine Island- 226.6368 2,125 $ 0 S 1,263,000 63 WoodUke- 223.0426 406 S 340,000 $ 340,000 to May 10 64 Garrison- 220.6994 138 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 65 Moose Lake- 220.4067 1,206 $ 1,480,000 $ 1,480,000 66 MWCC- Chaska WWTP 11,750 ? ? John Ainley Expansion- 220.3502 67 Morris- 218.7460 5,613 S 0 $ 1,600,000 68 Big Lake- 217.4659 3,113 $ 850,000 S 850,000 Even though the deadline has been 69 Blooming Prairie- 216.5513 2,043 $ 0 $ 8W,ODO extended to May 10, time is still 70 Albertville- 215.4863 1,251 ? ? 71 Crosslake-215.2692 1,132 $ 3,400,000 $ 3,400,000 running out for entering the 1993 City 72 Rockville- 213.8134 579 $ 500,000 $ 1,000,000 Achievement Awards, announced Jean 73 Kellogg- 213.1317 423 s 548,900 $ 548,900 Mehle Goad, director of communica- 74 L.ismore-211.9723 248 $ 787,500 S 1,000,000 75 Silver Bay-211.3869 1,894 $ 448,000 $ 448,000 tions for the League of Minnesota 76 Pease - 211.2521 178 $ 500,000 $ 1,000,000 Cities. This is the second year for the 77 Federal Dam - 210.3594 118 S 500,000 $ 1,000,000 78 Pierz- 210.0302 1,014 S 847,900 S 847,900 awards and the contest now includes 79 Austin - 191.7029 21,907 S 1,322,000 S 1,322,000 categories for excellence in manage - 80 Winona- 182.0241 25,399 $ 0 $ 200.000 meat, cooperation and consolidation, 81 Cokato-176.6923 2,180 S 0 S 2,100,000 82 MwCC- computer 1,531,000 7 ? public safety, community develop- Replacement- 175.9249 ment, and communications. 83 MWCC- MWWTPAsbestos 1,531,000 ? ? Each of the contest's five catego- Abatement - 175.9249 84 MWCC- Seneca Sludge- 185,032 $ 0 s 22,600,000 ries will have two winners, one 161.3362 representing cities over 10,000 in 85 East Grand Forks- 154.6871 8,658 $ 484,950 $ 484,950 86 Gaylord- 151.4334 1,935 $ 2,200,000 $ 2,200,000 population, and the other representing 87 Albert Lea- 151.3134 18,310 ? ? cities under 10,000 in population. 88 MWCC -Blue lake Solids- 83,864 s 0 $ 50,400,000 149.6179 Judging is by experts in the contest' s 89 Park Rapids- 147.2841 2,863 S 3,772,600 $ 3,772,600 various categories. 90 Wolverton- 145.9933 158 S 131,150 S 131,150 "Last year, over 70 cities entered 91 Buffalo Lake- 144.3285 734 S 575,800 S 575,800 92 Windom- 143.1587 4,283 $ 6,000,000 $ 6,000,000 the communication contest," Goad 93 Lake City- 142.9492 3,889 $ 417,850 $ 1,200,000 stated, "but with five categories, 94 Mountain Iron- 142.6330 3,362 S 373,625 s 1,363,350 95 Wyoming- 141.6541 2,142 $ 190,625 $ 190,611 expectations for this year's contest are 96 Perham- 141.5851 2,075 $ 3,273,624 S 6,547,248 much greater. The benefits of the 97 Isanti- 140.4460 1,228 $ 192,150 $ 567,300 competition will highlight the impor- 98 Danvers- 139.9561 98 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 99 Lamberton- 139.9383 972 S 269,925 S 269,925 tant contribution cities make in 100 Elysian- 138.2320 443 $ 103,700 $ 103,700 Minnesota." 101 Granada- 137.8644 374 ? ? Goad explained that the type of 102 Alvarado- 137.7572 356 S 260,775 $ 260,775 103 Pme River Area Sanitary 838 $ 0 $ 500,000 projects judges are looking to reward, District - 129.6162 are those showing innovation, cost 104 Le Center-126.5117 2,006 $ 2,400,000 S 2,400,000 105 Hewitt - 112.1488 269 S 0 $ 849,000 efficiency, ability of other cities to use 106 Cloquet- 105.1841 10,885 S 1,272,000 $ 1,272,000 the project, and demonstration of 107 Pennock- 103.3880 476 $ 500,000 $ 1.000,000 individual initiative. These, and other 108 Two Harbors- 102.8121 3,651 ? ? 109 Canton- 99.8260 923 S 460,000 $ 460,000 considerations, are judging factors. 110 St. Paul M correction- 272,235 ? ? The League will give out the 97.1747 111 St. Paw IntervTtor 272,235 ? ? awards at the LMC annual conference Rehab - 87.1747 in St. Cloud, June 8 -11. Acomplete 112 Sandstone - 86.5662 2,057 S 3,117.352 $ 3,117,352 entry form is included on page S8 in 113 Detroit lakes- 79.1092 6,635 $ 7,300,000 $ 7,300,000 114 Albertville - 75.4863 0 ? ? this issue of the Cities Bulletin. Call, 115 Crosslake- 75.2692 1,132 $ 4,100,000 $ 4,100,000 John Ainley at the League of Minne - 116 East Gull Lake-74.1848 687 S 0 S 2,403,429 117 ' Barnum- 73.4152 482 s 300,000 $ 300,000 sota Cities, (612) 490 -5600 for further 118 Kellogg- 73.1317 423 $ 964,100 $ 964,100 infornlation.0 119 North Redwood- 71.5375 203 $ 38,000 $ 38,000 120 Twin Lakes Township - 70.9376 0 ? ? 121 Nashwauk- 65.9557 1,026 $ 3,451,000 S 3,451,000 122 Landfall Village- 64.1785 685 $ 178,000 $ 178,000 123 Chishohn- 63.6173 5,290 S 0 $ 317,000 124 Foley- 61.3405 1,854 $ 0 $ 664,000 April 30, 1993 Page 7 DOT proposes rules on testing transportation employees Joel Jamnik requirements and provide for alcohol Municipalities with 50 or more Proposed U.S. Department of misuse information for employees, employees who must have a commer- Transportation training, and referral of cial drivers' license must comply with every municipality to conduct pre- spo rules would require employees to employee assistance the requirements within one year from employment /pre -duty, reasonable programs. the effective date of the final rule. All suspicion, random and post- accident Although the requirements in each other municipalities would have two drug and alcohol testing of certain of the five proposals are generally the years from the effective date to applicants for employment or employ- same, there are substantive industry- comply. ees specific differences. Each municipal transit authority The department issued five sets of With the exception of certain state operating in an area of 200,000 or rules to implement the federal omni- criminal laws, the act preempts more in population must be in compli- bus transportation employee testing inconsistent state and local laws in the ance within one year from the effec- act. The rules would affect employees aviation, highway, and mass transit tive date. who: industries. In particular, the act The full text of the proposed rules • Must obtain a commercial drivers ' mandates that municipal policies are available electronically through license rain a • Conform with federal rules govern- DOT's Anti-Drug Information Center. • Perform sensitive safety functions ing privacy collection techniques; Please call 1 -800 -CAL -DRUG for • Incorporate the Department of further information. A copy of the (including routine maintenance on Health and Human Services' December 15 Federal Register may be vehicles) related to mass transit or supervise an individual who (DHHS) mandatory guidelines for obtained by calling the Government drug testing and comparable Printing Office at (202) 783 -3238. performs such functions; safeguards for alcohol testing; The cost for single back copies of the • Perform security - related functions • Require that confirmation of any Federal Register is $4.50. at an airport (i.e., baggage and passenger security); or initial positive result is quantified; This is a summary of a longer • Performs sensitive safety functions • Require collection of split sample article by Katherine Herber Gustafson, on a gas pipeline. The rules would urine specimens; NLC Legal Counsel. For more prohibit a covered employee from • Assure confidentiality of test information, or a copy of the longer refusing to take a required test. results; and article, contact Ann Higgins at the • Provide for a scientifically random League (612) 490 -5600. 0 Municipalities must also comply n r selection of employees to test. with new reporting and reco dkee in Po g P g 8111 summary ew rules on state licensing g of builders Personnel and contractors Mandatory lunch, rest breaks HE 1752 (Carruthers, Beard, Joel Jamnik Interested individuals may submit Rukavina) (Labor- Management data or views on the subject matter in Relations) would require employ - The Minnesota Department of writing or orally. Call or write Mary ers to provide employees with a Commerce recently asked for opinions D.H. Lippert, Staff Attorney, Minne - paid 15 minute break every four on proposed rules regulating residen- sota Department of Commerce, 133 hours tial building contractors and residential East Seventh Street, St. Paul, MN . Further, the bill would require remodelers. The department is 55104; (612) 296 -9423. The deadline , at least a 30- minute areal break considering rules on continuing for comments is May 26, 1993. A copy which must begin not later than education requirements and prohibited of the department's notice is in the 61/2 hours after beginning work. Practices. April 26 State Register, p. 2715. 0 JJ -- Page 8 LMC Cities Bulletin League of Minnesota Cities Ambulance p - wra legislative u session service, lead g p abatement Believe it or not, the Legislature does legally have to adjourn by May 17, in House 1993. Yes, this is the "long" session of the biennium. After adjournment comes the time- consuming process of review and bill bill signing (or vetoing) by the governor. As a result of the timeline, the League will ap p r op riations be holding only one legislative wrap -up session this year. The briefing on which Joel Jamnik legislation passed, which didn't, and some of the whys, will be held in conjunc- tion with the annual conference at the St. Cloud Civic Center. The session will The omnibus human services bill, begin at 11:00 a.m., and will finish with time to spare to get ready for the H.F. 1751 (Greenfield, DFL- Minne- entertaining Mark Russell. apolis) includes several State Depart- Remember, this will be the only legislative wrap -up session this year. ment of Health programs which are of To register, please send the completed form below to: Mary Diedrich, LMC interest to city officials. Article 9 Legislative Department, 3490 Lexington Ave. N., St. Paul, MN 55126. Contact would: Mary at (612) 490 -5600 if you have any questions. • Require the health department to study and report to the Legislature Agenda by February 1, 1995, on the 11:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. Finance issues financial condition of licensed 12:30 - 1:30 p.m. Lunch ambulance services in Minnesota; 1:30 - 4:00 p.m. The rest of the legislative arena: personnel, • Create a state lead fund and lead abatement program, including environment, transportation, development, licensing contractors, inspectors, elections, ethics, etc. and abatement; r --- ----------- - - - --i • Deposit funds from the state public I Lea of Minnesota Cities le I water utility fees (the r nment ear I � � fee} in the "state government rnment I wrap -up session I special revenue" fund, but would I I make no other changes in the fee; I Tuesday, June 8, 1993 I • Increase state reimbursement for 1 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. I volunteer ambulance attendants to St. Cloud Civic Center i $400 (from $350) for successful completion of a basic course and to Registration fee (including materials and lunch): I $200 (from $140) for successful Re g g completion of a continuing educa- I $17 per person in advance I tion course; I $25 per person on -site I • Preempt local government authority for governing lead abatement Please make your check payable to the League of Minnesota Cities I methods for lead in paint, dust, or I (Please copy this form if you have more than one registration.) I soil for residences and residential Name i land; and • Create an annual ambulance service Title i personnel longevity award and incentive program for volunteers Address i who have at least five years of service, are over 50 years old, and I city I are among the 400 people in I I Minnesota with the greatest amount I Phone ( ) I of credited ambulance service. The bill would appropriate about I ( $215,000 for this new program-0 Mail registration to: Mary Diedrich, LMC Legislative Department, 3490 Lexington Ave. N., St. Paul, MN 55126. I L - - - - -- - - - - -J April 30,1993 Page 9 Federal update Congress poised to make cuts in President's budget proposals Ann Higgins Housing and community Environment Spending limits in the 1994 development Federal spending would decrease congressional budget resolution will The Clinton budget includes a 60 aid cities to comply with federal force reductions in President Clinton's percent increase in housing funds and environmental mandates, except for budget. Resolution limits are nearly a small increase for community the safe drinking water regulations. A $6 billion lower than the President's development, with a $600 million proposed program would establish budget. increase for HOME state and local another state revolving loan program Congress will spend the next block grants. It would also make the for drinking water ($600 million) and several months reviewing the budget program easier to implement. water facilities ($1.2 billion). and will eventually pass a budget Homeless programs would get To help cities meet clean water reconciliation bill that complies with $184 million. Increases would go to act requirements, the budget would the budget resolution. Committees the supportive housing program, give $868 million for improvements must identify cuts and revenues to public housing operating subsidies, and installation of infrastructure. But meet those targets by mid -June. and severely distressed public housing. the funding would be $400 million less Entitlement spending reductions and The budget would provide $100 than 1993 levels. proposed tax increases will have to million for lead hazard reduction, with The new state revolving low - reduce the deficit by $343 billion over 90 percent of the funds going directly interest loans for cities to help defray the next five years. to cities and states for removal of paint costs of implementing the safe Less than two percent of the in private units. drinking water act would get $600 proposed budget goes directly to cities. The President's budget also milli Redirecting of funds for Super - More than half of federal spending is proposes a modest increase for the directed toward mandatory and Economic Development Administra- fund would shift financing to those entitlement programs. lion. responsible for polluting sites. Super - fund clean-up funds would decrease $88 billion under the Clinton budget Cable TV shows seven percent revenue Proposal. P Anew residential lead -based paint gain in 1991 hazard reduction act program would fund development of training programs Total revenue for the nation's $4 billion in 1991, an increase of eight for workers certification of contractors cable television industry rose about percent in 1990. to remove lead paint. seven percent from 1990 to over $23 Advertising revenue for the cable billion in 1991, according to the 1991 industry reached nearly $2 billion in Transportation Annual Survey of Communication 1991 up approximately 12 percent The President's Budget would Services. from the previous year. fully fund the new highway programs Cable system operators reported The report also provides informa- authorized under the federal surface basic service revenue of approximately lion on expenditures for 1991. Total transportation program (ISTEA) and $11 billion, almost half of all industry operating expenses reached nearly $19 fund public transportation programs at revenue in 1991, and up nearly 10 billion 1991, with program and 90 percent of authorized spending percent from the previous year. In production costs accounting for 30 levels for 1994. contrast, pay -per -view and other percent of the total expenses. The budget would extend the premium services revenue showed The 1991 Annual Survey of essential air services program at little change from 1990. Cable Communication Services will available current levels. Funding for the airport television networks reported revenue later this year. 0 improvement program for public from programming services of nearly airports would increase by $79 million over 1993 levels. 0 Page 10 LMC Cities Bulletin No liability when cities get data practices opinions Joel Jamnik question relating to the classification of data or access to data, or the H.F.1750 (Krueger, DFL- rights of data subjects. Staples), the House omnibus state State agencies, political subdivi- departments appropriations bill, sions, or persons that act in confor- includes a League supported miry with a written opinion of the t proposal concerning data practices chief information officer would not opinions. The bill provides for the be liable for compensatory or �^ ►» state chief information officer, upon exemplary damages or awards of the request of a state agency or attorneys fees or any penalty under political subdivision or any person, the state data practices act. 0 to give a written opinion on any IT EASIER TO REPLACE NLC to hold cable conferences Ann Higgins chile renewal process. City officials can learn about franchise renewal YOUR SHOES The National League of Cities and issues and how cities can deal with the University of Wisconsin will hold competition among cable industry seminars on new cable rules, rate programmers. In addition, the seminar THAN YOUR regulation issues and renewal prose- will concentrate on recent and antici- dures during the next several months. pated changes in technology that will The schedule is: affect cable systems. Please contact the NLC Center for HEART, NLC Cable Seminar May 13 -14 Y Education &Information Resources at Raleigh, NC (202) 626 -3170 for registration Exercise can help UW Cable Workshop June 17 -18 information. Registration fees: $225 reduce your risk of Madison, WI per person for NLC member cities heart disease. Isn' Tulsa, OK participants Seminar June 24 -25 ($210 per person for two or more that enough to get you participants from the same city); $250 NLC Cable Seminar July 22 -23 per person for non -NLC member cities back in your shoes and Portland, OR ($235 per person for two or more). up on your feet? The new cable television con- You can help prevent sumer protection and competition act University of Wisconsin heart disease and stroke. could improve local regulation of We can tell you how cable systems and services. To workshop understand changes in federal law and The program will feature a Call 1 - 800 AHA USAl. FCC regulations, the League encour- practical introduction to cable fran- ages city officials to attend these chiee enforcement. Registration fees workshops. are $190 for one day; $285 for both. American Heart Special rates are available for three or Association IV NLC cable seminars more officials from the same city. For The NLC program will review the more information, contact Barry Orton new federal law and the cable fr an- at (608) 262 - 2394.0 This space provided as a public service. ;1993, American Heart Association April 30, 1993 Page 11 C. C. LUDWIG AWARD AND LEADERSHIP AWARD Deadline extended to: May 13, 1993 Cities are urged to submit nomination materials to: Darlyne Lang League of Minnesota Cities 3490 Lexington Avenue North Shoreview, MN 55126 If you have any questions, please call Darlyne Lang at . 612/490 -5600 a.Y' • {b'xFV �°a � , r f �_ 5 „ ,L� a". <'�,,��'��crP {. ,�, a '�.. - . . `'�' Bill status The League has streamlined this bill status report to indicate when the Legislature has included a bill in other bills, such as the omnibus tax bills. We have removed bills that have had no action and appear dead. For detailed informaiton on a specific bill, contact the League legislative staff. Indicates League support or general, conformance to League policim Annexation ?� ; . f > .Metro challenge grant Elections for certain annexations , � s �; H F 1446 (Jefferson) . Referred to Governmental ;Operations H.F228 C Brown) `' i }- Wand Gamin Committee k ( k No action taken �� f -�Z g S.F.138 ckeiman) - "No action taken. ' " s, S.F.1289 (Kroening) Referred to lobs, Energy, and Community Development tommittee. Repeal of 1992 annexation amepdments H.FS 12 (Ozment) No action taken. ' TIF redevelopment districts S.F.143 (Pariseau)' No action taken. H.F.1501(Jar6s) No'actiontaken'. S.F.1111 (Flynn) Included in Senate omnibus tax bill. *Annexation statute changes H.F731 (Pugh) No action taken. Pollution abatement loans, bonding, TIP S.F.365 (Hottinger) No action taken.' 11 H.F.1549 (Wagenius) Referred to Taxes Committee. S.F732 (Mondale) Included in Senate Omnibus tax bill. Composition of Municipal Board h H. s F.849 Ost �'aa increment financing district ( .off} " No action taken. :• g for manufacturing S.F.364 (Hottinger) - .,. No action taken. S.F.820 (Pappas) Amended and included in Senate Omnibus tax bill. *• Annexation proceedings No House companion. H.F850 (Osthoff) No action taken...; S.F.363,(1(elly). No action taken.. Elections Regional library districts Courts and Cnme . H.F99 (Easley) Referred to Taxes Committee. Judicial misdemeanor schedule repealed S.F124 (Stumpf) Referred to Education Committee H.F.154 (Skoglun'd) " ''included m House crime bill S F.105 (Spear)° �PassedSenate Campaign reform H.F.161(Sparby) In Conference Committee. *Recreational activity toitlunitat�ons f N� `S F,152 (Luther), r M H F887�(Hasskamp) Referred to Com�mrc`et»d�� �0 , k.?Economic De%elopmen Committee *t it balloting �S F719 (Stumpf); No action taken ,,, ,�ti .: .• >, H.F.201 Passed House. S.F.189 (Stumpf) H.F. 201 substituted for S.F.189: On on and several Ifabllity modifications - Senate floor. �fiF1342'(Simoneau o action taken W; SF�56(Stumpj o c.. on en _own elections on general election day x . 4 L F238 blolnau) On e . M _ � Mous _oor CV 0 1IIeI1 Johns. enate oor is e s tore, and eAm An, ce x q kf � # $2' as F41bi(Pogeniiller} eferred to Finance Committee mannfactut jwgFts` H F870 auer 1 y) aic bill' (B cluded�n u e�mnibus ter °Informatlon'program s y No Senate, R comp N� anion efened to'Economic Development n s " Infrastruct ure and Regulation Fu:ance ..Pollution clean up grants,` loans; Kn - f'� u r a Committee.. H.F.1189'(Rest) y s - .Included m House omnibus'tax bill S.F286 (Flynn) Referred to Finance Committee S. omnibus F.1169 (Mondal e) fi Included uiSente tax bill: April,30,1993 Status 1 Precinct boundary data *Pehofund modifications ' H.F.299 (Rodosovich) Referred to�Ways and Means ; H.FS14 (Sparby) Referred to Ways and Means. Committee.. Committee. S.F.410 (Pogemiller) Referred to Finance Committee. S.F920 (Novak) Referred to Finance Committee. 'Uniform local elections Combined sewer overflow program expansion study H.F.323 (Osthoff) On House floor. H.F.863 (Dempsey) On House floor. S.R1512 (Luther) On Senate floor. S.F.636 (Murphy) Passed Senate. 'Absentee and mail voting *�klternative`.to,superfnnd for landfiII cleanup s ~ n ,H.F377 , (Bergson) On! HousE ~floor. H.F1291(Wagenius) No action taken -S.0.1483 (Marty) Na action taken.. S,A1133 <(Morsa) No "action taken_ 4 r_Mailing regpirements for school district referendum notices R uirements for wetland snit atlo H,F,381,(Bauerly) ,:�.. Chapter-44., �; �;�'.- H,F 1402�(I. Anderson) Referr«i to Rules andLe is alive t 'S.FS09 (Murphy) SignedApril 23,:1993.. Adaiinistr.�tion.Colninittee S.F.1363 (Stumpf) Referred;to Rules and �Kdminlstrat�on Secretary of state housekeeping bill Committee r; H:F509 (Delmont) On House floor. S.F.567 (Marty) On Senate floor. * �3' Wetland conservation' S.F.707 (Dille) No action taken. ` *Automatic recount requirements No House companion. yH :FS16 (Opatz) On House floor s.F27o (eohen) Passed senate. Finance and taxation Removal of deceased voter records Property tax changes affecting agricultural property -and H.F. various school aid changes 934 (Stanius) � On floor. S.F.754 (Runbeck) Passed Senate. H.F41(Cooper) : `Included in House omnibus tax bill #e - S.F.55 (Beckman) Included in Senate omnibus tax bill.':x Publication and posting of notice of filing dates by county �:� auditors League LGA proposal ' (C. Brown) Passed House. H.F48 (Ostrom) Included in House omnibus tax'bill S.F.78 (Hottinger) Referred to Taxes and Tax Law S.F, 1531 (Sams) Passed Senate. _ „ Committee.` Judicial positions by number oa ballot , H F 1530 (Pent) No action,taken.. ` sales tax exemption for certain k►catgovernment purdrases S F1202 (Luther) ,' On'Senate floor ' H.F.76 (R.�Johnson) S Included m house omnibus tax bill r (F ) _+ Referred tolTaa and Tax Laws q �"'�r •� 'v 3 r g ' Ineligible candidate cannot: beon ball ot :+ ;' Committee: F 5 3 (Welcman 4n Housefloor ^ �y w S' � �p VI uatiOII exelnptlOn fo - �/(1dir 011IeS 6b3 Ogemiller) ' ass Senate Q + d e� F = a s IL E179 (Wagemus) Included m� House omnibus I bill "' ` Campaign" Reform ` S.F 686 (Flynn) Referred to'Taxes'and Tax Laves S.F 25 (Marty) Portions included in S.F152 - H.F 163 CO mitt No House companion. i 's : capital unp � on�n �H.F21 8 (Staniui; '... r°v °t 21 n ne ta: ecd- menu:_ ous` ` 62 eckm8u n. rollunen _: 4 i11an men a mend On Credo or my F,287�(Wagemus) I?assod Af H.F293 J Johnson SF.( ) On "'Sentoor .. tat " govern p appropriations rGhangiag the co ition'bC a PMA technicaladvlsory H.F.326 (Haukoos o ca tiontal end r�Inmittce � ` _ -�€ �M�� 3 a:,., � �: e x�, r ,�,• H.FS34 (McCollum),-, - On House floor S.F 168 (Fredcnckson) eferred to Metropolitan and l ocal x ., 4 Governmen[ Committee ° �`. S.F.96 (RivC7iass) Passed Senate. Status 2 LMC Cities Bulletin' Governor's Transportation and Semi -State Appropriations Tax on sports bookmaking H.E328 (Frerichs) Referred to Transportation and Transit H.R1628`(Kahn) Included in House omnibus tax bill. Committee. S.F.1479 (McGowan) Included in Senate omnibus tax bill. S.F.188 (Runbeck) No action taken. Vacant hospitals Sales tax exemption for libraries H.F.1655 (Krueger) Included in House omnibus tax bill. H.F.369 (Wagenius) No action taken. S.F.1563 (Sams) Included in Senate omnibus tax bill. S.F.228 (Reichgott) Included in Senate omnibus tax bill. Leasehold cooperative treatment Tax technical corrections H.F.1706 (Rest) Included in House omnibus tax hill: II:F.427.(Winter) - =:: Passed House. S:F. 1554 (Posemiller) : Included in Senate omnibus tax billy ,- S F.585 (Pappas)On Senate floor., HOmCSbead,CLaBSifieanon extension < r, I�evyrlimit technical corrections H.F.1716 (Rukavma) . Included in House omnibus tax b➢ll. It H:F.443 (E. Olson) Passed Mouse:' ' S.F.1578 (D.J. Johnson). Included in'Senate omnibus tax >xl� S.R607 (Flynn) On Senate floor. Homestead property verification Gambling HX305 f l[rueger) ' . Included in House omnibus tax bill. Video lottery machines in liquor .. No Senate companion. `' H.F.122 (Bertram) Referred to Governmental' ' Operations and Gambling Property tax terminology Committee. • H.F.756 (Ness) Included in House omnibus tax bill. S.F.164 (Bertram) No action taken. ,; : ` S.R706 (Olson) No action taken. 'R Board of local government innovation • Charitable gaming control board legislative proposals,_: H.R980 (I. Anderson) `'Referred to Ways and Means H.F.321(Kahn) No action taken. Committee. S.R103 (Berg); • On Senate floor. S.F.734 (Reichgott) Included in Senate omnibus tax bill. Gambling tax ._ Delinquent debts: Deduction from state aids H.F.1647 (Kahn) .No'action taken_' H.F. 1057 (Dawkins) ; Referred to Taxes Committee. S.F 571(Berg) Referred to Governmental Operation t= S.R950 (Kelly) Included in Senate omnibus tax bill. and Reform Committee Commercial and industrial property class rate General gOVernnlent HF.1302 Included in Mouse omnibus tax bill. Regional public Library distracts S.F 1189 (Sams) Included in Senate omnibus tax bill. H.F.99 (I:aslei+) ;. 5 Rgferrid to Taxes Commi ' ttee. r s S F 124 (Stumpf) �" Refe�d to Taxes and Tax ws ' �St Paul General sales ta x t ay'.'ta X� e ' , IJ F 1319 ((hemstein) :Included in Aou'se omnibus tax bill eferred to axes an�7;ax aws �n � a _; H 070i Bony Pen laves ,, mmittee H.F.613 (Carruthers),�xN9nction taken' s ' S.F715 (Riveness) ,No action taken `�� v �" a ;. ,,. . <a ;' "'° ..,` ,.•� i.'; #fie -x�, +s�`z4�.'1',' ' ' ' Iiandicapprovements exemptlon H.F.1321 (Blatz) Included in House omnibus tax bill Combining state agencies -- Senate DFL proposal #3 No Senate companion H F743 (Welke) No action taken +# `,*. ,aY _h� rt# ^tea 3��att�`tia'3ar t r `� i ii ato X treatment A in u ouse mnibus ill o n e e u crate mmb s 'ill gg t on `' � ����� `i esidenti butiding.mntra e ` es ouse floor F 082. ecl a xY� y) I'i eil1'er) o achontaken m a,. t a� ,,.rtq, �,Y�i`d�44 S F .93er), Senate fl '. Homestea classification'eatension ' , ' 4 ; '�k'x' ' , X § F 153cCollum) 4Included m House ommbus tax bill , < ' AC�:membership ` H p 97 Kelly), ¢ a �Ineludedan Senate omnibus tax bill H F984 (Krieger) ' ' Refe jo Governmen s ` a� + Y y F and Gaming Committeet`h; Damaged homestead market value increase limitation . S.F.1307 (Riveness) Referred to finance Committee � ' � , ' H.F.1544 Included in House omnibus tax bill.- (Winter) No Senate compan April 30, 1993 Status 3 r *Building code changes Adding commissioners to the metropolitan airports H.F. 1043 (Beard) No action taken, commission S.F. 1338 (Hottinger) Referred to Finance Committee. H.F.431(Garcia) On House floor. Omnibus data practices bill S.F508 (Riveness) No action taken. H.F1245 (McGuire) Referred to Taxes Committee. Dual track airport development planning S.F976 (Ranum) OnSenate floor. H.F479 (Morrison) No action taken. S.F.472 (Pariseau) No action taken. * Use of self- insurance funds to satisfy statutory bond requirements s z- Fundin metro lltaa area re onal arks g Po P. H.F12$1'(Mahon} 't * On House floor x 'H.F.615'(Kahn) No action taken S.F•1141(Hottmger) Passed Senate rS.F705 (Pace) ,` No ac taken N u 0using I,s€� il x s§gs r > g n,of`agricultural land' ''``r `` ..: ` '�.. ��H�Orfield On House'floor MHFA housing progranikNunding �` ' _S.F69S H.1384 (Marian) Referred to Health and Human ') No action taken �' Services Committee. ' S. Special taxing datrlcts, F.264 (Anderson) Referred to Finance Committee.. ` t J H.F.629.{Cariou rs) No action taken. Housing development authorities' SY 1194 (Mondale) , ,,I Referred to Taxes and Tax ,Law H.F504 (Dawkins) On House floor. CO 'ttce S.F675 (Metzen) `r' No actiontaken: Metropolitan Council enterprise zone program H.E677 (Orfieid) No action taken. Comprehensive.choiceliousing program " X `. H.F671(Orfield} t�nHouse floor _ S•F.479 (Mondale) ' No action taken. S.F529 (Novak) � Included in Senate omnibus tax bill . Elected Metropolitan Council Neighborhood action plans . H X. 959 (McCollum} No action taken., H.E835 (Luther) Referred to Health and Human �`'S.F.843 (Flynn); No action taken Services Committee'.' S.F.1177 (Luther) - .`Referred to Jobs, Ene Abolishing Metropolitan Council creating Twin Cifies metro` rBY• and board ' Community Development Committee. H.F1053 (Carruthers) �:, 1Yo; acton °taken * anges, 1250 No (Luther) TIF housing district ch S.E ti taken �.. H F..855 (Jefferson) No action taken..:,, S F 1269 (Berglin Included to Senate omnibus 'bill AMM metro governance bill r 4 � i aymL'4 r a l�t _'r *ry „: k z ; l FL1HH(Matlam)M�z U actloII tak C`.II t ,`�* t�i 3 s •f FC7 _ T„ 4 � �nsura ce � ? h^'• � ' s �,^"�'fi ��� +. ��*`*�� �k � `.� �` No � en e�7 t _`�} ass thro � f r ,�,.'� ughf„rock� � ,� tZ mpensation � n. � ;ezemp � . tos � gona a rope 'refunds a ,x��t °� �� sa sI1. F1294 {KahII }! �; S.E176 (Moe) . On Senate'floor r Committee, j��Liquor � etropo�ti�a lax s r �< z - F 370 (amble do aniendnieatsr S 1' ghwa . q , n - ausm n b n Pal{ un S F 348 ( dersoII o lion , n X48 a on r-� �. s����. a•� � T�� � =w� F787� eua 1TF reporting through trntti in taIratiOII x n,. H F412 (Rest} �'' " `Na oII erson , n " S F408 (D:J� H.F. 1720(Jeffers>n) Omen ers _ „S,F269 (Cohen) . Referred [oARules aad Administration µz g A c3 'tc Committee . k rB s e. .' Status 4 LMC Cities Bulletin Publ , sae ty > ` :Duluth: Special service district Contractor licensing exemption for manufactured home I .F.1479 (Jaros:) Referred to Taxes Committee. dealers and installers S.F.1336 (Solon) Included in Senate omnibus tax bill. H:F.174 (Nelson) Chapter 9 S.F.91 (Sams) Signed March 26, Minneapolis and St. Paul: Enterprise zone program H.F. 1582 (Hausman) Referred to Taxes Committee. Special legislation S.F537 (Runbeck) Referred to Taxes and Tax Laws Committee. Eveleth: police and tirexetiretnent•benefitIrcrease H.F55 (Riicavma) I'asseil House 1° S:F86 (Janezicb) : A at�erl . ``• 1�ransportation Senate . w .t r a Bonding for:bridge construction and reconstrunhoa Minneapolis 22esWency regnlremeat s z a, r1 H:FS,(taeder} 4 Included in bonding ill fi a H'F74 (Jefferson)' No Pissed Mouse S F.36 (I,angseth) Referred ction `to Txans uon blic = S.F,324 (Flynn �, S aeiiate�floor " "i ' `� 'Tran'simmttee r F _. nndin tor'town b 5t.3'sul . y Property fax adgisory �commlttee and TII11T'besting g ridge replacement H.F43 - (Kinkel) {)u House fioo v» H.F 713 (Orenatem) Ircltidedlr House omnibus tax bill. S,F773 (Sams) Senate floor S:F86 {Pappas) "Referred to Taxes and Tax i aws , :' ''oitimitiee. V ' Light railtransit -MnDOT authority, Met Coube�l "review p F Duluth: HRA �levy.authority H.F403 (Simoneau) On House floor. - .. : Referred ;toTaxes Committee. nn) S.F414 (Fly ' On Senate floor . S.F489 (J Johnson) .No action taken. ' State resolution of disputes ' v . , isp w olvmg Pedestrian- bicycle trails , ') ' " " � cover railroad tracks Faribault: ��ivIl serx�ce exemption - H.F.560 (Asch) On House floor. " H.F$12(Rodosevich) :On =Houseflom. ` S.F485 (Neuvilie) ; : Passed Senate. 404 (R beck) No.action taken. S.F un ; Garrison:; Local sales tax Metro highway projects, EL4 requirements t HXA026'(Wenzel) ' Included an `Horse omnibus tax bill. H.F623.(Orfi Referred to Transportation and I'ransrt S,1284 (Samuelson) do Senate.tloor Committee S.F. 474 (Pappas) Referred to Transportation and Public NLnneapolis, "Eapendrturesorpeal setvjce tlistirict ' Transit`Comxtiittee _ H X 1104 (Ofield) tncluiled in House omnibus tax bill. x S F302 (Fogemillex)- slu�edan Senate nimbus aax bill. InDQT department bill,�ridge 815(Ot lnspectaons ' HF.shoff) a taken '� �'�tefetrec� ia e tt F47So1 {� ;:.. c1 ° ded' :. otisetannibus bill= + dfM ncrease.A nd � a a . , x. 03, (Tune`nn� e ,� ransrtaon i + a nomittee a +4_ lfi"2k n i ,*, a x> leSaY 3 " H.Jolinson , �.,.. S.F1251 1279 Lan seth Ho action an axtaws taken. ( 8 ) �eieate m axes S F.1067 (Ffin) er Refred to Taxes`.and Tax Laws h d ll study ° Hig spee ta <. •" R a S - mmiCtee ' � ��IF1052�Fr�clis�`' _ .3 875; tin llr8a j �.� ° Garcia ' x gas �142 1yna) n i �� �`� I r° xpenditurea from SAH�tnun ccou t r p gQ #i F 1272Jeffenon) "n au z Y ew�Br�httsn��l,cqu"issi �� "aJ'sfem 7 (McGow On era :F39 �` H.E1404 (Evans) Passed House S F 1005 ovak (1`i ) Passed Scnat�e Status 6 LMC Cities Bulletin a rq� a �f .;7���, ¢,� d .':'+ •�?a#: . E: =�., -; °:v x" � f3�r^` .��,�J.4'pi �, �?n'•r 3c'S ,i•: Triple - trailer trucks Bloomington Ferry Bridge funding H.F.1315 (Bertram) Referred to Ways and Means S.F.7 (Vickerman) Included in bonding Bill. ' committee. No House companion. S 81148 (Bertram) Amended and passed Senate. Toll roads — public development, private operation Utilities ILE1366 (Iaeder) On House floor. Municipal utilities and co-ops to comply with PUC standards S.F. 1184 (Chmielewski) Passed Senate. H.F.1049 (Jacobs On House floor. S.F.1437 (Novak) No action taken. Residential speed limits of 25 m.p.h. - HF.1398 (Evans) ; tip. Ouse floor:.; ZOIIIIIg, S.F 1264 (Novak) On Senate floor. Ownershipof consultant products t R361 (Davids) No action taken H. Ga "s taz, transportatton tax, RTB levy, ISTEA distribution, S.F.149 (D. Benson) Returned to authvc . t wstlands� z > H.R1521(Osthoff) Referred to Transportation and Transit L Committee: . S.F.816 (Chmielewski) Referred'to Transportation and Public r Transit Committee. : x- D��1 �`R•E •C •T•O• R•Y �� OF . CITTO�FFICIALS Price $25 *.• The Directory contains: Direct Updates • Names of all city officials and department treads in es to this vA be available and r Mrmeeota.� L 5 * i September for thelolovv'rrg infonnation: Nernes mayors, • city hall street laddreeeae end2ip codes manager*, daft, and oounalmernbens and city hall addresses, Desrgnafron of Plan A and Plan Bottles phone and fax numbers. • CouncY tneetktg dates *,m , - , The ?dredory purchase price Includee the updates.` Telephone of sky hel or ply clerk when aveleble Please send changes to Laurie Atxlette LMC 90 34 y o v" OK � FoPu fat the 990 �ede►al cerreus zt,Lexi VW Avenue North a ea MN 55126 , •� CDngreeeional d ta• } a +" d�. �,a - Ulr 9C0 tS . �` „• +� E �. a � , �payrrten „ txt fable for r a gals � t= � ;, ' u order �u �f Mnn'esota ° Dlties k on No � 'aul 126 ; j 4 '. .. � ., ' °,. .. ,•s.�x lea ..+ear.Kr*�avr`� 2' Order,forr�n: 1993 Directory of Minnesota City Officials Name_ 1 101 L ,. UM R r �ttes gb scour ubotal�� 6 596�i' ki taa (multiply ost;3ge tang handlin " � yonr order s * n 1 OO an $25.00 '' ` $ 1.50 stage and handllti9 x 5 y ' (see chart at left) $26 .'00 and $50.00'' $3 00 ` F x" $51.00 and $75.00 $4.50 9ver $75.00 , ; ­ $6.00 Total enclosed.a NMI Effective December 1, 1992 BUL April 30, 1993 Status 7 ::.. .:, +.jS: %:iry: ?:;;; };•;+`�.s. ..,r..ir+'rr. ?<•,r:••.•r r• .. -.. . . , #'a'fes ; Li {5. +• ,;: :x .: ;�± . ....•;..... ..:.;w.vn:•:.r:•:£vr • "•:•y :r. , fi;•• :....v.:::: •:, ` 4x,.x .. .., a.., ri... .. - ,.,, .. .... .,, .rrrr::4r:•:fi}•.:...:::: -v.:: n:• `;• }:. x. :, .... v ., .:,. i': •;.� i� :::} . rfi: ;. }:•r:•ri::;.:vi:C.rr:?.:v:fi';: ri•:::::tir............ n.:: \, ;.x ,. ..:, , ,.. .•. �:� - ::v:.... ?.:fir }w ::::........:::•: rYr: {.;:::: •. r.. .:a; }:., }, � �` , :..::n:v::.v:.v ::.........: ......::rev : ?•::::: :•::: r:4:: ?fir: ?}.; •. . ,.. ............. .the a ...: .. .. .:.:.: r r::. r ...:: ::: •:.::: ? ?.: :::::::: r:. r ::: .•'•:w:'�'��si4�,•,y:�;;,;;.: �y< . Eligibility: All member cities "are I ell ihe to g ' submit entries. What to t er- Y ou ma Y en to materials, a eri als lane or projec the r CI has produced or P d P J P ' n in volt' ed'n ::zs;::;..... '.•::� '�.: >: • :.::::: :::::::.,- :::::.�::::::r:::.� >: Q� bee t be ry tweenJanua 1, 1992 and AP .... ............................... . �Q,� 1.� n115, 1998. . -__ Preparing your entry: Submit two copies of ♦ your entry materials and two copies of the entry fgnit nd entry information ; s Complete a separate ntry4grm fart f each entry 4r� t'3+* Choose the appropriate categOneS. , Al y ' `t a . r fIA 1 bl1nte �gtnestnatreenngbin er Y r t y # a p3F et pOTlfOItO (tglder�� ♦ `'` Include gp port matenal try t�. Include thg following? tnformat�on` w Category Descnption Of the entry , trategy, purpose/Process) Goals %objectives Implementation 4 to z Results /evaluation /applicability to . azw s other cities Ir Sum statement of 100 words or 4 e less __�d r:.:. }:f -:. ? CA1tTalJ7t4112Calfl/>S +� , {,v and deadfine fihere`is no en ... -, s••:;n:•r:;:;;:;�.:•:::: •rr •.•:::•::, .,.,..;;.y::o; ?i•>•�:. v". �k"'Y.= s ,�,. r �r�r. -. : -. ..ny.,. _ ". - e� "txM- : -•�, ! .. :a6$: 9•.^e. r w :.r:•rr:. }rr:, z r: ?:. : ; r.. t yq , , , � � ,. �DeadlltlC at• mrtUn ,er 4 ye r- :;:f S:•i �:• ? %::•i i. "•:tip..: /r:::: 4.4'.. COMM 71I'�JJJ.' S $.? ;;.r••r: }: � }: � : : ;::: .I.•.... �..... :,�1�7I s endrrn es "ta:Communications.. J , r:::::: •.:.. +.fir:.y } } }rfi}r: .. .. »'� c A,..x. .. .. ;�. '3. fi 1'•'s. ... v : •.• ix j, }rv.; y ? +.;;.. ..+1{ artment, Ire a of 1Kinnesota Crtres :4 .::...........:..:......... :: .. p� au ` .................:.:::.:•}: r:. ii.}:. r:. r:;.;:• r:•r:.::.r:.r:•r:r:. }:.r:. f - . ,:.gt . ,.. i:Y:•.'•::t iF::.:: ?'' , 4 i ^�.`• viri.. iy.Y.Y f i fi '+t i; i k kt .Y ...: : : :...:F� � m e �;: ; : ,, OOpP7t101t artdCO>sodatt z , u grudges in a expets fro .�: • : : : : : :. +• : : : : : : :: m :f. ? : :• :fi+ : ................ ..,, ',. •. ., tyre • ..:. stale•° s: Yom? tat Q .fi dsand'ia and }%.4rr• � 't�.c -x v ����..W4Y� � •k ,!3:> Lek ,. x & '� ," ' 3� , $. rt�r�hrg��numbets of entrees � � r }. S4 '. z c r ��a - a O�C1a137Flfthf' x rt } # x i y `ip.� °..'� v ""'",az�d k''•+z;.e.�. .''" y."w+�'r°wl7ldOa x� s: �^►/I}l�••M%(y�(e� lIt a Cdt�ge •y � ErrGC� �w }pi 7�L . t; ' : r //��/ �Q I�� ♦r � K i � Y- � q5tineet- d gtn k ip a ;��staar as,.,.,., �.,;�,: � • :aa��c =,�.`s�""',i" ' 8�13I1�"e�'.�'dai`(I5�, ' t }ate: > g1ta c r. , t : y ^, .Send entlits W ?kpartmeitt 3490 ngtvnA �otificatton q e 55126 nod release ti oil td�tvrnners k, q,•` _ i l 7 p rior to, to the awards ceremony I p :. +«t.FOrmore ` D earlfrne April 30, ' 1993 Ainley,Zaunielliidetfe oiJe n hielileGoad " ' L — — — — — _ J at the League office 612 /490 -5600. f ., / ::. ...:.:.:::. r::r <.:.; ; . i <:;•;: is i:�i:!.i: : :.';•:i: is <: :T::.. Gf a m ''. Y t BBBBtif> f f i r �fa�t But"fdin, Br i d g e s . in directions � r•: rr: �. ::, .,... :...... ,::.: ;:..::.;... ::::::•:::::pis:::;.;% .1Sf! , ,�' .:/:/:::..>: r.rr..r.....:,.:iTi;:!;•i; >:,.. .:•• :::::::::: ::::::::;::: :...::.:� :::;:.:.:. iT ': ! :;:;i: i:o-i: ' r +/ . ............. r.. fw• '.: : r.ii: iii %.::::::::�::::::: i:�i i:.;'.; :'::::j}'::� . %:::;:. %:; %ii:::::!!!:�ii:!::�: ii iiiiii: i:4iiii:vi T... 1 'G r ,G ": • �izo> r::>: zaio-;;.;::::-:.>: s<: ii:<> o-:< ci:.iiiiii:.;;.;;l::>isi:!ci::: nisi> ii: o: oiiii: �ii >i:c:ai:� }:F: ................. .. ......:..... / r� sf ...... ........ :................. :. :.: � :. � : : :. � :::. �.: � : : :. :. :: r : :!� : : : :!.ii; :;.iio- :a :ai; :i � :; � > :! :!!• iii:! �>:!! a:; rt:!!! pi i:`:;: fi:%:::: Y•i :�i :�i; %[s ?.,'nii :�.., : ..... v . .w.• ::::: : : :... : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :'.. :: :.:: :: : :. : : : : : :i : : : :! : :.i ?iii : :!.i :ii : :fi :rii ii :'! iiii: ir%:; i:;:!:!: ii : :}}! ? : :.!. :; %}:;:,T:.: ?; :i;;i JC \.. ...,.. / f..f ........................................................ ....................i : :�i ::. :•r : iii : % %%�i iii'�T : %%i: .. /. �: ��..: .tf::. �.rF f :: :v : : ::.• : : : : : :.�: .. :� :.� ..: ................ :', :; {� •:•):ti l,. r: ..... ................ :......:: .......... ..... iii::::: ...................::.::::::: .... .iiii:..... Y� rir,. � /..., yy �.......... ............. ....:.::.::::.::....:..:... .................... : : :. : :.� : :, i iii:. ..::::::: : : : : :.�. :� : : : : : : : :.� : :i : :. :. : :: ! iiii: iiii: : : : :.ii : : :< is>: i::.:::::::.::::::. : : : : : : : : :ii :ii :.. :i : :;a :;;>i :i: •:::::::::. E: F/ r y} . f i$i + :' f.. f... :: f l 7'{ iiii: :....... �. ry. N5, i: .............. ..................:::::::: l /���/ �T:iiT :i ........,:.. - ....... . : : :'.... : :... : :. ..................... � ..., ...., ....... � : : : : : : : : : :: : : : : :.�._ :: . : : : : : :.� : : : : :. � :.� : : : : :: :..iiii i : :�i : : :�?i :!4; i :�i :. : ? : :!�i ;'iiii }T }ifiiTi }.. ' }: :•:. � :. iq F .f •� . � :. / . � : : ;•i'i: i!: � :� � � � .:. i� :iiii :i is :. / .iiii.::: : � � ....i: ii:.!4.: .:.: � :.i :'. :i :i :.i : : :.i :� : : :i :•i :: .......iiii ................... .............................., ....... ........ ;.::«;. Ti:!:.::::.::::::•:::....... ............................... .....N..............�. 1993 LMC Annual Conference Housing Housing information SINGLE DOUBLE Early Bird Special Americana Inn ............................ $45 $54 For member city officials only. The Holiday Inn, Radisson Suites, 520 South Highway 10 and Kelly Inn will provide one complimentary weekend for two at ' Budgetel Inn .. ............................... $30 $38 their hotel, excluding meals, as an early bird special prize. Only 70 South 37th Avenue delegates sending in their housing registration form by Comfort Inn ... ............................... $38 $43 May 1, 1993 will be eligible. The winner must pay the room tax 4040 2nd Street South and all incidental charges. D ays Inn ......... ............................... $34 $40 815 W Street south Impo rtant Instructions Econo Lodge .. ............................... $33 $41 Rooms will. be reserved on a first -come, first -served basis. The 420 Highway 10 S. I- earlier you make your reservations, the better the chance you will Fairfield Inn ... ............................... $44 $44 have of getting your first choice hotel. The hotels will hold the 4120 2nd Street South room block until May 25, 1993, after which regular room rates Holiday In .... ............................... $62 $C2 will be in effect, if available. 37th and West Division Radisson Suite Hotel .................... $75 $75 A deposit equal to one night's lodging per room must accompany 404 St. Germain Street this housing m form. Best Western Kelly In ................. $60 $60 (Formerly Sunwood Inn) CREDIT CARD PREFERRED One Sunwood Drive Super 8 Motel ............................... $35 $43 MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO THE ST CLOUD 50 Park Avenue AREA CVB. SHUTTLE BUSES WILL RUN BETWEEN ALL MOTELS AND THE You will receive an acknowledgment of your reservation ST. CLOUD CIVIC CENTER from the assigned hotel. NOTE: THE KELLY INN IS THE HEADQUARTERS HOTEL. All changes in reservations or cancellations must be made Suites are available at the Holiday Inn, Radisson Suites, and the through the Housing Bureau in writing. Kelly Inn hotels. Contact Darlyne Lang at the League office if you wish to reserve a suite. (please print or type) Housing Reservation Name: Title City orOrganization: Address: City: State: Zip Arrival Date: Arrival Time: Departure Date: Hotel Preference First: Second: Third Special Requirements: Smoking: _ No — Yes Names of All Occupants: Do you wish to guarantee payment for arrival after 6 :00 p.m? Credit Card Preferred Yes No �EnrInsed is a. deposit equal to one night's lodging CreditCardCompany per room CardNumber MAF:F,CKS PAYABLE TO F.xpiationDate ST CLOUD AREA CVB The I,MC Housing Bureau is authorized to use the above card Send to: to guarantee my hotel reservations reserved by me. I under- League of Minnesota Cities stand that one night's room will be billed through this card if Housing Bureau I fail to show up for my assigned housing on the confirmed , St. Cloud Area Convention & Visitors Bureau date, unless I have cancelled my reservations with the hotel P. O: B prior to 6:00 pan. on the day of arrival. Box 48 7 Y St. Cloud, MN 56302 Attn: Julie Whitted ' Cardholder signature Date Retain a copy of this form for your records. If you do not receive a confirmation from the hotel within two weeks, contact Julie Whitted at 1 -800- 264 -2940. 1993 Annual Conference Registration I. General Information Please type or print Every delegate, guest, speaker, media representative, and other attendees Name Sex F M MUST REGISTER with this form. Nickname for badge Title Complete the form in full and return it City or organization along with full payment of all appro- Mailing address priate conference registration fees to City State zip address indicated. Telephone ( ) NOTE: No registration will be proc- Family members attending (There is no registration fee. DOES NOT INCLUDE essed without payment in full, or with - MEAL TICKETS. ORDER BELOW) out an accompanying city voucher or purchase order. Spouse full name Sex F M Child Age II. Registration Deadlines Child Age May 14, 1993: Final postmark dead- line for Early Registration. This is my first League of Minnesota Cities Annual Conference. May 28, 1993: Final postmark dead - FULL CONFERENCE MINI- CONFERENCE line for Advance Registration. June 8 -11, 1993 June 10, 1993 M. Conference Registration Registration includes admission to all Registration includes admission to all sessions and conference activities, Thursday sessions including tickets to: Cancellation Policies go including tickets to: - Thursday Coffee and Rolls Your letter of registration cancellation • Wednesday Exhibitors' Luncheon • Thursday Mayor's Luncheon must be postmarked no later than May • Thursday Coffee and Rolls NOTE: This registration DOES NOT 28, 1993 to qualify for a refund of • Thursday Mayor's Luncheon include Thursday Banquet tickets. registration fees. • Thursday Banquet ORDERBELOW. • Friday Coffee and Rolls Aregistration cancellation is subject to Early Registration (Postmarked by May 14,1993) a $25 cancellation fee. $190.00 Full Conference $ $ 85.00 Mini - Conference $ IV. Special Needs IF YOU ARE DISABLED AND Advance Registration (Postmarked by May 28,1993) REQUIRE SPECIAL SERVICES, $210.00 Full Conference $ OR IF YOU HAVE SPECIAL DI- $ 95.00 Mini- Conference $ ETARY NEEDS, PLEASE AT- TACH A WRITTEN DESCRIP- On -Site Registration (at Conference) TION OF YOUR NEEDS. $230.00 Full Conference $ $105.00 Mini- Conference $ V. Registration Confirmation Pre- registrants will receive a postcard Extra Meal Tickets acknowledgment to be presented at the $11.00 Wednesday: Exhibitor's Lunch $ - ADVANCE REGISTRATION desk $11.00 Thursday Mayor's Luncheon $ for quick registration. $24.00 Thursday Banquet $ VI. Registration Information (NOTE: Mini - Conference registration DOES NOT INCLUDE THURSDAY For more information contact: Cathy BANQUET) Dovidio (612) 490 -5600. City contact Daytime phone # Make check payable and return with a.c. form to League of Minnesota Cities, Feel free to duplicate for multiple registrations. 3490 Lexington Avenue North, St. Paul, MN 55126. LMC Annual Conference Building Bridges in New Directions Preliminary Program Schedule Tuesday, June 8, 1993 Thursday, June 10, 1993 LMC Conference Planning Commitee Meeting Networking (by position) with coffee and rolls 12:30 p.m. 7:30 a.m. Special Legislative Wrap -Up Concurrent Sessions IV (choose one) 11:00 - 4:00 pm. 9:00 - 10 :25 a.m. ■ The Council -Staff Team: New Roles and Relationships in Special Kick -Off Event Starring Mark Russell the 90's St. Cloud Civic Center # Health Care: The Outlook for Cities 6 :30 pm. ♦ Building Bridges: Long -Range Planning for Infrastructure ♦ Bonding and Other Indebtedness Wednesday, June 9 ,1993 # Innovations/Sharing Between Small Cities Welcome./Opening Session # Defining the Council's Role in Small Cities 9:00 - 10:15 a.m. Keynote Speaker. Ted Gaebler Concurrent Sessions V (choose one) San Rafael, California 10:45 a.m. - 12:15 pm. Co-Author, "Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial ■ The Council -Staff Team: Finding Out What the Other Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector" Wants! X Making the Best Use of Contract Services/Privatization Concurrent Sessions I (choose one) V Budget Basics: Understanding Financial Reports and 10:30 - 11:30 am. Budgets ■ Dealing with Controversial Issues ♦ Economic Development: Tools and Innovations �t Preventing Sexual Harrassment # Understanding Small City Finances: The Basics Entrepreneurship: How To's # Survival Tips for Cities with Stable or Declining ♦ Environmental Issues Population/Business A Building a Relationship with Your Legislators Mayors Association/Mini- Conference Luncheon Exhibitor's Luncheon 12 :30 - 2 :00 p.m. 11:30 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.. Featured Speaker: Carl Neu General Session President, Neu and Company, Lakewood, Colorado 1 :00 - 2 :00 pm. Concurrent Sessions VI (choose one) Facilitated Dialogue with Legislative Leaders 2:15 - 3:30 p.m. ■ How to Be an Effective. Councilmember Concurrent Sessions 11 (choose one) X Innovations in Personnel Management 2:15 - 3:15 p.m. V Insurance Update from LMC Insurance Trust ■ Dealing with Irate Citizens in Non - Meeting Settings ♦ Downtown Development Initiatives X ` Accommodating Disabilities- -Part 1; Complying with ADA # Managing Growth V Innovations in Finance: Sharing Success Stories # Enforcing Building Codes/Zoning Regulations ♦ Youth as Resource to Cities A Cooperation /Collaboration/Coordination -- What's New League Annual Meeting Remarks by NLC President Don Fraser Concurrent Sessions III (choose one) 3:45 p.m. 3:30 - 4:30 p.m. ■ Educating the Public About Taxes: What Citizens Need to LMC Reception and Banquet Know and How to Communicate' 6:30 p.m. �t Accommodating Disabilities- -Part II: Updating Job Descriptions for ADA and Hiring Purposes Friday, June 11, 1993 V Entrepreneurship: How To's (repeat of earlier session) Awards Presentation and Finale General Session ♦ Timely Topic "Humor in the Workplace" Mandates: An Overview 9:00 -12:00 noon City Night in the Park Featured Speaker. Hal Schippits Events and shuttles begin immediately following workshops Director, Hennepin County Day Treatment Center 5:30 p.m. KEY ■ Between Council and Constituents /Staff X Within the Staff Keeping "Current" ♦ With the Community/Private Sector A With Other Jurisdictions # Especially for Small Cities Municipal ads Municipal ads are printed at no charge to member cities. Ads inn in one issue only unless notice complete; one Motorola Motrack radio, Is received to run a second time. The Cities Bulletin Is published weekly during the legislative complete; one Motorola Motrack radio session and once a month during the Interim, the time between sessions. Municipal ads will appear with rear control, complete; five Johnson In the next available Cities Bulletin. Cities have the right to reject any orall bids on equipment or portable radios (8) channels; two Johnson proposals, and to waive any intotmanties therein. Minnesota cities are equal opportunity radio chargers; eight leather cases for employers, portable radios; 35 Plectron alerting radios; one Plectron encoder; one Federal For Sale May 12, 1993 at 4:00 pm. Bids must be Q2 sirens one Federal electronic siren, sealed and plainly marked "forklift bid." complete; one Electro- -sonic siren; one ALTITUDE VALVE. The City of City retains the right to accept or reject Federal aerodynic light bar. The city will Fertile has for sale a never used 8" altitude accept any reasonable offer. For more valve. $8,000 or best offer. For more any or all bids. City of Tower, City Clerk/ Treasurer Treasu PO. Box 576, Tower, MN information contact Richard Krogh, fire information contact Don Dale at (218) chief, West St. Paul Fire Department, 1616 945 -6544. 55790. The forklift may be seen by appointment by calling (218) 753 -4070. Humboldt Avenue, West St. Paul, MN FIRE TRUCK The City of Cold 55118, (612) 552 -4230. Spring has for sale a 1946 Chev. um r LADDER. The City of Golden Valley p � has for sale a 1973 S 100 ft. aerial TRUCK The City of Bass Brook has fire truck with 750 gpm eagrave pumper. Truck is for sale a 1980 Mack midliner truck with a in collector condition. Sealed bids will be ladder complete with full complement of ground ladders powered b SV71 318 hp one -way plow and sander, six cyl. turbo y accepted until 5:00 p.m., May 25, 1993. chgd. aftercooled diesel engine, five speed Bids must state that it is for the fire truck. Detroit diesel. It has standard transmis- es; rear hydraulic miles. Sealed bids will be accepted until sion, five speed; air brakes; synchromesh trans., and 39854 actual Truck may be seen by contacting Ken steering; 9400 miles; ale hours; ydr watt Kraemer, Fire Chief, (612) 685 -8938. 4:00 p.m., Tuesday, May 25, 1993 and Truck will be sold as is and has no generator, flood lights; and all ladders were tested and certified in 1992. The must be marked in the lower left comer rtifi warranty. The city reserves the right to "Mack truck bid." Minimum acceptable truck and body are ti excellent condition. reject any and all bids. Send bids to Rena All service and test records available. For bid is $7,500. For more information or Weber, City Clerk/Treasurer, 27 Red River appo department at (612) 593 -8066. Sealed bids intment to inspect contact City of p g' Ave. S., Cold S nn MN 56320. additional information call the fire Bass Brook, P.O. Box 146, Cohasset, MN FIRE TRUCK AND AIR PACKS. The 55721, (218) 328 -6225. J City of Silver Bay has for sale a 1971 Ford should be sent to the City of Golden C850 fire truck with 534 cubic inch gas Valley, Fire Department, 7800 Golden engine, 750 gallon per minute high Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 by Wanted pressure volume Bean pump, 750 gallon 10:00 a.m. June 30, 1993. Bids will be CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS. The water tank, and five speed manual opened in the city hall council chambers. City of Nevis is seeking good used transmission. The minimum bid is The City of Golden Valley reserves the Christmas decorations to mount on utility $20,000. The truck is in ood condition right to accept or reject any or all bids. poles and string across the street. Send g and was purchased new. Also for sale are MISC. The City of West St. Paul has description and prices to City of Nevis, four M $500 each and six MSA Model Ultra Lite II air packs with steel for sale one Katolight generator, 3000 P.O. Box 108, Nevis, MN 56467 -0108 or tanks for watt; two Motorola Mocom 70 radios, call (218) 652 - 3866.0 401 air packs with steel tanks for $200 each. Truck and air packs can be seen at Silver Bay fire department. Bids will be New environmental group for accepted until 2:00 p.m. CDT on June 29, 1993 at city hall. The fire truck is currently local g overnme in use and will not be available until the new truck arrives, estimated to be in early Responding to an explosion of While the group is committed to August. The air packs are available to the local government environmental environemental quality, "we are successful bidder on June 30. For more requirements, the National Associa local officials working together to information call Fire Chief J . ohm lion of Local Government Environ- create practical solutions to enor- Fredrickson at (218) 226 -3418 or City mental Professionals is convening its mous regulatory pressures facing Clerk Gary Brumberg at (218) 226-4408. first annual conference June 3-4 comm - The City of Silver Bqy reserves the right to s, says John I co reject any or all bids, to waive technicali- 1993 in Washington, D.C, to develop chair and enviromental services ties and informalities therein and to award and implement compliance programs manager for Anaheim, California. the bid in the best interests of the city. at the local level. A membership drive is currently FORK LIFT. The City of Tower has The organization intends to help underway. For more information for sale a 1969 Clark lift fork lift with 12 local officials unravel the maze of about the organization and the foot forks and a six cylinder gasoline environmental mandates on cities. conference call 202 - 879-4000.0 engine. Will be sold as is. Bids must be sent to the city clerk/treasurer on or before FIRST CLASS U.S. POSTAGE PAID St. Paul, MN PERMIT N0.3223 League of Minnesota Cities 3490 Lexington Avenue North St. Paul, MN 55126 Phone: 612 490 -5600 The League of Minnesota cities publishes S p l i n t• e- r "• the Legislative Bulletinweekly during the Mg r-• , Legislative session and monthly during the 63C S h i ri g 1 , C r°• e e (:; interim, the time between sessions - Subscriptions: members -530; non - members- �C r "' l '�' "i CW t "i �: !! "' :( c c C_C $45. Coubul: Publications Department, League of Minnesota Cltim League of Minnesota Cities , Board of Director 'SAY ® Directors PRFSIDI2IT `� 1 �q Larry Dauen Mayor Gokk Sauey Where to get legislative information at the Capitol* 1FHW VICE PRESIDENT Lehndswrnaaa ' Copies of bills Mwk House Chief Clerk's Office - 296- 2314, Rm. 211, State Capitol SECOND VICE PMMENT Secretary of Senate's Office - 296 -2343, Rm. 231, State Capitol Bob Lan Cannm7membar St. Paul Bill status, authors, companion, committee referral (by bill number, DIRECTORS author, or topic) Jo Dulgar Joy Robb House Index - 296-6646, Rm. 211, State Capitol city Manager Mayor Crystal Robbins dak m Senate Index - 296 -2887, R. 231 State Capitol LM;ye Bfty s fiber Weekl committee schedules, bill introductions, and summaries of St. Louk Put Lakreak committee and floor action DwylPetmon Eric Sorensm House Information Office - 296 -2146, 175 State Office Building CityAttomey Maaagea Senate Information Office - 296 -0504, Rm. 231, S tate Capitol Mimdoolm Winona Patricia Pi&Mk C-6 Recording of the following day's committee schedule a nd agenda, Councilmembw at Administrator (after 4:30 p.m) Eden Pnun w "House Call" (House committee schedule) - 296 -9283 Toga Ptafiw Gnat W idwhnan Senate Hotline (Senate committee schedule) 296 -8088 City Administrator Maya &icelyn. DeLvan 'St Cloud Eaton, Minnesota To reach a member on the House or Senate floor Lake Johot amYioun& ber House Sergeant at Arms - 2964860 Yvaooe Prethm Hawley Senate Page Desk 296 -4159 t C.«mcRmeraber . ; Dul To notify the governor's office of your concerns RX 0M 0 Governor Ame Carlson - 296 -3391, Rm. 130, State Capitol DomM Frwm Mayor *All addresses are St. Paul, MN 55155, all area codes 612 Kw= Anderson Cotmailnx nber Minnuonlca CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 05/10/93 Agenda Item Numbe • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -07, REPLACEMENT OF WATER MAINS ON LAWRENCE ROAD AND ON ALDRICH COURT; APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS; AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, CONTRACT 1993 -C DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, b' ector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: ( No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes • Aldrich Court and Lawrence Road both are cul -de -sac streets which are currently served by 2 -inch diameter cast iron water mains, originally installed between the years 1957 and 1961. These mains dead -end in the cul -de -sacs and provide an adequate quantity of water to the relatively small number of residences, however, their 2 -inch diameter cannot allow for the installation of hydrants. Besides the obvious benefit in the case of fire, the City Public Utility personnel rely on hydrants for flushing the water lines annually, to maintain water quality and uniformly distribute the chlorine which has been added to our water supply for disinfection. In the cases of these dead -end, 2 -inch mains, we periodically receive "stale water" comments from the customers, because the quantity of water which moves through these mains is so small. In addition, the main in Aldrich Court has been repaired on an emergency basis at least 4 times in recent years, and now shows signs of corrosion which we suspect will cause more failures in the future. For these reasons, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the replacement of these 2 -inch cast iron, dead -end mains with 6 -inch, ductile iron pipe, in a looped configuration. For the purposes of contract administration, these two proposed construction areas have been combined under a single improvement project and contract. The total estimated project cost, including contingencies, engineering, administration, etc. for these water main improvements is $53,608. The funding for these improvements would be provided by the Public Utility Water Fund. • RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution which establishes the project, approves plans and specifications and directs advertisement for bids is attached for consideration. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -07, REPLACEMENT OF WATER MAINS ON LAWRENCE ROAD AND ON ALDRICH COURT; APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, CONTRACT 1993 -C WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported to the City Council that there exists portions of the City's water system which requires replacement; and WHEREAS, the required replacement is beyond the scope of usual maintenance performed by City forces. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Improvement Project No. 1993 -07, Replacement of Water Mains on Lawrence Road and on Aldrich Court, is hereby established. 2. Said plans and specifications as prepared by the City Engineer are hereby approved. 3. The Deputy City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of such improvement in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, shall specify the work to be done and shall state the time and location at which bids will be opened by the Deputy City Clerk and the City Manager or their designees. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Deputy City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City Clerk for 5 percent of the amount of such bid. 4. The estimated project costs are established as follows: Contract $41,253 Contingency (15 %) 6.188 Subtotal Construction $47,441 Staff Engineering (10 %) 4,744 Admin. & Legal (3%) 1.423 Total Est. Project Cost $53,608 RESOLUTION N0. 5. All costs relating to this project shall be charged to the Water Utility Fund. 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. LOCATION MAP REPLACEMENT OF WATERMAINS ON LAWRENCE RD. & ALDRICH COURT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1993 -07 A N. � � i 57A770Y z Z ( i HASH RD LA C �DRO X ` 2ND AVE. N:� A � LA. "WSTAO PAP �• JC / �X X . Z 61ST AVE I I I I WYT. SQM O AAAAW S" '3rtFA PAW �. C0IMODOPE DR. F--a -I I �B I wl H' �� I — I !� �I t L — 1 1 I �I ( I it LAWRENCE RD. T Y B OK r RK I 73RD AVE N - -- -- --- - -- -- ---� -- - - I i � WOODBINE LA _ _ L WOODBINE Al i i 72ND 72ND AVER°, 72ND AVE N FEZ 72ND 2ND AVE. N x \,, z tm AYL. N. A N(Y LA. M� 71ST AVE. N. z 2ND AYE: / ~ 71ST AVE N x PAW 0 srhm ��''7•� 0 !� '-'3 I (� A �"� / o 70TH AVE N 1 1 T 70 AVE ALDRICH COURT CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 0 Agenda hem Number Eh REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1993 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF ELECTRONIC MAIL AND SCHEDULING SOFTWARE DEPT. APPROVAL: BARBARA A. GALLO, MIS COORDINATOR /CHARLES HANSEN, FINANCE DIRECTOR MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) The Data Processing Division 120 1992 capital outlay budget included $2,625 for the purchase of electronic mail and scheduling software. In October 1992, five LOGIS member cities began evaluating appointment scheduling and e-mail packages for their local area networks. Since the evaluation process had to be coordinated with the various cities, the evaluation could not be completed by the end of 1992. Therefore the $2,625 was carried forward to the 1993 budget by Resolution 92 -289. The evaluation of the software was completed in April 1993. Microsoft Mail and Scheduler were selected. Quotes have been taken and the lowest quote for the purchase is $3,648. This amount is $1,023 over the amount allocated because the number of local area network users ready and needing to access electronic mail and scheduling software has increased since 1992. Since other capital outlay purchases in the Data Processing Division have been under budget due to hardware price decreases in the market, the additional $1,023 cost can be covered using funds from the capital outlay for Division 20, Object #4551. Action Required A resolution is provided for Council consideration. • g�j rL Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1993 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF ELECTRONIC MAIL AND SCHEDULING SOFTWARE ----------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, Section 7.07 of the City Charter does provide that no obligation shall be incurred for any purpose not in the approved budget or for any amount in excess of the amount appropriated in the budget; and WHEREAS, the Data Processing Division 1992 capital outlay budget included $2,625 for the purchase of electronic mail and scheduling software; and WHEREAS, this acquisition couldn't be completed during 1992 and was carried forward to the 1993 budget by Resolution 92 -289; and WHEREAS, quotes have been taken and the lowest quote for the purchase is $3,648; and WHEREAS, other capital outlay purchases in the Data Processing Division have been under budget in amounts sufficient to cover the $1,023 of additional cost. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: The sum of $3,648 is authorized to be expended from Division 20, Object #4551 for the purchase of electronic mail and scheduling software from funds previously appropriated. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date May 10, 1993 Agenda Item Number C REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION DECLARING EARLE BROWN DAYS AS A CIVIC EVENT FROM JUNE 14 THROUGH 27 ******************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: - xLt-- a�a (z Sue LaCrosse, Program Supervisor MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONEMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUM MARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION qG Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING EARLE BROWN DAYS AS A CIVIC EVENT FROM JUNE 14 THROUGH JUNE 27 WHEREAS, the purpose of Earle Brown Days is to promote the City of Brooklyn Center, its people, and amenities; and WHEREAS, residents, the city community civic groups, and businesses participate in the annual civic celebration to demonstrate the vitality of the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, in order for Earle Brown Days, Inc. to schedule certain events requiring City - issued administrative land use permits, it is necessary for Earle Brown Days to be declared a civic event. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Earle Brown Days are declared a civic event from June 14, 1993, through June 27, 1993. 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 5/10/93 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES DEPT. APPROVAL: Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below attached PP re P SUIVE WRY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) Attached is the list of licenses to be approved by the city council. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Approve licenses. , Licenses to be approved by the City Council on May 10, 1993: MECHANICAL SYSTEMS C. O. Carlson Air Conditioning Co. 1203 Bryant Ave. N. Dependable Indoor Air Quality, Inc. 2619 Coon Rapids Blvd. Building Official Olt MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP Brookdale Dodge 6800 Brooklyn Blvd. City Clerk RENTAL DWELLINGS Renewal: Carlin Shefveland 5308 Emerson Ave. N. Thomas W. Kotila 5430 Morgan Ave. N. Robert Baltuff 5930 Xerxes Ave. N. Q� Merle G. Biggs 3910 65th Ave. N. sU Director of Communize Development SIGN HANGER William Forster Corporation 1050 Plastermill Road 0 Identi- Graphics 8660 Highway 7 n Q Leroy Signs, Inc. 6325 Welcome Ave. N. ( Q Building Official - GENERAL APPROVAL Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk