The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1992 11-09 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER NOVEMBER 9, 1992 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 form the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. 7. Approval of Minutes: *a. October 26, 1992 - Regular Session *b. November 3, 1992 - Special Session 8. Planning Commission Items: a. Planning Commission Application No. 92014 submitted by the 50's Grill restaurant is a request for site and building plan approval to construct an approximate 12' x 40' addition to the south side of the 50's Grill restaurant at 5524 Brooklyn Boulevard. -This application was considered by the Planning Commission at its October 29, 1992 meeting and approval was recommended. b. Planning Commission Application No. 92003 submitted by Phillips 66 Company is a request for a variance from Section 35 -700 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow less than a 15' greenstrip along 69th Avenue North and along Brooklyn Boulevard at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard. This application is a companion to Application No. 92001. Originally, it was a setback variance; now, it is a greenstrip variance. This application was tabled by the City Council at its February 10, 1992 meeting with the applicant's consent. -This application was reconsidered by the Planning Commission at its October 29, 1992 meeting and denial was recommended. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- November 9, 1992 C. Planning Commission Application No. 92001 submitted by Phillips 66 Company is a request for site and building plan approval to construct a gas station \convenience store /car wash at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard. This application was tabled by the City Council at its February 10, 1992 meeting with the consent of the applicant and direction to pursue a study of Brooklyn Boulevard which should guide consideration of this proposal. The applicant has submitted revised plans which, under City Ordinance, must be reviewed by the Planning Commission. -This application was reconsidered by the Planning Commission at its October 29, 1992 meeting and approval was recommended subject to the adoption of an ordinance amendment. d. Planning Commission Application No. 92002 submitted by Phillips 66 Company is a request for preliminary plat approval. This application was tabled by the City Council with the applicant's consent at its February 10, 1992 meeting, but did not have to be reconsidered by the Planning Commission. - Approval of this application is also recommended. 9. Discussion Items: a. Staff Report Regarding Ice Control Practices b': Staff Report Regarding Public Education Program Regarding Abatement of Water Pollution C. Staff Report Re: Rates and Policies for Public Utilities 1. Resolution Adopting the Water Utility Rate Schedule 2. Resolution Adopting the Sanitary Sewer Utility Rate Schedule 3. Resolution Adopting the Storm Drainage Utility Rate Schedule 4. Resolution Establishing Water and Sanitary Sewer Hookup Rates for Calendar Year 1993 d. Joint Dispatching Venture 1. Resolution of Intent Relating to Joint Public Safety Dispatching CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- November 9, 1992 10. Resolutions: *a. Resolution Accepting Work Performed, Approving Final Payment, and Approving Settlement Agreement with Bonding Company for Water Distribution System Improvement Project Nos. 1990 -03 and 1990 -03A, and Replacement of Entrance Drive to Lift Station #1, Improvement Project No. 1992- 11, Contract 1992 -H *b. Approving Development Agreement with Evergreen Development Group *c. Approving Agreement with Minnesota Department of Transportation State Aid Division Providing for Reimbursement of Costs Incurred for Certification of City Personnel *d. Amending Brooklyn Center Advisory Commission Bylaws *11. Licenses 12. Adjournment YOU ARE INVITED TO AN OPEN HOUSE FOR POLICE CHIEF TREVOR HAMPTON Please join us in welcoming Chief Hampton to our community. Monday, November 16, 1992 4 - 7 p. m. Constitution Hall Brooklyn Center Community Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN Sponsored by City of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Center Chamber of Commerce. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date November 9, 1992 Agenda Item Numbe 4D REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26, 1992 - REGULAR SESSION CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 3, 1992 - SPECIAL SESSION DEPT. APPROVAL: Patti A. Page, Deputy City Clerk MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOABMNDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below PP attached P below/ attached EXPLANATION: (PP su lemental sheets attached ) RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND 'THE. STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION OCTOBER 26, 1992 CITY HALT.. 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. R LL CALL Mayor Todd Paulson, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Jerry Pedlar, Dave Rosene, and Philip Cohen. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevcre and Council Secretary Nancy Berg, OPENING CEREMONIES Dean Nyquist offered the invQcution- OPEN FORUM Mayor Paulson noted the Council had received no requests to use the open forum session this evening. He inquired if there was anyone present who wishcd to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular agenda items. COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Paulson presented a plaque to Edward Commers in recognition of and appreciation for his dedicated public service. Mayor Paulson thanked Mr. Commers for lending his time and his character and intellect in helping to guide the City of Brooklyn Center, Mr. Commers thanked Mayor Paulson and the Council and stated the real reward is to serve. Mayor Paulson welcomed to the Council Chambers Leah Harvey, Metropolitan State University, as the newest tenant and organization in Brooklyn Center. Ms. Harvey thanked Mayor Paulson and the Council for the warm welcome and stated the University will start classes on October 28. Ms. Harvey also thanked the Council for their continued support. 10/26/92 -i- r APP ROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Paulson inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items be rernovcd froiu the consent agenda. Councilmember Rpsene requested item 11a be rcmoved from the Consent Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OCTOBER 13. 1992 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the minutes of October 13, 1992, regular session as printed. The motion passed. Councilmcmber Rosene abstained from voting. RESOLUTIONS RESOI..UTION NO, 2 -242 Member Celia Stott introdu(:cd the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE JOINTLY BY CITY OF r - BROOKLYN CENTER, CITY OF COLUMBLA HEIUH'TS, CI OF MOORHEAD AND THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ROBBINSDALE OF THEIR SINGLE - FAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE T REFUNDING BONDS, TAXABLE SERIES 1992A IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $8,000,000, RESIDUAL INTEREST REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1992E IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,000,000, AND RESIDUAL INTEREST REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 19920, IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,000,000, PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTERS 462A, 462C, 469 AND SECTION 471,59, AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jcriy Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously- RESOLUTION NO. 92 -243 Member Cclid Scutt introciuccd the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR HUMBOLDT AVENUE SIDEWALK /TRAILWAY, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO, 1991 -16 AND SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT(MISCELLANEOUS LOCATIONS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -13, CONTRACT 1992 -I The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pcdlar, and the motion passed unanimously. 10/26/92 -2- RESOLUTION NO 92 -244 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and mewed its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR HOUSE REMOVAL - 4100 51ST AVENUE NORTH, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -12, CONTRACT 1992 -J The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLi..1TION NO. 92 -245 Mcmbcr Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING YEAR XVIII URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY STATEMENT OF PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION 92 -246 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE CITY'S NORTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD FOR NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATIQN UNDER THE MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY'S MULTI - FAMILY BLIGHTED PROPERTY REMOVAL PROGRAM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 92 -247 Mcrmci' Celia Scutt introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT WITH FIRST OF OMAHA FOR CREDIT CARD SERVICES IN THE MUN ICIPAL LIQUOR STORES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously, 10/26/92 - -3. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the following list of licenses: CHRISTMAS TREE SALES LOT Snowy Ridge Farms 5558 Unity Avc. N. K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Dr, FOOD ESTABLISHMENT GregoryLeigh, Inc. 3145 Dean Covrt, #I704 Gloria Jean's Coffee Bean 1119 Brookdale Center The Swiss Colony Brookdale Center MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Michal's Hcatino & handiwork 2779 151st Ave. NW Vail & Sons, Inc, 3235 LaBore Road RENTAL DWELLINGS Initial: Vicki L. Franzman 5500 Aldrich Dr. N. Rickie and Patsy Stuva 4413 Brooklyn Dr. David Paquette 6613 Drew Ave. N. Floyd Ruggles 7006 Unity Ave, N. TAXICA5 Blue & White Taxi 3307 6th St. N. Cab #580 DISCUSSION ITEMS CRIME STATISTICS The City Manager explained Councilmember Rosene requested staff review Brooklyn Center crime statistics to see if some valid and creditable process or method can be developed for presenting these statistics with the hope that it will reduce the confusion over conflicting interpretations. He stated Captain Scott Kline will present the statistics and answer questions of Council. Captain Scott Kline used transparencies to show the comparison of crimes in Brooklyn Center from January to September 1991 and 1992, He stated the total incidents arc down with arson and murder/homicide being up. Captain Kline explained the arson statistics are considerably higher in 1992 because in 1991 many arsons were reported as negligent fires and in 1992 ncgligent fires are reported as arson. 10/26/92 -4- Councilmember Rosene asked if there were any other classifications that have changed which might reflect the statistics better, Captain Kline stated the last changes occurred about six or seven years ago with the exception of the change in reporting negligent fires as arson. Councilmember Rosene asked what Miscellaneous Public means as a crime. Captain Kline answered Miscellaneous Public includes public incidents, domestic disputes, alarms, suspicious activity, lock outs, warrants and other citizen complaints not otherwise classified. Mayor Paulson asked if there is a way we can statistically show crimes are becoming more violent, Captain Kline answered the violent crimes are murder, rape, robbery and assaults and are considered to be on the increase. The City Manager explained one of the factors which sometimes complicates the comparison of crime statistics between cities, is each community sets their own limits such as some communities will only report larcenies ovcr $200, while other communities will report larcenies over $50. Councilmember Rosene expressed concern that residents have been receiving conflicting reports about the crime figures, and he suggested staff schedule an open foruiii about these concerns and the recent murders in Brooklyn Park. Councilmember Pedlar stated there are many residents at the meeting tonight to address the crime issues, and he has received many calls about the incident in Brooklyn Park. He added a forum would provide an opportunity for citizens to address the issue of crime in our City. Councilmember Rosene reported he called the Brooklyn Park Police Department to discuss the recent murders, and he was told the Police Department has fie ld - c, d sume wild rumors about the crime. He further stated the Brooklyn Park Police Department invited anyone who has concerns to call on their non - emergency number, 493 -8222. Councilmember Cohen stated there is a forum at the meeting right now. Mayor Paulson agreed with Councilmember Cohen and suggested the meeting be opened for discussion. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for public input from residents on the crime statistics in Brooklyn Center at 7:42 p.m. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. Councilmember Rosene thanked Captain Kline for providing the statistical crime information, 10/26/92 -5- Tim Wilson, 6718 Colfax Avenue, addressed the Council explaining both he and his wife work and their children are in day care, so the recent murders have hit home for them. He stated he works with computers and appreciates the crime statistics. He suggested keeping track of which area of the City the crimes are being committed, and the residence of the person committing the crime. Councilmember Rosene agreed this was a good idea, and asked if the statistics show what City the criminal lives in, Caption Kline answered one -third of the crimes arc committed by someone in the City, one -third from the core cities, and the other one - third from surrounding suburban communities. Terry Precht, 7101 Fremont Avenue North, stated he has lived in Brooklyn Center for 26 years, and the recent crimes have his neighbors very concerned and some are planning to urchase n 1V1 h urt. He guns. r. Precht stated h is very concerned someone will et P led e g rY $ said the residents look to the City Council for guidance on what to do. He further stated he believed the apartment owners are the problem and asked staff investigate if the persons involved in crimes live in apartments or homes. Linda Sather, 6413 Quail Avenue, said she is concerned about the crime in Brooklyn Center. Ms. Sather stated Brookl Yn ope Center is nin g its doors to low- income and minority people, and she asked if there is a connection between this and the increased cringe. Ms. Sather also expressed concern about the welfare system in Minnesota explaining many people come to Minnesota because the welfare system is ve ry lenient. Ms. Sather agreed an open forum is very much needed. Sally Lewis, 7230 Dallas Road, stated she has been the chairperson for the fund raiser at Evergreen School for and he has had d with families two ea s d to deal h man i g years, a y n Collection of funds. She explained the majori t of the problems in collection were with people who live in the apartments. Ms, Lewis expressed concern for the youth in Brooklyn Center. She said they need more activities and education. Todd Cannon, 2205 Brookview Drive, stated it is easy to blame the problems on low- income or minority persons, however he thought part of the problem is economic. He explained when he was younger, there were more activities for the youth through the Park and Recreation: Department. He encouraged the City and other organizations to provide more activities for the youth of Brooklyn Center. Denis Kelly, 7130 Fremont Avenue North, stated he is active with the Crime Prevention Fund, and he thanked the Police Department for doing a good job in difficult trues. He stated the Problem seems to be with the judicial system. He explained the attitudes of the judges and probation officers must be changed, and those committing crimes should only be given one chance. He also shared the concern about people moving to Minnesota from different states because of the welfare system. He said it behooves our 10/ 26/92 -6 - Legislature to change the rate of welfare in Minnesota to match the same as the state the person is coming from. He encouraged the Council to become active in getting the legislation passed to reform the welfare system, He further stated it is time for leadership in this area as our citizens are afraid. Mr. Kelly expressed the need to influence the judicial system, and to talk to the Legislators to increase the penalties to ensure an attitude saying we are going to protect our citizens and foster an attitude of responsibility for our actions. He agreed there is a growing minority population in Brooklyn Center, but it is not just a minority problem. Mike Miller, 7203 Fremont Avenue North, stated crime is out of hand, and the situation on Humboldt trade him sick to his stomach, He explained as a Mack male there is a lot of stereotyping about black males, and noted they are not all criminals. Mr. Wler stated he moved to Brooklyn Center 20 years ago, and he decided then to get involved in the community and he has. He further stated we all own this problem, we must stick together to deal with this problem, Mr. Miller asked the City Council to address this problem forcefully. He pointed out City government and the, Police Department need to involve more minorities. He congratulated the City on their recent hiring of a minority police chief and police officer, He reiterated this is not a black and white issue -- it is an issue without color, Rich VanDenBos, 1906 71st Avenue North, stated he has been a member of the Jaycees since 1972, and is involved in the Community Orientated Policing located in Humboldt Squarc, He invited everyone to join him there to discuss the crime problem. Bob Oberstar, 7243 Emerson Avenue, agreed things have changed in the community, and many people are talking about buying guns and putting up for -sale signs. Mr. Oberstar reported he has been told by people at work they will no longer shop at Brookdale because of crime, He asked the Council to do whatever they can to make residents feel secure, Linda Sather asked the matter of gangs be addressed if there is an open forum. Mayor Paulson thanked everyone for providing their input in a very dignified manner on a very sensitive issue. He asked residents to call the Councilmemhers if they have any concerns, Mayor Paulson reiterated the praise for the work of the Brooklyn Center Police Department. Councilmember Cohen distributed copies of articles verifying most crimes are committed by people who have been put back on the streets by our judicial system. Hu stated the parole, juvenile and justice systems should be held accountable. In regard to gangs, Councilmember Cohen said the City had gangs twenty years ago and this seems to go in cycles. He agreed the main question is why are the young people committing the crimes. He further stated it is cheaper to provide prevention than to provide incarceration. He 10/26/92 -7- explained this community has done many things to help eliminate crime such as the Crime Prevention Fund, the Crime Prevention Neighborhood Watch, and the Community Orientated Policing Councilmember Cohen suggested a legislative and judicial official should be present at the open forum. Councilmember Scott agreed part of the problem is economics and part is the welfare situation. She also agreed with Councilmember Cohen that something must be dune about the welfare system. Councilmember Scott expressed concern about the number of single- parent families and their struggle to raise their children. Councilmember Scott suggested a forum be set up which would teach citizens how to secure their homes, and what to do when they fear someone has entered their homes. She was concerned the. young people who commit these crimes place no value on their lives or the lives of others. Councilmember Rosene agreed with all of the concerns expressed by the residents and the Council. He suggested the parents be held responsible for a juvenile's actions, and he encouraged people to file a civil suit against the family if offended by a juvenile Councilmember Cohen stated the judicial system is failing Brooklyn Center and other communities. He advised there is power in numbers and power in people, and we must get our legislators to change the system. Councilmember Cohen asked staff to circulate a tablet so the residents could provide their names and addresses to be notified of the open forum. He also asked staff to obtain a video tape copy of the Council meeting from the cable company. He further suggested staff put together a program for the open forum working with Councilmember Rosene; the City Attorney; representatives from the Hennepin County Welfare and Probation programs, the judicial system, and Attorney General's office; and the Legislators who deal with these issues. Councilmember Cohen stated this will help to develop an action program which will lead to a legislative agenda. Mayor Paulson stated it has been said it is beyond us. He further stated it is up to us, not beyond us, and the Council and the residents cannot give up. Mayor Paulson reiterated the need for a forum. Staff circulated tablets and pens for the residents to provide their names and addresses. Linda Sather stated there are many more residents who would be interested in attending a forum on crime, and asked staff to publish the date and time of the forum. Councilmember Rosene clarified it was not his intent to not notify residents of the crime statistics discussion, and it had only come to his attention very recently. He further stated it was his intent to review the statistics at tonight's meeting and set a date for a 10/26/92 -�- forum. Councilmember Rosene asked staff to publish and advertise the date of the forum to the best of their agility. Councilmember Scott suggested staff contact legislators to determine their availability before setting the date and time of the forum. Councilmember Pedlar asked when the statistics and data comparing the cities will be ready. Captain Kline answered it will take approximately 30 to 60 days. Councilmember Pedlar asked how many neighborhood watch groups there are and could there be more. Captain Kline answered there are 76 neighborhood watch groups and anyone wanting to set up a new neighborhood watch group should contact Officer Dave Grass at 569 -3333. Greg Thielsen, 5306 Morgan, stated he is a member of the school board and informed Council and residents there will be a meeting on Thursday, October 29, at Brooklyn Center High School to discuss the welfare system in Minnesota. Councilmember Rosene stated as a Council they have been trying to acquire run -down apartment buildings and demolish and convert run -down homes, and with the residents continued support, Council can continue to work to maintain our neighborhoods. Mayor Paulson again thanked the residents for attending the meeting tonight. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9 :10 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEMS (Continued,) REQUEST BY VILLAGE PROPERTIES THE OWNERS QF EVERGREEN PARK MANOR APARTMENT TO EXPAND AN EXISTING AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF BR CENTER TO ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL LAND The City Manager presented the request by Village Properties, the owners of Evergreen Park Manor Apartments, to expand an existing agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to acquire additional land, He further explained Village Properties would like to provide up to S three- bedroom apartment units in their complex by combining 2 two- bedroom apartments to make 1 three - bedroom unit and 1 one - bedroom unit. The City manager reported the City's Zoning Ordinance limits the total number of units with more than two bedrooms to ten percent of the total number of units in the complex. He also verified the police, fire and housing inspector reports have been provided to Council. 10/26/92 .g. Councilmember Pedlar asked how many residents are within 154 feet of the apartment complex, The Director of Planning and inspection answered he did not know the exact number but there were not very many because of City owned property to the south and Evergreen Park to the southwest. He further stated the building owners did post the letter of notice, which was mailed to surrounding residents, in each of their buildings. Councilmember Rosene informed Council he had attended several Building and Owners Management Association meetings last summer, and Ken Solie, one of the owners of Village Properties, emerged as a leader in efforts to screen tenants and in stricter enforcement of laws and property rules, He further stated he trusts Mr. Solie is running an operation that is beneficial to the City. Mayor Paulson agreed with the comments of Councilmember Rosene, but stated the Council is dealing with the question of converting to 8 three - bedroom apartments. Councilmember Cohen explained he had raised concerns about the three - bedroom conversions at the Economic Development Workshop in regard to the Federal Fair Housing Law and the Legal Aid lawsuit against Minneapolis. He also expressed concern about opening the door for additional applications for three - bedroom apartments. Councilmember Cohen stated the Maxfield Study has shown this area has the highest concentration of apartments in the City. He suggested tabling this matter until the next Council meeting to allow the City Attorney time to review these issues. Councilmember Pedlar stated he is still concerned about the number of people who would occupy the apartments, and he did not want to set a precedent in this arcs. He further stated he would move this item be tabled until the next Council meeting on November 9, 1992, when research would be available from the City Attorney. Councilmember Cohen stated he did not want to raise frivolous issues, but he would like to see if what he is proposing to be examined is valid. The City Attorney answered these issues are not frivolous. He stated the implications of the City's three - bedroom rule needs to be looked at. The City Attorney also stated the main problem is the matter of setting a precedent here. He explained it is unusual to give an owner credit for land for density purposes that the. owner does not own. Councilmember Rosene agreed this is something the Council needs to be very careful about. He stated he was not adverse to tabling this item until the next meeting. He stated Council is not setting much of a precedent as the S three - bedroom apartments does not exceed the City's limit of ten percent of the total units. 14 /26/9 -lo- Ken Solie, one of the owners of Village Properties, stated Village Properties is only asking for what is allowed under the current ordinance and also for the variance in the amount of property. He explained the land they are looking to acquire is cxccss land that M N L)QT had acquired as right -of -way, Patty Thompson, 7224 Bryant Avenue, asked if the owners would be allowed to convert to three - bedroom apartments without asking the Council if they had enough land. The City Attorney answered, yes, as long as no more than ten percent of the total units are converted to three - bedroom. Ms. Thompson stated, as a resident she is against the three - bedroom apartments, even though the owners will have the same number of units, as there will be more people. She pointed out more residents will likely mean more students at Evergreen School which is already bursting at the seams. Linda Sather, 6413 Quail, stated her concern is with crime, and Brooklyn Center has the highest concentration of law - income housing, The City Manager agreed Brooklyn Center has the second highest concentration of section eight certifications, Ms. Sather asked the Council to seriously consider the impact of low - income housing with the crime rate in Brooklyn Center, Ms. Sather asked the Village Property owners if they are residents of Brooklyn Center. Mr. Solie answered no, they are not. Councilmember Pedlar asked how the section eight subsidiary works. The City Manager answered the resident pays 30 percent of their income and section eight pays the rest. Ken Solie stated even if a person is using a section eight certificate, they run credit checks, but they do not discriminate against a tenant based on their welfare Status. Councilmember Rosene stated he empathizes with the problem of overcrowding in the schools. etc explained he has spoken with employees at Evergreen school about students from Evergreen Park Manor Apartments and the students do not seem to be a problem, Sally Lewis, 7230 Dallas Road, stated she was concerned, about apartment owners being allowed to increase their occupancy. She said she lives near the Willow Lane apartments which are clearly a problem, Denis Kelly stated he felt many of the residents who were at the Council meeting earlier would have stayed for this discussion if the had been aware of this r Y y matter. Mr. Belly suggested this matter be continued until the next Council meeting so residents can speak against this motion, 1a/26/92 -11- Councilmember Scott clarified the owner is not increasing the amount of his units, only converting Z two- bedroom units to 1 three- bedroom unit and 1 one- bedroom unit. She further stated a large number of families living in three - bedroom apartments are families who frequently move due to relocations on their job ,5, and not everyone moving into these apartments will be undesirable, Denis Kelly stated the people in his neighborhood do not want any thee - bedroom apartments. Councilmember Rosene asked Mr, Kelly why they are against three - bedroom apartments. Mr. Kelly answered there are many apartments in his neighborhood, and there is a problem with the children from the apartments in the schools, Councilmember Cohen asked Mr. Solie if there are elderly or retired people in their apartments, and if so are any of them using section eight housing. Mr. Solie answered yes, there are elderly and retired people in their apartments, and yes, some of them use section eight housing. Councilmcmber Cohen said many people on assistance are elderly or retired. He said he raised these issues because it is a catch 22 as the Fair Housing Law is very clear and the penalties are very severe. He further stated the issue here is the concentration issue such as the Legal Aid lawsuit in Minneapolis. He suggested waiting for the legal response. Councilmember Scott stated Ms. Lewis brought up the issue of an apartment complex which is a problem and one which the City is trying to purchase. Linda Sather asked if the apartment owners acquire the additional land, will they then have enough property to develop additional apartments, The City Manager answered the land is sltrplus, right -of -way which will not provide the owner with enough land to further expand or guild, The Director of Planning and Inspection stated Mr. Solie could convert 2 two- bedroom apartments to 1 three - bedroom apartment and one efficiency without the approval of the City Council because he would not be required to purchase any additional land. Jerry Cowan, one of the owners of 'Village Properties, informed Council he and Mr. Solie live in St. Anthony and are very involved in their community. He stated he understands the problems the Council is dealing with tonight. He further stated Village Properties is trying to provide a solution to a problem that exists in Brooklyn Center, that is the need for three- bedroom apartments. When asked if Village Properties would do this in their own community, he answered yes, Village Properties is doing this in his community. 10/25/92 -12- Councilmember Rosene asked if Council denies this, what benefit is being given to the community. He explained Brooklyn Center already has a glut of two - bedroom apartments. Councilmember Rosene asked if there is an equivalent of section eight certificates to use for purchasing a home. Councilmember Cohen answered this may be in the new housing bill which is not yet signed. Councilmember Scott explained a section eight certificate does not have to used for ranting an apartment, it can also be used to rent a townhouse or single family home as long as it fits into the guidelines. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to table consideration of a Resolution Amending the Approval of Application No. 85016 and Authorizing the Mayor and the City Manager to Enter into a Revised Agreement with the Owners of the Evergreen Park Manor Apartments to Acquire Additional Land to the November 9, 1992, Council Meeting to allow for review by the City Attorney. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARIN i REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR WEST RIVER ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NCB 1988 -18 - The City Manager presented the public hearing regarding special assessments for West River Road Improvement Project N 1988-18. He explained the special assessments had been objected to by Mr. Harold Swanson, and the Council has continued the hearing to tonight's mccting, The Director of Public Works informed Council a special benefit appraisal was conducted on the Swanson properties by Mr. Brad Bjorklund, a licensed real estate appraiser. He further stated the special benefit attributed to the street improvement project by the appraiser is $11,300. Pro tern Pedlar opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing regarding special assessments for West Wver Road Improvement Project No, 1988 -18 at 10:19 p.m. Harold Swanson, owner of the properties, stated the report of the appraiser is not conclusive, Ho further stated he does not believe his property value has increased due. to the improvements. Mr. Swanson asked Council to revise the assessment to a reasonable amount in order to eliminate a court hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing at 1021 p,m, The motion passed unanimously. 10/26/92 -13- There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to reduce the total special assessments relating to properties at 7230, 7240 and 7250 West. River Road from $19,942.66 to $11,300, with assessments to each property to be proportioned on an area basis, The motion . assed unanimously. Y RESOLUTION NO, 92 -245 Mr.mlber Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CERTIFYINGr SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR WEST RIVER ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO, 1988 -18 TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY WAX ROLLS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously, ORDINANCES The City Manager presented an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding General Standards for Planned Unit Developments. He explained the City Council adopted Council Resolution No. 92 -234 approving Planning Commission Application No, 92013 submitted by Evergreen Development Group which was a request for Planned Unit Development approval to rezone two parcels totaling 7.125 acres from R7 to PUD/MIXED, He further explained the area contained the site of the Earle Brown Commons high -rise apartment complex and an adjacent vacant parcel, The Director f Planning a Inspection explained amendment t o a g nd Inspect o e pl med the ame e o Chapter 35 relating; to the General Standards for Planned Unit Developments would delete the statciiicilt in the ordinance that a PUD may be heated only in an area designated for redevelopment in the City's Comprehensive Plan and replace it with a statement indicating the PUD may only contain uses consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. He further indicated this amendment gives the City Council the flexibility to use the PUD Ordinance for development as well as redevelopment. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Urdinances Regarding General Standards for Planned Unit Developments at 10:34 p.m. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. No one appeared to speak, and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing, There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to close the ublic hearing at 10:3U .m. The motion passed unanimous) P g . p p Y 10/26/92 -14- ORDINANCE NO. 92-18 Member Philip Cohcn introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING GENERAL STANDARDS FOR PLANNED UN IT UE VELOPMENTS The motion for the adoption of the g fore oin ordinance was duly seconded by member foregoing Dave Rosene. T motion 1 The mot o passed unanimously, The City Manager presented An Ordinance amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land, He explained this also amends Chapter 35 by describing the property which is being rezoned by deleting reference to it in the R7 zoning district and adding the description to the PUD district. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land at 10.31 p.m. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. No one appeared to speak, and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to close the public hearing at 10,31 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO.92 -19 Mcrrlher Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS (Continued) REPORT REGARDING AIR QUALITY STUDIES OF THE CIVIC CENTER AND THE CITY GARA The City Manager presented the report regarding air quality studies at the Civic Center and at the City Garage. He stated the reports revealed serious deficiencies at both facilities. He informed Council interim improvements are being made to deal with the most serious problems, however feasibility studies are needed to define long -term solutions to these problems, 10 /26/92 -15- Councilmember Cohen observed improving the City Garage will be a major expenditure. The City Manager agreed and described the City Garage as a compactly prograiuuied building_ The City Manager also stated the study will give the City a basis to study the programs and uses of this building. The Director of Public Works informed Council staff has asked the consultant to propose the long -range solution and the absolute minimum to achieve compliance with the Indoor Air Quality Act, Mike Berean, representative from Legend Technical Services, reported Legend will prepare feasibility reports for both a long -range solution and an interim solution. Councilmember Rosene asked the Director of Public Works if it was his professional opinion to stay with Legend Technical Services rather than open it up for bids. The Director of Public Works answered yes, Legend has been doing a good job, and it would be more expensive to go out for bids at this point. RESOLUTION NO. 92 -249 Member Jerry Pcdlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSALS FOR PHASE II PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992-14 AIR QUALITY STUDY FOR CIVIC CENTER AND CITY GARAGE, AND ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFORE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Philip Cohen. The City Manager informed Council staff has a question with the contract with the consultants in regard to risk management and insurance issues. The City Manager asked the Council to authorize him to sign the agreement with the consultant after the question is cleared up, The motion, including the authorization to allow the City Manager to sign the agreement with the consultant after the question is cleared up, passed unanimously. $` VOW STORAGE REGULATIONS The City Manager reported staff has been contacted by representatives of the Minnesota High School league requesting staff and City Council consider some type of regulation of snow storage. He explained the High School League had an unfortunate experience with snow storage next to their property on Freeway Boulevard at the corner of Freeway Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway. He further explained last winter the owner of the property at this corner stored a large amount of snow hauled in from the Brookdale 10/26/92 -16_ parking lot. The City Manager explained during the freeze /thaw cycle in February, March and April it created hazardous conditions for users of the sidewalks and drivers on Freeway Boulevard. Councilmember Pedlar stated the City needs to work with the property owner to handle this concern without additional regulations. The City Manager informed Councilmember Pedlar staff worked with the property owner, however the property owner failed to alleviate the problem. He further explained the City then had to send trucks to sand the area and the property owner was then assessed for the expense. Councilmember Scott explained it is not just a snow problem, there is also debris from the snow pile blowing around in the spring. She agreed the Council does not need to legislate, however this is a problem. Councilmember Scott recommended staff continue to work with the property owner. Councilmember Rosene agreed with both Councilmembers Pedlar and Scott to continue to work with the property owner to avoid further legislation. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott directing staff to continue to work with the property owner to solve this problem. The motion passed unanimously. CAPITAL SPENDING POLICY The City Manager prt;buIILrd tlIe 4apital spending policy which Councilmember Cohen requested be put on the agenda as a discussion item. He further explained the memorandum prepared by Councilmember Cohen on this subject has been given to the Financial Commission for their preliminary review as requested by Council. Councilmember Cohen explained his concern is the City Council should consider having a policy that deals with capital spending and the use of general fund operating funds and use of reserves. He suggested reasonable limits be set on capital expenditures approved by Council with voter approval. Mayor Paulson asked at what point in this process the Council would see a preliminary policy. Councilmember Cohen suggested the Financial Commission could provide Council with an outline of their proposal. Councilmember Rosene suggested City Finance Director would want to have a certain amount of input on this. The Finance, Director responded he does have several ideas, but was not ready to express them this evening. The Finance Director further stated he had taken Councilmember Cohen's message to the Financial Commission, and they expressed an interest in developing a policy. 10/26/92 -17- Mayor Paulson asked if other cities have a policy. The Finance Director responded yes, the City of Minnetonka developed a written policy and we could look at their policy, Councilmember Rosene stated a capital expenditure policy would provide a certain amount of guidance and restraint to the City Council, He questioned how much guidance and restraint is necdcd, and asked if there are examples in the past where the Council had spent large amounts of money the voters did not approve of, Mayor Paulson requested a review of the history of the capital expenditures. Councilmember Cohen stated the Council needs to not only look at the initial cost of a capital expenditure, but also the cost of maintenance, Councilmember Scott agreed with the need for a capital expenditure policy. She explained in the future there could be a Council that does not have much experience with capital expenditures as they do not come up very often. Denis Kelly, member of the Financial Commission, stated it was the consensus of the Commission to work to develop a capital expenditure policy, and they welcome the opportunity. Mayor Paulson asked what kind of flexibility the City Council will lose. The City Manager answered the Council is really self - regulating, so it is a matter of how restrictive does the Council want to be. He explained it may not be a matter of being restrictive, but more a matter of being consistent. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to refer the capital spending policy to the Financial Commission an the auditor to return to the Council with recommendations, The motion passed unanimously. STAFF REPORT REGARDING POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR WATER METER READINGS -� The City Manager presented the staff report regarding policy and procedures for water meter readings. He explained during the Financial and Service Prioritization Process, the Public Utility maintenance staff suggested di scontinuing annual residential water meter reading. He further explained eliminating this activity would have a minimal effect on service, and would allow staff to complete other pressing tasks. Councilmember Scott asked if eliminating the water meter readings, would mean a savings of approximately $ 18,000, The Director of Public Works answered ycs. Councilmember Scott stated she would like to give this a try. 10 /26 /92 - - There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to approve a policy change which would eliminate The annual residential meter reading; and directing staff to devise a method of periodically testing the accuracy of the readings submitted on reading cards, to include in the 1992 utility rate study sliding scale penalties for non - submission of readings cards, and to include an evaluation of the new policy in the 1993 utility rate study. The motion passed unanimously. S'T'AFF REPORT REGARDING ICE CONTROL PRACTICES Mayor Paulson asked that the staff report regarding ice control practices be continued to the next City Council meeting on November 9, 1992. STAFF REPORT REGARDING PUBLIC EDUCATIQN PROGRAM REGARDING ABATEMENT QF WATER POLLUTI N Mayor Paulson asked that the staff report regarding public education program regarding abatement of water pollution be continued to the next City Council meeting on November 9, 1992. BUDGET WORK SESSION DATE The City Manager explained the first budget work session is scheduled for Thursday, November 5, 1992, and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities is holding their policy adoption meeting that evening also. It was the consensus of City Council to reschedule the budget work session to allow members of Council to attend the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities policy adoption meeting. Staff will contact Council members to arrange a date for the first budget work session. RESOLUTIONS (C 7_ nc tinued) CpunOliriuni Jer Rosene requested the reading of a Resolution Expressing Recognition of and Appreciation for the Dedicated Public Service of Edward (, ommers. RESOLUTION NO. 92 -250 Member Dave RmQnc introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF EDWARD COMMERS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. e 10/26/92 -19- ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO CANVASS THE VEMEER 3,19M, 1Vi (1NICIPAL GrENERAL ELECi'1UN RETURNS Mayer Paulson announced there will be a special meeting of the City Council on November 3, 1992, at approximately 9:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the municipal general election results are returned, for the purposes of canvassing the results of the November 3, 1992, municipal general election. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Scott, and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Ntuicy Berg Northcrn Counties Secretarial Services 10/26/92 - -20- 76 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL SESSION NOVEMBER 3, 1992 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in special session as an election canvass board and was called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Jerry Pedlar at 11 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Pro Tem Jerry Pedlar, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Dave Rosene, and Philip Cohen. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter and Administration Secretary /Deputy City Clerk Sharon Knutson. CANVASS OF ELECTION RETURNS The Brooklyn Center City Council proceeded to canvass the City election returns from the various City precincts, reporting ballots cast in the City of Brooklyn Center contests as follows: Office of City Councilmember Ballot Count Barb Kalligher 6,935 Kristen Mann 6,775 Jerry Pedlar 6,601 . Dan Reiva 4,089 Write -ins 82 Charter Amendment Yes votes 8,609 No votes 3,916 One Percent Tax Levy Yes votes 5,878 No votes 8,298 RESOLUTION NO. 92 -251 Upon completing the election canvass, member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REGARDING CANVASS OF NOVEMBER 3, 1992, GENERAL ELECTION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Philip Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Celia Scott to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 11/9/ Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 92014 - 50's Grill DEPT. APPROV 6,J Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attache Commission Application No. 92014 submitted by the 50's Grill restaurant is a request for site and building plan approval to construct a 12' x 40' addition to the south side of the restaurant at 5524 Brooklyn Boulevard. This application was considered by the Planning Commission at its study meeting on October 29, 1992. Attached for the Council's review are minutes and information sheet from that meeting, a drawing showing the elevations of the building, a survey of the property and a map of the area. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended approval of the application subject to the 5 conditions listed on pages 2 and 3 of the October 29, 1992 Planning Commission meeting minutes. APPLICATION NO. 92014 (50's Grill) The Secretary then introduced the first item of business, a request for site and building plan approval to construct an approximate 12' x 40' addition to the south side of the 50's Grill restaurant at 5524 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 92014, attached). Commissioner Holmes asked if it was possible to drive along the south side of the building at this time. The Secretary stated that it was possible to drive up to the trash area. In response to a question from Chairperson Bernards regarding exiting and fire protection, the Secretary stated that the plan meets those requirements. He stated that extra fire protection would have to be provided along the south wall given its limited setback. Chairperson Bernards asked if the proposal was consistent with the recent ordinance that was adopted regarding the option of the 3' side yard setback. The Secretary responded in the affirmative, noting that this proposal was what stimulated the ordinance change. Chairperson Bernards then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Jack Schubert of the 50's Grill stated that he wanted to expand the kitchen to meet the demands of an expanding business. Chairperson Bernards asked if the hours of operation would also be expanded. Mr. Schubert stated they would remain the same. Commissioner Holmes asked if the addition was to allow for more carryout business. Mr. Schubert answered that part of the additional business would be carryout and part of it would also be to sell more pies and cakes. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 92014 (50's Grill) Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Johnson to recommend approval of Application No. 92014, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of all approved site improvements. 4. The building addition is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and 10 -29 -92 2 shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. Voting in favor: Chairperson Bernards, Commissioners Mann, Sander, Johnson and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 10 °29 -92 3 PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No.92014 Applicant: 50's Grill Location: 5524 Brooklyn Blvd. Request: Site and Building Plan Location /Use The applicant requests site and building plan approval to construct an approximate 12' x 40' addition to the south side of the 50's Grill restaurant at 5524 Brooklyn Blvd. The purpose of the addition is to add to the kitchen area to expand the carry -out portion of the restaurant's business. The site is located in the C2 zoning district and is bounded on the west by Brooklyn Blvd., on the north by Taco Bell, on the east by a private access road, and on the south by Kentucky Fried Chicken. The 50's Grill is a sit down, family restaurant and is a permitted use in the C2 zoning district. Access /Parking No access changes are proposed. The restaurant expansion will not involve any increase in seats or employees. Therefore, no additional parking is either required or proposed. Landscaping The landscape plan proposes three new shade trees in the greenstrip adjacent to Brooklyn Blvd. and two White Cedars in the green area south of the parking lot in front of the building. The site is approximately one acre. The point requirement for this site is, therefore, approximately 80 points. The point value of existing plantings is 53.5 points. Additional plantings add 42 points for a total of 95.5 points. Landscape requirements are, therefore, met. Grading/Drainage/Utilities The plans show no changes in this area. There will be additional roof drainage from the addition that will drain into a reduced setback area covered with gravel. A drainage swale will be installed in this narrow 3' wide area. No other changes are proposed. Building Improvements As mentioned at the outset of the report, the proposed building addition is to expand the kitchen area. It is to be approximately 12' x 40 leaving a 3' setback. The proposed 3' setback conforms with the provisions of a recent ordinance amendment that allows a 3' side yard setback for commercial and industrial buildings on one side as long as there is at least.a 10' setback on the other side and as long as other setbacks are met. That is the case in this instance. The exterior treatment of the addition will match the existing building. There will be no doors or windows along the south side of the addition, but there will be a door on the west October 29, 1992 1 side facing Brooklyn Boulevard. Lighting/ Trash The only change proposed in this area is the relocation of a wall light on the south wall and the addition of a wall light on the west wall over the new door. Recommendation Altogether, the plans are sufficiently in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of all approved site improvements. 4. The building addition is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. Submitted by, - Gary Shallcross Planner Approved by, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspections October 29, 1992 2 L J GATE CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR( '.w JACK,SCHUSERT - uvv JCnrc*vrr� U u— T n.x_µioo -u cx, SZAEe,i•�M .P II aoq. au IE A ll 0E1 f.... 1. 0 i I T J EAST ELEVATION a °� �o t . N n d ao}' ' E)J 11 1. • � ��[re�lN �iN4 [bwVnf [Ctttarm xFN {- Yed�ui aN •II• `[.• �.. At �iq k, NNe __ - -- ------- _-- - - - - -- —_1 ��'�� sJ I N st �KEp . „ o :'EJf �'[, � r � � —N ? � � � � � z 1� SOUTH ELEVATION t' �''"`•F":�II� . an �«... iw a w�:w,uw i .,ER i ,� I, o• I _ < Z • � a Nt ROOK PAGE N� E r p _ KM &REAWE S- t x <a[n crf rt rr r p , A` •[a ar[.fo afrarr ..iat i.[f a.• na.. oa rnru[o •c .r tawo srrp PROJECT MO $MEET a uxnaa w n[•acr a.r [a. ra[w a.e UL I D, a,f o 21 .lr. SURVf T3 ai r...a -nn REVISIOM3. __..._._ -. ___._. -. M" rZ. 5 Q's GRILL SITE PLAN — n>a:o• I J L LLI I I ii. II ..Ill � ^� S it Ij 'i' I�I i�ill .J } W ♦r r J yam U J, y U WEST ELEVATION - ---- - - - -- — y �' p } Z 6rJ� O h - EA'RINL NCH O v J � � `'1� y:: I' o• �; � nacs>ti I,..� — m 1: l � O zSlbZF�' 1l o N O Q N ATE' '.OF ''SURVEY CERTIFIC...', FOR JACK SCHUBERT SCALE: I a DENOTFS IRON FuuND 1 bq DENOTES ?g MGAT y ' IRON 1 O SE T IZ mil/ ' • � .i Y t =� J` a• I n ep -9 - 3 I1 Cn f � r Ste4 sy,oK 6�fl� •� ,. R IlIXY.16 1 L5Tl 41 i1,q.aoP �. G� �992`LQ P�aL PL 3CR I trr orr C4�s i�t1� � 6 ®� TrtCt C, ani an andivi8 ®d +52,542/346 .i61 na t).irh TrsttaR and i., 9" Registered L.an; Survey No. 1519 fil�rf tl� Aeglu4sic oti 3r1 n4Y..of S� h 1�� `+unrPln State of llinngl,ute it+yAj.ec,,Ga• apyc 10 rid alyV�a�sanble��i KIM A. REAUME BOOK PAGE 5 Z �,�� a 4 a r. ,•y REGISTERED a LAND SURVEYOR PROJECT NO. SHEET 9� G ! 6.17 -54? -9559 !r',T SURVEY$ REVISIONS. �r ;tiv�suit art of ry Y ! NC. - } 4 + 3 +6Qpu #4s CROSSROAD rr 4 t v N YiMME TONY W WC4OTI, 5 $3s5 I` ,',� ` _ LLI �-LM I� y A. n t�:h y y °- _ �,� —_ �,`'�, � I —CIA Z-1 R7 �I 09RIACF I I I % cwFa 4.. �- <\FN ^VF ' --L1J L11J__L_1i ? X { �• / '� SUwiT L DR. R0 .� ' CIA �'Y IFNEPIN CO. S 1 - v '� LIBRAAY i ( R�H",a LA. -1 /`, ` �' '_-' < � i , y / y o ✓ `r R5 02 ° ` AV ICJ H _1V RD. NO. 10 -- -- �N(1 —�., APP I i ca t i on - � - MINT AINED No. 92014 FLOMW CLLY LA X, DR. N. C ^ `X� Ag471fCWl ^ `mi N �I ) A Y X X 777-1 I ,`: F y�� ERICON AVRPPORr Sp,pCY i s ^C ;Y I SST'H AVE. , ��`. ' ��( `. N• I 155T4. / AVE. -- X L X E `.L IO/A r ` w 54TH. AVE. 1 � / 9 f� ' 1` ; y J ' z z' <1 P t�Y Y 53RD. PL. N. 9 ` `c ,Y. i , iX % `X / L Y '' / Y R�� _ _ 53RD AVE ,_ I 11 5" 51s <-- U7A $ N B ROOKLY N ' , ilP✓ Ltilor V � ( � Z <`v, ; CENTER H A'+F: T N 49TH AVE I ' 600 0 600 1200 1800 RE5 mss. N R 1 T SCALE IN FELT R2 12 PREPARED BY ULTIAIAP, OCT08ER 1991 R3 R4 _a8 -H AVE. N. 48 H AVE N L 17TH - - - ^'�E— N. 'LAKE 1n RT PUC CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 11/9 Agenda Item Number C -AC REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application Nos. 92001, 92002 and 92003 submitted by Phillips 66 Company DEPT. APPROV Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW RECOMMENDATION: V No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X ) • Planning Commission Application Nos. 92001, 92002 and 92003 are all submitted by Phillips 66 Company and relate to a proposal for a gas station/ convenience store /car wash at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard. Application No. 92001 is a request for a special ' use permit and site and building plan approval; Application No. 92002 is a request for preliminary plat approval to redraw the property line between the service station site and the C1 zoned property to the north to avoid property abutment between the service station site and the single family residential property to the west; Application No. 92003 is a request for a variance in conjunction with this development proposal. These three applications were tabled by the City Council on February 10, 1992 following review of the applications and review of a recommendation by the Planning Commission to deny Application No. 92001 and Application No. 92003. The Planning Commission had recommended approval of the preliminary plat, Application No. 92002, subject to three conditions of approval, but this application was also tabled by the City Council on February 10. The City Council, at the time of the tabling, requested that a Planning Study of Brooklyn Boulevard be undertaken with a high priority given to the development proposal for 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard. SUMMARY EXPLANATION Page 2 November 9, 1992 A Planning Consultant, Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban (DSU) , was retained by the City Council and responded to this direction by issuing draft report in Jul of this year which recommended g P Y Y retaining the 50' major thoroughfare setback requirement at least until the Brooklyn Boulevard Study was completed. In response to discussions with the applicant regarding possible revised plans, the Planning Consultant also prepared a site layout with a non- prototype building design that met all building setback, greenstrip and other ordinance requirement without the need of a variance. Phillips 66 has indicated that such a building layout will not work for them and have, therefore, submitted a new site plan with a building plan and configuration that requires a variance from the 15' greenstrip off both Brooklyn Boulevard and 69th Avenue North, rather than the previously requested building setback variance. Because this was a modification to a site plan under consideration by the City Council, the matter was referred back to the Planning Commission for their review and comment pursuant to a recently adopted Zoning Ordinance amendment requiring such a review. The revised site plan (Application No. 92001) and the greenstrip • variance (Application No. 92003) were reviewed by the Planning Commission at their October 29, 1992 meeting. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the greenstrip variance on the grounds that the four standards for a variance were not met. However, they recommended approval of the special use permit and the site and building plan subject to 15 conditions, one of which was that the City Council adopt an ordinance amendment to the greenstrip requirements which would allow less than a 15' greenstrip upon a determination by the City Council that the plan provided for an appropriate substitute. The Planning Commission made this recommendation because they believed other like situations should be afforded the same opportunities as the Phillips 66 site. Attached for the City Council's review are the Planning Commission Information Sheets for the revised Application Nos. 92001 and 92003; the revised plans for the gas station/ convenience store /car wash; a map of the area; a copy of Planning Commission Resolution No. 92 -1 dated 1 -30 -92 containing the Commission's original recommendation with respect to Application Nos. 92001 and 92003; a 7 -2 -92 draft memo from Tim Griffin (DSU) regarding the Phillips 66 proposal; a 8 -13 -92 site plan prepared by Mr. Griffin showing a proposed building layout meeting all ordinance requirements which was conveyed to Phillips 66; a 10 -21 -92 letter from Jon D. Baccus regarding the revised Phillips 66 plan and his arguments as to how the revised proposal meets the standards for a variance in she City's Zoning Ordinance; and previous reports, minutes and plan related to Application No. 92002 (Preliminary Plat). SUMMARY EXPLANATION Page 3 November 9, 1992 A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent for the revised site plan /special use permit (92001) and the variance for the greenstrip requirements (92003). Recommendation 1. The preliminary plat, Application No. 92002, is recommended for approval subject to the three conditions found on page 3 of the Planning Commission's 1/30/92 minutes. 2. The greenstrip variance is recommended for denial on the basis that the standards for a variance are not met per the Planning Commission's recommendation on page 10 of their 10 -29 -92 minutes. 3. Application No. 92001 (site and building plan /special use) is recommended for approval subject to the 15 conditions found on pages 9 and 10 of the Planning Commission's 10 -29 -92 minutes. The key condition of this approval is Condition No. 14 which states "plan approval is contingent on the City Council adopting an ordinance • amendment to allow a Council approved substitute for the 15' greenstrip requirement adjacent to public right -of- way." Said ordinance shall be effective prior to issuance of permits. The City Council should give direction regarding their desire to pursue an ordinance amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission. • MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION OCTOBER 29, 1992 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairperson Wallace Bernards at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Wallace Bernards, Commissioners Kristen Mann, Ella Sander, Bertil Johnson and Mark Holmes. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairperson Bernards noted that Commissioner Kalligher had called to say she would be unable to attend and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 17, 1992 Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Holmes to approve the minutes of the September 17, 1992 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Bernards, Commissioners Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Sander and Johnson. The motion passed. I NTRODUCTORY REMARKS BY THE CITY MANAGER The Secretary noted that the applicant for the 50's Grill was not present and suggested that the Commission consider comments by the City Manager relative to Application Nos. 92001 and 92003 submitted by Phillips 66 Company. The City Manager explained that the Phillips 66 proposal had been referred from the City Council back to staff to work with the applicant in February of this year. He stated that staff have worked with a consultant for the Brooklyn Boulevard Study and with the applicants and that compromises have been made. He stated that the applicants are now able to meet most requirements except the greenstrip requirement. He stated that the staff position has been to try to meet the requirements and that if a variance should be granted on anything, it should be the greenstrip. The City Manager stated that the applicant felt that the dedication of right -of -way was the cause of the problem. He stated that staff have met with the applicant and that they are unable to come up with a plan that allows their building to be placed on the site without a variance. The City Manager stated that the City Council is concerned regarding the variance application and the right -of -way issue which might be construed by a court as a taking. The Secretary, noting that Mr. Schubert had arrived, suggested that it would be possible to consider Application No. 92014 at this time. 10 -29 -92 1 APPLICATION NOS. 92001, 92003 (Phillips 66 Company) The Secretary then introduced the next two items of business, a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a gas station/ convenience store /car wash at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard and a request for a variance from Section 35 -700 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow less than a 15' greenstrip along 69th Avenue North and along Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 92001 and 92003, attached) . The Secretary explained that the property presently abuts R1 zoned property and that a service station cannot abut R1 zoned property under current ordinance. He stated that the replat of the property is to eliminate that abutment and that as a result of the replat, dedication of 18 additional feet of right -of -way is required. The Secretary showed the Commission transparencies of the Phillips 66 plans and also a plan by Consultant Tim Griffin. The Secretary stated that it was up to the City Council to determine if the variance standards are met. He stated that planning staff did not believe the standards were met, that possibly an ordinance amendment to allow a substitute treatment for a greenstrip could be considered. In response to a question from Commissioner Sander, the Secretary explained that the property presently abuts the R1 zoned property at the northwest corner of the site. Commissioner Sander asked if they had to give up the triangle of land at the northwest corner of the site to avoid abutting Ri property. The Secretary stated that it did and showed the area on a transparency. Commissioner Holmes asked if Application No. 92002 (preliminary plat) was on hold. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. He stated that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of that application, but that application had been tabled by the City Council along with the two applications under consideration this evening. In response to a question from Commissioner Sander regarding the separation or buffer requirement, the Secretary explained that the ordinance would not allow the abutment at all right now, but that once the replat provides a separation between the two properties, there is no ordinance requirement for an additional buffer. Commissioner Sander stated that the two properties may only be 10' to 20' apart, but don't technically abut. The Secretary concurred and noted that the Brooklyn Boulevard Study may recommend a change in the ordinance prohibiting the abutment of service stations with single family development. Commissioner Sander stated that this proposal 10-29-92 3 reminds her of the service station proposal at 66th and Highway 252 and that the residents didn't want that station. She noted this station is even closer than that. The Secretary noted the Zoning Ordinance did not prohibit a service station in that location. Commissioner Johnson asked how the ordinance might be amended to accommodate the proposal. The Secretary answered that the City could adopt an ordinance to allow a Council approved substitute for a 15' greenstrip area. Commissioner Johnson wondered how the City could come up with precise language in an ordinance to cover unique situations better than a variance action. The Secretary stated that the language could be quite simple, stating that the ordinance would allow a "Council approved substitute" for the greenstrip requirement similar to such language used in provisions on screening. Commissioner Johnson asked if the judgment would be back with the staff as to what is an acceptable substitute. The Secretary stated that the judgment would have to be made by the City Council, but he would assume it would be based on a Planning Commission reviewed recommendation. The City Manager noted that another option is to make a change to the Planned Unit Development ordinance to eliminate the size requirement. He stated that PUD's have been used to add flexibility to development proposals. He stated that it is difficult to write landscape standards into an ordinance and that a PUD provision allows cities to work creatively with developers. He stated that the process of working out the proposed plan has been frustrating for all concerned. He added that the prototype building the applicants' wished to construct is designed around the way they do business and that it is necessary, in the applicants' opinion, to making money at the site. Commissioner Holmes asked if the setback for the building was appropriate from 69th, given the 18' right -of -way dedication. The Secretary stated that the building setback proposed from 69th Avenue met the requirements of the ordinance. He noted that the setback and greenstrip requirements apply from the property line not the edge of the street. He stated that right -of -way beyond the street itself allows for snow storage and sidewalks. He stated that he believed an ordinance amendment would be more appropriate than a variance. Commissioner Holmes inquired as to the lot size requirement being too small. The Secretary answered that Consultant Tim Griffin had recommended increasing the lot size requirement for service stations, given the range of operations that are usually included in modern service stations. He added the current ordinance requires only a minimum lot area of 20,000 sq. ft. for a service station. Commissioner Holmes asked about the term "Brooklyn Center Image" used in the report. The Secretary stated that such a reference was made by the consultant in his memo of July 2. The Secretary noted that Target developed a new prototype building in response to meeting the Brooklyn Center site constraints. He stated that there are other similar situations on Brooklyn Boulevard and that a variance here would set a precedent. 10 -29 -92 4 Chairperson Bernards asked the applicant whether he had anything to state regarding the proposal. Mr. Jon Baccus, of Phillips 66 Company, addressed the Commission at some length. Mr. Baccus stated that he felt the staff report contained misconceptions. He stated the original plan developed for the site was a prototype, but that Phillips 66 had modified that plan to meet the requirement, which is no longer in effect, that the car wash be attached. He noted that the plan submitted in January had a lesser setback. He stated that Phillips 66 had worked with the City's consultants who recommended keeping the 50' setback requirement. The new design does meet those setbacks. Mr. Baccus stated that the proposed building is not their prototype, but an offshoot of it. He stated that the consultant first developed a plan with a rational building design that did not include the right -of -way dedication. He stated that Phillips building plan is built around the equipment that it has to house. He stated that Mr. Griffin's plan will not work for them. Mr. Baccus noted that the separate driveway for the car wash was eliminated in the new plan. He added that eliminating pumps would affect sales and make the station nonperforming. He stated that Phillips would look at the possibility of adding the wall along 69th Avenue North to be consistent with what they have shown along Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that the purpose of the wall is not to screen, but to enhance landscaping. He noted that landscaping is never down to zero, that there is always at least 1' of landscaping adjacent to the property line. Mr. Baccus stated that he felt that Phillips' developments are high quality. He suggested that the City talk to staff with other cities and they will find out that their stations are liked by those cities. He also noted that the car wash is given away free with a purchase of gas and is not another optional purchase. Referring to the staff reports, a comment that Phillips would be unable to do business without the replat and the dedication of right -of -way that is part of that replat, he stated that this is a perfect example of a taking. As to being sensitive to the City's concerns, Mr. Baccus stated that Phillips has spent over $100,000 on planning, engineering and legal costs, in addition to buying land. Regarding the findings in the staff report on the variance, Mr. Baccus stated that without the dedication, Phillips can build a prototype building and meet the City standards. He stated that the dedication is the source of the problem. He showed the Planning Commission photos of other Phillips 66 developments. He also showed a rendering of the Phillips station that is being proposed and the landscape plan noting that the shrubs had erroneously been shown in the sidewalk area. Commissioner Johnson asked how Phillips would use the 18' right -of- way along 69th. Mr. Baccus stated that it would be sodded and maintained and that if the County approved it, they would berm and plant shrubs in it. 10 -29 -92 5 PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos. 92001 and 92003 Chairperson Bernards then opened the meeting for a public hearing on both the special use permit and the variance applications and asked whether anyone present had anything new to add to the previous public hearing. Mr. Donald Lowry of 6914 Lee Avenue North stated that this would the third gas station to locate on this site. He stated that they all get closer to his property. He added that he preferred to keep the ordinance that would prohibit a gas station from abutting a single- family home. He also expressed concern about the maintenance of the triangular area that was being proposed to be subdivided off the main parcel. He stated that he was not in favor of the proposal at all. Mr. Randy Rau, owner of the Holiday station on the south side of 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard, stated that he knew a little bit about working with sites since he developed four service stations himself. He noted that he had to dedicate land on his side of 69th Avenue as well. He added that he would love to have two rows of gas pumps just like Phillips 66. He stated that Phillips bought the property knowing the rules and asked why the City should bend its rules for this development when he had to comply. Mr. Dave Nelson, a developer working with Phillips 66, stated that Phillips is proposing more landscaping than is required; that they have a quality plan and a quality product that will be a benefit to the City. He stated that if it is necessary to grant a variance and set a precedent to have this development, perhaps this is the kind of precedent to set. Mr. Randy Rau stated that Holiday would ask for a car wash too since they need to compete with Phillips. Chairperson Bernards asked whether anyone else wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the . ublic hearing. g CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Sander to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Mann asked whether the setbacks complied set except for the greenstrip. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the car dealerships had greenstrips that complied with the Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary answered that Brookdale Pontiac has conforming greenstrips, but that Iten Chevrolet is nonconforming. Commissioner Sander asked if the building would have to be smaller for the applicants to comply with the greenstrip and setback requirements. The Secretary answered that Mr. Griffin had developed a plan with the same size building, but different shape. Mr. Baccus stated that Phillips'. 10 -29 -92 6 design people say that Griffin's plan won't work. He stated that he would bet that no one would build Griffin's plan. Mr. Randy Rau asked Mr. Baccus why he bought a lot not zoned for a gas station. Mr. Baccus answered that it was his understanding the property was zoned for a gas station. Chairperson Bernards asked about the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. The Secretary answered that the block containing this lot was recommended in the Comprehensive Plan for redevelopment to C2 type use. He stated that the abutment restriction has been in place since 1968. Commissioner Holmes stated that most stations have generous setbacks and that the photos shown by Mr. Baccus show berming, greenstrips and landscaping. He stated that he leaned toward keeping the 15' greenstrip requirement. Chairperson Bernards stated that the City has to deal with reality. He stated that this is a viable development with some problems. Commissioner Holmes asked what an ordinance amendment would do for this situation. The Secretary answered that it could allow for a Council approved substitute. The City Manager stated that the same type of language is used regarding screening devices in other parts of the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that sometimes screening is accomplished with a berm and /or a fence. He stated that the concern with a variance is that the City winds up amending its ordinance by variance rather than doing so directly. He stated that the ordinance does change over time and that it was impossible 20 years ago to foresee this type of service station. He noted that the future commercial area recommended in the Comprehensive Plan is partly zoned residential at present thereby imposes an abutment restriction. Commissioner Johnson asked what was considered to be the life of a gas station. Mr. Baccus responded that a station should last at least 20 years. Commissioner Johnson stated that things that apply now may not apply 20 years from now. He asked why 18' of land should be thrown away. The City Manager stated that the right -of- way was needed and that it was less costly to obtain it now. He stated that once the right -of -way belongs to the County, they can control it and that they probably would allow landscaping within it on an interim basis. The Secretary noted that the area across Brooklyn Boulevard shows the problems of over utilization of land. There followed a brief discussion of the Brooklyn Boulevard Study and setbacks. The Secretary stated that Mr. Griffin has recommended keeping building setbacks as a higher priority than greenstrips. The Secretary stated that he did not feel the variance standards were met, but that changing the ordinance is a possibility. Commissioner Holmes asked if the area around 69th to 70th Avenues on Brooklyn Boulevard is the only area of deficient setbacks. The Secretary responded in the negative. He stated that most of the single family homes on Brooklyn Boulevard are nonconforming, but 10 -29 -92 7 that recent commercial developments meet the 50' setback. The City Manager stated that there will be problems with homes used as a home on Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that if the Boulevard is not a solid commercial area, then something else is needed to fill in the areas between commercial nodes. Commissioner Holmes asked if a special situation should be accommodated with a variance. Chairperson Bernards stated that he was not in favor of a variance. He asked what the ordinance change process would be. The City Manager stated that the Planning Commission could make a recommendation at this meeting and that the ordinance amendment would be brought back in the future. The Secretary asked if the Planning Commission would want to look at ordinance language. Chairperson Bernards stated that he would prefer to move the application along and not bring it back another time. Commissioner Johnson asked whether it might be the case that they are trying to put 5 lbs. in a 2 lb. bag. Commissioner Sander stated that it seemed too early to recommend on an ordinance amendment. She asked about the progress of the Brooklyn Boulevard Study. The Secretary stated that he did not think this would be a problem. The City Manager stated there is always a dilemma when you add flexibility. He stated that it has worked with the screening requirements because the City's judgments have worked well. He stated that there is never a guarantee that you will always get a good product. The Secretary pointed out that the present ordinance requires a minimum, rather than allowing any options. Commissioner Holmes asked about the possibility of acquiring the vacant house to the north. The City Manager pointed out that that would only expand the area of abutment with Rl property. Commissioner Mann stated that she believed the Commission should deny the variance, but recommend an ordinance amendment to allow flexibility. Most of the other Commissioners agreed. The Secretary asked the Commission if they felt a keystone wall was considered an adequate substitute for a 15' greenstrip. Chairperson Bernards and others on the Commission agreed that it was. The Secretary reviewed the process of approvals and reviewed some possible conditions of approval. During discussion of maintenance of the triangle of land to be transferred to the property to the north, Mr. Baccus stated that Phillips would agree to maintain that triangle if that was the preference of the City. Mr. Don Lowry of 6914 Lee Avenue North stated that the ordinance change would harm him. He stated that he has had problems with gas stations in the past. Commissioner Holmes stated that. the vision of the Brooklyn Boulevard Study seems to work toward keeping the 15' greenstrip. He stated that he was concerned that the City would be giving away one of its aesthetic standards at a time when it wants to improve aesthetics. The Secretary stated that the City can't do both. He 10 -29 -92 8 stated that if the Commission is not comfortable with the idea of an ordinance amendment, then it should not vote for either the ordinance or a variance. The City Manager pointed out that simply requiring the 15' greenstrip does not insure quality. Commissioner Holmes expressed concern that other parties will abuse the option. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 92001 (Phillips 66 Company) Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Johnson to recommend approval of Application No. 92001, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 9. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the performance guarantee. 10. The property owner shall enter into an Easement and Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems, prior to the issuance of permits. 10 -29 -92 9 11. The special use permit is granted to Phillips 66 Company for a gas station \convenience store \car wash at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard as contained in the plans submitted. Any expansion or alteration of the use shall require an amendment to this special use permit. 12. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. Any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 13. The replat of the property containing the dedication of 18' of right -of -way along 69th Avenue North shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to the issuance of permits. 14. Plan approval is contingent on the City Council adopting an ordinance amendment to allow a Council approved substitute for the 15' greenstrip requirement adjacent to public right -of -way. Said ordinance shall be effective prior to the issuance of permits. 15. The plans shall be modified prior to the issuance of building permits to indicate: a. A connection of the two trench drains adjacent to the car wash to the storm sewer system. b. The canopy shall have no illumination band on the sides. C. The triangle of land to be transferred to the neighboring property to the north shall not be fenced into the Phillips 66 site, though it must be landscaped and maintained by Phillips until a new owner is present. Voting in favor: Chairperson Bernards, Commissioners Mann, Sander, and Johnson. Voting against: Commissioner Holmes. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 92003 (Phillips 66 Company) Motion by Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Holmes to recommend denial of Application No. 92003 on the grounds that the standards for a variance have not been met, based on the staff report and testimony received. Voting in favor: Chairperson Bernards, Commissioners Mann, Sander and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Mr. Randy Rau asked what had been decided. The Secretary explained that denial of the variance had been recommended, but that the development plans were recommended for approval contingent on an. 10 -29 -92 10 ordinance amendment being adopted to allow the Council an option besides the 15' greenstrip. Mr. Rau stated that he concluded from that that he would be able to reduce his own greenstrip. OTHER BUSINESS The Secretary stated that the November 12 Planning Commission meeting must be rescheduled for another night because the Council will be holding a budget meeting that night. By consensus it was agreed that November 19 would be an acceptable time. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Mann to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:56 p.m. Chairperson 10 -29 -92 11 PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No.92001 Applicant: Phillips 66 Company Location: 6901 Brooklyn Blvd. Request: Site and Building Plan /Special Use Permit Background This application was initially considered by the Planning Commission on January 16, 1992. The original proposed plan had a substandard setback from Brooklyn Blvd. of 27 ". Staff recommended denial of an accompanying variance and, because the applicant was unwilling to alter the plan, the plan and special use permit as well. On January 30, 1992, the Commission adopted resolution 92 -1 recommending denial of both the site plan and variance applications. On February 10, 1992, the City Council tabled consideration of the plan, the variance, and an accompanying plat, with the consent of the applicant, and asked for a study of Brooklyn Blvd. with high priority to be given to the development proposal for 6901 Brooklyn Blvd. In May, a consultant was selected - Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban. On July 2, 1992, Timothy Griffin of DSU issued a draft memo (attached) relating to the Phillips 66 development proposal. Mr. Griffin has recommended keeping the existing 50' major thoroughfare setback and has developed a plan (also attached) which shows that a gas station /convenience store /car wash can be built on the site and meet all setback, parking, and greenstrip requirements. The applicants, however, do not like Mr. Griffin's plan because it would require a building of a different design than their prototype. They have submitted a plan which meets setback requirements, but is very deficient in greenstrips. A review of the newly submitted plan follows. Access /Parking The proposed plan provides one access off Brooklyn Blvd. and one access off 69th. This represents an improvement over the previous plan which had two accesses off Brooklyn Blvd. Tim Griffin's plan also relies on two accesses off Brooklyn Blvd. The plan provides seven parking stalls and credit for four cars at the pumps to meet the parking requirement of eleven spaces. The plan shows four stacking spaces for the car wash west of the access on 69th and three more east of that access. The site layout calls for four pump islands in a square formation east of the building. If these pumps were reduced or rearranged it would be possible to increase the greenstrip area along Brooklyn Blvd., but the applicant is unwilling to make such a change. Landscaping The proposed landscape plan calls for intensive use of plantings in very limited landscaped areas. The plan calls for four Marshall Ash, seven Black Hills Spruce, 15 decorative trees and numerous shrubs in very limited green areas. The total point value of all proposed plantings is 156 landscape points. This exceeds by over October 29, 1992 1 100 points the minimum required for this site. The greenstrip along 69th is proposed to be only 5 Along Brooklyn Blvd., the greenstrip varies from 0' to over 20 ( It should be borne in mind that the 15' greenstrip requirement is a minimum, not an average.) The plan prepared by Tim Griffin does provide 15' greenstrips. The applicant's proposed plan utilizes a 3' high keystone wall along the edge of the pavement to screen the parking lot from Brooklyn Blvd. No such wall is proposed along 69th. While walls can provide effective screening, they do not provide the aesthetic relief that a well landscaped greenstrip does. We believe that the alternate plan by Tim Griffin is clearly superior in terms of landscaping and aesthetics. Two other problems with the proposed landscape plan include the fact that it shows numerous shrubs in the area where the sidewalk is and must remain; also, the plan shows the fencing in with this site of the land that is to be transferred to the property to the north. While this triangle of land at the northwest corner of the site should be improved with landscaping as part of this project, we do not believe it would be appropriate to separate it from the property to which it is being attached. (The reason for the transfer of this triangle of land is that service stations may not abut R1 property. By transferring the triangle to the property to the north, the service station site is separated from the R1 lot to the northwest. This is the reason for the plat application. The plat must receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to issuance of permits for the station. It is the platting requirement that results in the requirement to dedicate 18' of additional right -of -way along 69th.) Grading /Drainage /Utilities The site plan calls for four trench drains, one at the entrance to the car wash and one at the exit and one at each access drive. The trench drains at the driveways are connected by storm sewer to a catch basin at the southeast corner of the site, which is in turn connected to City storm sewer in 69th by an 18" storm sewer line. The trench drains at the car wash do not appear to be connected to storm sewer and we are at a loss as to how they would function. The applicant has indicated that they will have to be connected to storm sewer. Building The proposed building and canopy are the same as proposed earlier this year. We would note that the canopy is proposed to have an illuminated band, contrary to the City's Sign Ordinance. The building is prefabricated metal with a stone veneer and a flat roof, the Phillips 66 prototype. Mr. Griffin of DSU has shown by his own site drawing that a building of equal size, uniquely designed to fit this unique parcel, can be constructed while meeting setback, parking, and greenstrip requirements. The Zoning Ordinance calls for "well conceived, high quality developments." Design is to employ "imaginative architectural concepts" (section. October 29, 1992 2 35 -230) . Section 35 -414.3 relating to service station design calls for "sincere concepts and honest construction" to be expressed in the building. We believe that the proposed building, in failing to relate to this unique site and in projecting nothing more than company prototypes, does not meet either the spirit or the letter of the City's Zoning Ordinance regulations. This building is the first redevelopment proposal to be considered in light of the new direction the City is pursuing for Brooklyn Blvd. We fear that approval of the proposed design might set a low standard for future development on the boulevard. We believe the applicant can do better and that Mr. Griffin's drawing is testimony to that fact. Lighting /Trash Light poles are proposed at 16' in height with two lights at each entrance and one on either side of the car wash. The trash dumpster and enclosure are to be located north of the car wash. Recommendation In light of the foregoing review, we cannot recommend approval of the proposed plans as submitted. Although the proposed access arrangement is an improvement over the previous plan, the severe diminution of the greenstrip areas and the unresponsiveness of the building to its context are a disappointment. Approval of the proposed design could, we believe, set a low standard for future redevelopment along Brooklyn Blvd. It is also questionable whether the applicant meets the standards for a variance and accordingly, we recommend that the applicants be directed to alter their plans to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. If they do not wish to do so, we would recommend that a resolution recommending denial be prepared for the Commission's consideration. If the Commission is disposed to recommend approval of the application, however, we will be prepared to offer recommended conditions of approval. Submitted by, l Gary Shallcross Planner Approved by, C ,,�J Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspections October 29, 1992 3 SITE DATA: � Y EaY = • .448.8 ° w ^r, Occvwcr .TYw E:ATl = ii ma I f el l . I — — — swY a•.0 n r ci t ( snu V 8or*ou / wi e_aao�. Is r sr t w) 69th AVENUE wtCKHAM GUSTAFSON ARCHITECTS f011 C011EOE AvE, SUITE 303 PHILUPS 66 COMPANY A DMSION OF PHILUPS PETROLEUM COMPAI, COWNS CO. EO525 303 — 3 -2025 6VlIL[SMIlE OatuWA PRE7_. MIN R SIT PLAN —I- eo .o aeooeiTU ccurte, u�uucsmr D - 4050 �F Y t I � \ R R.c. /. Yw.GEwRR Mw Q \ 4 a , W a' 'v � o•A»I .. \ m Y I b n tScwl's oFw� fOYtl 1� I .. J� • I �, � ! JmIA (5 ze S3• v0 e'Y • - 'd ; a -tiE13 (-EST) —fa \ I R G u.W.uv = +NLJL 69th AVENUE WICKHAM GUSTAFSON ARCHITECTS RRCPNfED iDR TC 17J0 5. COLLEGE AVE. SUITE 202 PHILUPS 66 COMPANY mM1- erwu n.n. A OMSION OF PHILUPS PEROLEUM COMPAN Jc4.90 FT. COU-INS. CO. 50525 303_.p3-2025 WIItENLLE. CYllH10W p (Am GRADING PLAN SERNCE STA—I #27— !JN AVENUE k BROORLYM BOUILVNID ). BROOxLYH CENRN. —.TA 0 S 10 20 ,0 w w.o ] "" D -4080 �3 -0 Adak ■ - 5111EPACr- HTb. 4—W curbs H6RL HA14 CANoP( LI6Hr PMTUPB, HT6, TIT In; Jer rHILLIF* �R1�n -4ro GHa �R W /.L.'W Lws ' Dt -P'mLC HTV 4 c.l'1. H. AKC.A 6147. HT-6- HT - I6 Ll! J eT,r'+LUPV - MLZM-ZAFrZ L6•75.' I°Nnfa HCTRIC ILWHIIJATIPF� vALL" 14 1 . Pf. GNGLeYe @ PAVpHB,•R' L.EvEL a ��K i N a . .T9. °wtl�• w ,RT 2 1 M1A9t_ CANOPY DECK LT. DETAIL i Z o-. > -- 69th AVENUE WICKHAM GUSTAFSON. ARCHITECTS VREPMEO {DR t>30 5. COLLEGE AVE. SUITE 202 PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY A DMSION OF PHIWPS PETROLEUM COMPAN' Ff. COLLINS. CO. 80525 }05 -49] -2025 BNiRFNLLE. OM1INIOW p Ro we RE swu SITE ILLUMINATION PLAN j 1 na ro R W AtAtn/.cRCS W �ENNC`St /2J!)1 SWA A UE tl 001(LY1t BOIIIEVMD E'v ti M1 vl°cD Rw [�YY fgnH WTS BROO.LVN CEMER. vIRR£SOTw II cn 11 r 0 3 IO 20 °0 60 5 Iw1t A[viStD CAVOVi., RLV. wLC .�. r_:o• - D -4080 �5 -3 iy , vAr=aa ron r wmx.a �.oy �xon 3�,4� B ;Vqa� rtH. r•oLa Adak AdilL rr �� r it 4 "@34`Cix:Y' H �� PH 2iaA�T�M'""e raB o� o..r / vl q I�. III= 7 t III IYL"IIII Acm —�r tlIJ xL � Y Ijll 10 " vflr SELF SERVICE o , r 0. • �• •• •• • .p • '.• •' ••. p s' ra" P "Sort saFaa.e�"--� x-e• n =A ANCHOR BOLT PLAN PLAN SECTION " 5Ew= 3tR`5a. �d.,B, ai3.:,9°. w• ��ddd�� L " �v x•, a r a» w�a wow . .,a a .. ,x• .ao�a a Lr '"�� , •III III 5 a III x ? _ } �'. ,Yy 3m.m"Y'w w.aao ri.w -_ � v. III =III ..x so. ca•c. ".o 10- In � IIII m IIII= ,p ,c1�''aE2ra GROUNDING DETAIL = d B612 CURB 6 GUTTER ap :'r a q w x Y' - r � & py � , 'i LIGHTING a PLAN AREA LIGHT POLE DETAIL I.D. 6 PRICE SIGN ELEVATION FLAG POLE DETAIL Y1 —i w ac.�c Y3 1 YB c• 1 ek PLA Al I w w w €:r2 �- +^ Xlzu +db'x °^ � I ul . �: • °. • - IV =1111= } >' �" 5 °ES "' _ FRONT ELEVATION WICKHAM GUSTAFSON. ARCHITECTS 1730 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE. SUITE 202 A PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY FT.COLLINS.CO. 80529 303- 493 -2025 O '. Y ewnESV uE aa�..a" STANDARD YARD DETAILS SECTION e PLAN 6'— O" X 10'— O" TRASH ENCLOSURE CEDAR FENCE DETAIL Y9 —a „_, D -4081 1 -1 DOOR SCHEDULEM —.J— T T — ------------------------------------------------ ---- ------------------- PTO PT. —T. —TI -T. T. PS T Tk',"_ mlnra -- ---------------- NN my= wo- 22. -- T -------- 10 @ T::T' Wyfll- es� ". &W., C OO INV Va (D: is I VR_ L C: ASH Etc . " T. FIC YARD STORAGE - -------- Lg --- — 7. mw-. - - "s, ---- ---- HARDWARE SCHEDULE" _yM .9T ------ y k3TNIEA, T— . --T. T. RFT T /H,? (D H b.. — ZA 1. — 1 X6i5. 4�R. "°' �:.f,� - - � � �F,'z � 4 - by I . � ME� SFT TT T_ I T— I fZ- _ T --- 4 �j m% ilg Ri sF-T Fl- A �T ErMW I yj lF TV mrn I�T EhE&, T— sET A� �l - T . 'I NOTES: B Z X VT I - T. FLOOR PLAN =..L , a , . 7. •V ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE RE T VTTT T L E A. 1ICA., ARCHITECT PREPARED FOR ol I *1 01 1 *1 1 1 1. PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY p x O 1 0 1 0 1 1 FT C CO, 80525 303-493-2025 BARTLESVIL E. 01 FLOOR PLANS Y T.I-T iPPWlVA —YTf Go 0 0 0 O o Go Go o XjjrT 777 WAS { gv» J �� L_L =��} iF NORTH ELEVATION g:F ° E4v' L\�N N ---------------- ---- ------ — --- ---- --- --- ------- --- - --------- — - --- ------- EAST ELEVATION Tj 17 �I '•vdx mP '� HICKHAM GUGTAFSON, ARCHITECTS nn 1730 SOUTH COLLEGE A- SUITE 202 PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY aa.oe '�IL FT .COLLIi-tS. CO. H092'S ----20.5 A 02 VI910r Of M2= IE9 II<H C6PU1� EXTERIOR PAINT SCHEDULE (at—c m EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Fa Gb`aE"'fi� Aa" M otl EAST ELEVATION -'-w -- -- -• • - - - --' - o�.,., La.,.. °,a„° 1;. PLANT MATERIALS SCHEDULE Ibm fdmmvn a/m/ Ba��.�!�•m. Q—Ii. Slu fdaou6i6 f�mmeaa MA —.e A.n F[.[MU p•.u.vH.NU'M.r.nJ' 4 2.5• us. TA Tnm0kn9 A.D•n Poww wnWlold.. 6 1.5' Beb BC n.dbn[ FIw9. G.e M•W.'R.dwC ] 1./' BL■ Rod.[ I[ouH RJ B.d J•d• —g. G.a M.W.'R•d J.di ] 1.5 444 Rodin[ PYOmct PD P.9.d. Go9wood Gom.• .h.mim9. ] 1.5• B. Tr.. Fwm Ha 81st Hub sM Pico 91r d- 7 7' bib HC DM. Am. G.nb.rrveu•H Yieumum vbh.m'GVnp.c[f' to 18-24 PoRM PF GOMrn9.r Po[.ndW Ponntlll. hurtl <ou'GWdrfngr' 11 t6 -24' Ponta SR .. Gnlr.. mow BUUry Por 11ou rv9o•.'C.n M. b.wry' / 1424' Ponta eJ d J..qa J..ro.w utlk.. w..a..o.: K 1e.2.• GG o. us. GS G.— F— SOw. N..nb.'GOidwmi a 16:2.• P.nM GB J-- G,-1 e.ro..ry B.ro.rb buw.e.ry 4 16 -24• Ponta p y JA I.P. -A sP... So.. j.POnin'J.PVUw A4 ' a 15-14• EM E—,.. MauM H—- ladc.r. r/b•twm'M.ni 2 1}1 /' Portb AJ Andor[. JUnb.r JumP.rv•cnlun.b'Andom' 3 PortWIGo MJ Mart JOkp Ju.Jp.r Junyurv. MkwW.'Mln[ JubP' l0 1/ -2. GO � LNC 3R L PIT Bly r� \ �• 25 1 '' 3iU MOTES: Nmck mdU VM.rWn wYN Wtl.cW.f.Wk'P.m'wwPmwd.W.l I Slh b... wR m.[.r R r.tNr. 4' du b.. rn6 MV, wmrrrLl 9•W. Pok MO nrl mYrJr aib. 1- 12 rky roarbb � o.n9wnm PbM. 3T,t ffi b \ N and.e ..... m w ..a..d m.r obu.wd.. •bo.n. a � � � M Y mXJ[ b Drum mP rxt w n .Piowd !1 owrw<. ' U d.rtPgnd pmkkv ry.um m M ProNdW W J Iwd.vMdaM- A'brL+Ed.n W J inlrJ rr. - 4.f ln.edd.d Mr. S TA I-- :-I, P "" pa J�q M.k11 Sew I 3 ] R �haraT w.b1V inn w. v.F. p— s.�on m ti ' r � ZEM I I u.A. ml diet wtl burl rr. d.ry R•IP+•rM � `- t 3 W I I I lr.bop. AAf11•c[ u.e•• dr bw J w Sbr w k4n...a - /57/3 SGS MMud J.o u R.q -•- - -- - 69th AVENUE PHILUPS P 66 COMPANY A OMSION OF PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPAM LANDSCAPE PLAN ,•• c sE.K.T n.•u+ ITTeJ1 a 5 10 xo w, da • ° D -4080 4 -O L. �" 4 I • P I n r T I T 1 I T `I �lol 1. J A.� . !1, T •.� I j �. ••.• i� . � �� 4. xvi ► 1 ' <<,u , y _� �� I 1 1' - � Irl - y -• �� -i I - � �- - - //} It if .��•. T :T_ I` ;r ' - - I = - o - � - y - __ � I 1 �! .� � 1 - SUl {�.1 �A•1 ! , }\ /' •• �. •��-- TT _ r F' __ x ��. - - - - - �._ _ - - _ r�l •.�.. �'.. t � A. N. T-- REGENT AVE.I t _, � �..� -� - -� i- I 1 I cnl •1< �' j ✓ .j 1 I 'o ' 1\ � I I 1� A FI I JEtJ� �1'�. --�, iE ENT'A�L! - ` - ��- f .• A IA t { - I -- - -_ j i IJ/�Il- °A�7 OU QUA I DUAIL AV N P�fiR� )vt. — _ I - �_� I t > > � URC}IARD AVE_N_ � I i ' NU[31 - E , A , A'E I i h � � ' I - - --- - - -- — S Y f AVE. K I -- - � I � ! I - -- - - I _-rte- ��\ �( MAJOR AVE_N. r �� Tr s _ - ` LEE - - - - tJ�..- kjDR I � �IAAJGIi AVE LE A. I x I J I !� 'F. Y -t A, t - I I ! atm m - qo I IfJD �ANA LAVE, � z �ND IAflq - IF IAJE _ 'tJ r IA I ol lilt J 3 �Lq 'I _ l � GHtfdFS N. oI cD f GRIfeES- r~ t -. I f I i - V j . RAN CE c AN - m _ __ I II J( AI I I _, I I i I• - - It R IT i - -�- - I EA Jd AVE. . _• - i `� 'I I I � f n I ' `• _ o ._. ' " - - -- - -- - -- a - - - •� r r' I I � r I t I r; 1 . I � m _. z - - DREW AVE. N. 1 DREW AVE. N. I I A .I �J. � l \'� �'w'�1-=-- rr-r. rTm I �' : �� Fil � �D ��- .-•�_` �•( �'��fr_L -��_ ". -� ' I '` -. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 92 -1 RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION N.OS. 92001, AND 92003 SUBMITTED BY PHILIPS 66 COMPANY WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application Nos. 92001, 92002, and 92003 were submitted by Phillips 66 Company seeking site and building plan and special use permit, preliminary plat, and variance approval for a gas station/ convenience store/ car wash at 6901 Brooklyn Blvd.; and WHEREAS, Section 35 -240, Subdivision 2 of the Zoning Ordinance states that a variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the four standards for a Variance listed in said section of the Ordinance are met; and WHEREAS, the application was considered by the Commission at its January 16, 1992 regular meeting during which a public hearing was held and testimony regarding the request was received; and WHEREAS, the site and building plans cannot be approved without a concurrent approval of a setback variance from Brooklyn Blvd.; and WHEREAS, the applicant has indicated no willingness to alter its plans to meet setback requirements; and WHEREAS, the Commission has considered the proposal in light of the staff report, testimony received, and the standards for a variance contained in Section 35 -240.2 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend that Planning Commission Application Nos. 92001 and 92003 be denied on the grounds that the applicant has not demonstrated by evidence that the standards for a variance contained in Section 35 -240.2 have been met. Specifically, the Commission finds that the standards are not met on the basis of the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated that it is economically infeasible to develop the property without a car wash and thereby meet required setbacks. A gas station /convenience store was developed approximately two years ago by another company at 66th Ave. N. and Highway 252. RESOLUTION NO. 92 -1 _ 2. The circumstance of a shallow lot depth off Brooklyn Blvd. is not unique. Many, if not most, lots along Brooklyn Blvd. are of insufficient depth to accommodate certain types of commercial development. It is necessary to either fit the development to the limitations of the site or to acquire more land to provide greater lot depth from Brooklyn Blvd. 3. The hardship experienced by the applicant is self - imposed by the applicant's requirement to have a car wash as part of its development. 4. Granting a variance for this redevelopment project would set a precedent for other redevelopment in this area and all along Brooklyn Blvd. If some relaxation of the setback along Brooklyn Blvd. is called for, it should be pursued with an ordinance amendment rather than with variances. BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission that based on the foregoing, it is determined that the standards for a variance contained in section 35 -240.2 of the Zoning Ordinance are not met. Without approval of a variance, the development plans and special use permit also cannot be approved. January 30, 1992 Date Chairperson ATT ST: Secretary The motion for the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner Sander, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Kristen Mann, Wallace Bernards, Ella Sander, Bertil Johnson and Mark Holmes and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 15A CONSULiINC, PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 300 FIRST .AVENUE NORTH SUITE ?i0 MINNE:�POLIS, IN 35 4 01 ,33110 MEMORANDUM DATE: 2 July 1992 TO: Ron Warren, City of Brooklyn Center FROM: Timothy J. Griffin, Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc. RE: Proposed Phillips 66 Gas Station/Convenience Store /Car Wash The purpose of this memorandum is to present our analysis, findings and recommendations regarding the impact of the subject project on Brooklyn Boulevard in light of the Brooklyn Boulevard Study, which DSU has been commissioned to prepare for the City of Brooklyn Center. This memorandum is organized in the following manner. a) The study background including its purpose, the development proposal and the preliminary Boulevard study goals and principles that will be used as evaluation criteria; b) a comparative analysis of the subject project with other similar developments which addresses land use, circulation, site considerations, zoning and design and appearance issues; and c) our recommendations regarding the application. BACKGROUND The purpose of the Brooklyn Boulevard Study is to prepare a plan for the economic preservation and redevelopment of Brooklyn Boulevard. To that end DSU has been commissioned to prepare a plan which integrates economic development requirements and regional and local transportation needs with urban design principles that will create a sense of place that is Brooklyn Boulevard. If the study is to be successful, it will have to do away with rubber stamp development prototypes and relentless traffic regulations, while retaining their economic and planning integrity. Then, through the creative application of urban design principles and civic priorities, a distinctive environment for Brooklyn Boulevard will be created that meets the respective and not necessarily incompatible objectives of an aesthetic landscape, successful commerce and the efficient movement of multi -modal traffic. "The car and commerce are both vital to the well being of the economy, but it is the junk they trail with them that we have to tackle." H.R.H The Prince of Wales " Vision of Britain Into this scenario a dose of reality has immediately been inserted. Phillips 66 has requested a zoning ordinance variance to be allowed to construct and operate a gas station, convenience store and car wash at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard. The location is a 29,000 square foot site on the triangular northwest comer of Brooklyn Boulevard at the intersection of 69th Avenue. The proposed - V 7 1 1 0 4. 70th Avenue �4C P * ip Q Q 69th Avenue Proposed Phillips 66 Gas Station/Convenience Store /Car Wash THE BROOKLYN BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT STUDY NUNN CONSULTING PLANNERS L- 1 ARCM tECT5 llln —IT AVCNU! NORTH .iILI'F ]i� Ron Warren 2 July 1992 2 development represents Phillips 66's standard development prototype although it has been modified to deal with the parcel's difficult triangular geometry. With the mutual consent of all parties, this variance request ( #'s 92001, 92002 and 92003) has been tabled pending the initiation of this planning and urban design study at which time additional evaluation criteria could be established and applied. While still somewhat premature in the planning process, it is not unreasonable to assume that the guiding goals and principles will speak to the following: 1) appropriate land use and zoning; 2) safe and efficient movement and accommodation of automobile, truck, bus, bicycle and pedestrian traffic; 3) building and site design and appearance; and 4) the necessary zoning regulations, appearance codes and incentive programs to implement the Brooklyn Boulevard Plan. The Brooklyn Center Planning Department's evaluation of the proposal to date has relied on the first two criteria categories, the City's land use and zoning regulations and the City, County and State transportation planning criteria. We suggest that the following design and appearance related concerns be factored into the evaluation. 1. Does the proposed Phillips 66 facility contribute to the "place" that is or will be Brooklyn Boulevard? Is the proposed design obtrusive or does it fit in with its surroundings? 2. Does the proposed Phillips 66 appear rational from the street? Does its form tell you where to go and what to expect? 3. Does the proposed Phillips 66 relate to a human scale and the scale of the surrounding buildings? 4. Does the proposed Phillips 66 relate to its neighbors in terns of its form and appearance? Is it jarring or complimentary? 5. Does the proposed Phillips 66 enclose and define its site as being separate from surrounding spaces? Is there a transition from Boulevard to place? 6. Does the proposed Phillips 66 utilize "local" building materials, ones that would be associated with Brooklyn Center? 7. Does the proposed Phillips 66 exhibit appropriate architectural detail and decoration? 8. Does the proposed Phillips 66 integrate environmental art into its proposed design? 9. Does the proposed Phillips 66 use appropriate signage to convey its presence on the Boulevard? 10. Is the lighting of the proposed Phillips 66 consistent with the Boulevard theme and does it intrude on neighboring residential areas? Ron Warren 2 July 1992 3 11. Does the surrounding community feel that the proposed Phillips 66 contributes to the role, function and theme of the 69th Avenue portion of Brooklyn Boulevard? ANALYSIS The proposed Phillips 66 gas station/convenience store/car wash was evaluated in light of the criteria above. It was also compared to several similar projects throughout the area. Table 1, Gas/Convenience Store /Car Wash Comparison summarizes these findings which are as follows: 1. A gas station, convenience store is an appropriate land use along the automobile oriented Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor. 2. It appears that the car wash element is common to the 90's version of a gas station. 3. The Phillips 66 proposal is the smallest site. Further investigation reveals that the industry standard site ranges between one acre and an acre and a half of land. 4. Brooklyn Center's minimum lot size for a gas station in the C -2 zoning district is 20,000 s.f. This is too small and should be increased in light of current gas station, convenience center configurations. 5. Setbacks are more a relationship of a structure to the surrounding land uses and roadways than they are of a structure to the internal site organization. The type of visual continuity and desired public facade for Brooklyn Boulevard should be established before granting a setback variance. 6. In general, recent developments including the Phillips 66 proposal include more site landscaping than in the past. However, in most cases the plant material has not been supplemented with sufficient hardscape; walls, fences, railings, paving materials, sculpture, etc. to adequately enclose or define the development in an urban sense. 7. These developments and the proposed Phillips 66 initially try to maximize their signage resulting in a disproportionate visual cluttering of the environment. 8. Architecturally, the SuperAmerica developments, specifically in St. Paul and to lesser degree Brooklyn Park, go the farthest in attempting to integrate their buildings into the surrounding public facade through the use of similar materials and the incorporation of building forms and details found throughout their respective districts. Apparently by design, the Phillips and Amoco sites are not interested in achieving such a relationship, but rather only stating their corporate identity and presence. q A� s TABLE I GAS /CONVENIENCE STORE /CAR WASH COMPARISON Name Phillips 66 Bettger SuperAmerica Amoco SuperAmerica Status Proposed Under Const. Operating Denied Operating Location Brooklyn Blvd. Plymouth Brooklyn Park Roseville St. Paul Brooklyn Center Program Gas/Convenience/ Gas/Convenience./ Gas/Convenience/ Gas/Convenience/ Car Wash Car Wash Car Wash Car Wash Bldg. Area 1,831 s.f. 3,520 s.f. 1,248 s.f. 792 s.f. cw Site Area 29,000 s.f. 49,280 s.f. 65,776 s.f. 39,000 s.f. Zoning Class. C -2 Planned Community Development Mn. Lot Size 20,000 s.f. Affi� IM' Setbacks F S R Parking 13 spaces 18 spaces 9 spaces Site Plan & 4.3% Landscapin Signage Public Facade X Ron Warren 2 July 1992 4 RECOMMENDATION It is our recommendation to deny Phillips 66 zoning variance request. This recommendation is based on the following reasons: 1. The site is too small for the proposed program. 2. The geometry of the site in conjunction with the proposed development creates a confusing and unsafe automobile circulation pattern especially the relationship of the car wash exit onto Brooklyn Boulevard. Furthermore, the proposed layout does little to accommodate pedestrian, bicycle or public transit patrons of the convenience store. 3. The building architecture is 100 percent corporate Phillips 66 image and 0 percent Brooklyn Center. Little has been done architecturally to say that this is Brooklyn Center's Phillips 66 neighborhood convenience center. It is our further recommendation that the City of Brooklyn Center invite the applicant to enter into a planned development process to explore whether a mutually acceptable proposal can be prepared. The planned development regulations could focus on, but not be limited to the following: 1. Enlarging e site to accommodate the proposed program. gmg P Po P gram• 2. Reducing the program on the existing site. 3. Integrating the proposed development as part of a redevelopment of the block bordered by Lee Avenue on the west, 70th Avenue North on the north, June Avenue North on the east, and 69th Avenue on the south 4. Designing the development to be consistent with the Urban Design Principles & Guidelines of the Brooklyn Boulevard Study. post-It brand taxtransm�aai From To \,N6-rrtD\ Co. Co Ahone� Dep X _ . tj oRV, . kVVNL� THE BR. OOKLYN'BOULEVARD 'R- DEVELOPMENT'STUDY u,.oxwre tianK„ Ul f T t AYL.RI[ MORTII 31 /rT4 M r041CM'Ofly IYN yYr 4�llP1YQ PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No.92003 Applicant: Phillips 66 Company Location: 6901 Brooklyn Blvd. Request: Variance Background The applicant requests a variance from section 35 -700 of the City's Zoning Ordinance to allow a lesser greenstrip than the 15' required by ordinance at the site of the proposed Phillips 66 service station at 6901 Brooklyn Blvd. In some places on the site, there would essentially be no greenstrip at all, but a 3' high keystone wall. This application is a companion to application 92001 for site and building plan and special use permit approval. On January 30th of this year, the Commission adopted resolution 92 -1 (attached) which recommended denial of both the site plan and variance applications, citing reasons why the standards for a variance contained in section 35 -240 were not met in this case. The variance sought earlier this year was from the building setback requirement. The City Council tabled the matter with the consent of the applicants on February 10th and called for a study of Brooklyn Blvd., including the question of ordinance setback requirements. The consultant selected to conduct the study has recommended that the current major thoroughfare setback of 50' be retained at least for the time being. The applicant has, accordingly, submitted a plan in which building setbacks comply, but greenstrips are deficient. Thus, the nature of the variance application has changed, but many of the arguments on both sides of the issue remain the same. The applicant has submitted a lengthy written response to planning consultant Timothy Griffin's draft memo on the Phillips 66 proposal and addressing the standards for a variance. A summary of those arguments and staff response follows. Variance Standards (a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. Phillips: Phillips argument relative to this standard is quite lengthy and will not be quoted verbatim here (see letter attached) . Mr. Baccus argues, as before, that the variance results directly from the requirement for an 18' dedication off 69th which forces the building northward and causes the infringement on the parking setback. Mr. Baccus notes that staff argued previously that the cause of the previous variance request resulted from the need to provide stacking for the car wash. He does not comprehend this argument, but points out that stacking is acceptable in the current October 29, 1992 1 plan. The remainder of Mr. Baccus' argument on this standard relates to the issue of whether a car wash is a necessary component of the proposed service station. This is in response to a staff argument that a car wash was not a necessary component. Our argument cited the Superamerica station which was developed recently and which does not include a car wash. Mr. Baccus states that Phillips is in a different line of business than Superamerica. While Superamerica is primarily a convenience store which sells gas, Phillips is an oil company selling gas and offering a car wash as an optional purchase. (We would note that Superamerica is a subsidiary of Ashland Oil Company.) Mr. Baccus states that they have done extensive market studies which indicate that offering a car wash increases gasoline sales by 30% to 40% and, therefore, are a significant contributor to whether a service station is economically viable or not. Mr. Baccus concludes his argument by pointing out that the Superamerica station exists on a larger site and could not fit on the Phillips site with or without the 18' dedication. Staff: We are not sure whether Mr. Baccus has identified what the hardship is in this case. He seems to anticipate that staff will argue that Phillips requirement for a car wash is the cause of the hardship and sets about proving that a car wash is a necessary element of the proposal and that the variance is caused by the requirement for the 18' right -of -way dedication along 69th. Our reading of this situation is that the applicant perceives a hardship because it insists on a prototype service station on an irregularly shaped parcel which may simply be too small for the applicant's entire program. We would begin with the premise that there is no guarantee that a given parcel will and ought to accommodate all uses comprehended by the existing zoning. There are frequently instances in which a development proposal simply may not fit on the site in question. In this case, Tim Griffin of DSU has developed a plan (attached) showing that a similarly sized gas station /convenience store /car wash can indeed fit on the site in question, with the 18' dedication accounted for, and meet all ordinance requirements. However, Mr. Griffin's drawing, which Phillips has and alludes to in their submittal, involves a nonprototype building. The convenience store would be shaped to fit the site rather than the rectangular dictates of Phillips' prototype. It seems to us that the variance is really based on Phillips' insistence on its prototype and not on ordinance defined criteria nor even the required 18' dedication. We do not believe this is a hardship in the sense comprehended by the Zoning Ordinance and should not be a basis for approving this variance application. (b) The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. October 29, 1992 2 Phillips: Phillips' argument relative to this standard is that the cause of the variance is the requirement to dedicate 18' from the southerly, most developable portion of the site which forces the station north to the area of the site with shallower depth off Brooklyn Blvd., thus necessitating a variance. Mr. Baccus states that such a circumstance is unique and that similar variance requests would be justified. He concludes by stating that requiring Phillips to move its development north (where there is a lack of depth) "leaves no reasonable alternative but to seek a variance, just compensation, or some other relief or remedy." Staff: Apparently, Phillips does not believe that designing its development to fit the site, as Mr. Griffin has, is "reasonable ". We do, however. While we would acknowledge that the parcel is an uncommon shape and that the required 18' dedication imposes some challenges in designing a suitable development, we believe that the applicant should be prepared to depart from its prototype building in addressing the unique circumstances of this site. We believe that that is reasonable and that the City should not compromise its landscape standards unnecessarily at a time when it is striving to improve the image of Brooklyn Blvd. Redevelopment almost always is more challenging than development of an area where property lines are not fixed and variances will need to be granted in some cases. However, in this case, we believe that the variance sought is unnecessary and that the City would be giving up its own objectives for the Boulevard unnecessarily to accommodate a corporate prototype. (c) The hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. Phillips: "Phillips current inability to develop its property is related to the requirement that it dedicate 18 feet along Brooklyn Boulevard [69th Ave. N] . If not for that requirement Phillips could develop its property and meet parking setback and building setback requirements. Phillips did not create the hardship. "In its previous report staff stated that the hardship was created from insufficient lot depth, the need for car wash stacking, and Phillips' business plans. It is not Phillips' desire for a car wash that creates the hardship, it is the City's desire for a dedicated 18 foot strip. The hardship is not self - imposed, it is City- imposed." Staff: We simply disagree. The 18' dedication presents challenges in designing the site and building. The applicant has been unable to address the challenges within the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and has rejected a suggested plan that does meet the requirements while insisting the City must compromise its standards since it is the one requiring the dedication. It should be noted October 29, 1992 3 that, it is Hennepin County, through the platting process, which is requiring the 18' dedication, not the City. And, the platting process is required because the applicant would not even be able to locate its facility on the site if it did not transfer a portion of its land abutting the R1 zone to another property. The 18' dedication is necessary for doing business at this site. It should also be noted that, when the Holiday station across the street was developed in 1984, it was also required to dedicate land for the eventual widening of 69th. It did so and even though that site is shallower than this site, it did not seek a variance from the greenstrip requirement, but designed its facility to fit the site. The hardship in this case, we believe, is that Phillips cannot build a prototype building while meeting City requirements. We will leave it to the Commission to judge whether or not this is a self - imposed hardship. (d) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Phillips: "The Planning Commission found that the standard had not been met because 'granting a variance for this redevelopment project would set a precedent for other redevelopment in this area and all along Brooklyn Boulevard.' As previously addressed, the only precedent which would be set by granting Phillips its requested variance would be that a future applicant who proposed a development plan and was then advised that it would have to dedicate an amount of land which would render its proposed development unworkable within City setback requirements, might be entitled to a variance not only on the merits of its case but on the fact one had been granted to Phillips. Again, this is an unlikely scenario. "In its report planning staff addressed the detrimental /injurious standard by noting that it is less than desirable to have cars exit the car wash and enter almost immediately onto a major thoroughfare. The layout which is the subject of this request does not have cars exiting "almost immediately" onto Brooklyn Boulevard, and in recent meetings with City Staff, it has indicated that it feels this concern is addressed with this layout. "The only question which might arise on this issue would concern the width of the green strip. As previously discussed, Phillips has incorporated enhancements suggested by City Staff and enhancements developed by Phillips' architects (berming and a keystone wall) which will make the landscape view from the street more aesthetically pleasing than a landscape meeting minimum code requirements." Staff: On the issue of cars exiting the car wash and entering onto Brooklyn Blvd., we agree that that concern has largely been met by October 29, 1992 4 the proposed plan. On the issue of precedent, we strongly disagree with the applicant's comments. It is not at all unlikely that the City will be faced in the relatively near future with a similar request which may involve a request for a variance. In such a case, what the City does in this case will definitely set a precedent and a tone for how such compromises of City standards are to be handled. We do not rule out the possibility of compromise, but, in this case, we believe that the compromise being sought by the applicant is unnecessary and detrimental to the city's best interests. This site is to be cleared and the redevelopment of the site should meet the constraints of the site. To grant greenstrip variances, setback variances or other such variances because of expanded right -of -way can lead to problems such as those experienced on the other side of Brooklyn Blvd. involving over utilization of the land. It is not additional land for right -of -way that will be the common thread of the requested variance, but the ability to put more on to a site at the expense of required setbacks and greenstrips and the benefits derived from them. On the question of tradeoffs to allow a masonry wall in lieu of a reduced green strip, we would note f irst of all that no masonry wall is proposed along 69th where the greenstrip is to be only 5' in width. For an example of masonry screening devices in front greenstrips, we would refer the Commission to an office building in New Hope on the east side of Winnetka Avenue, about a block north of Medicine Lake Road. We do not find this wall particularly attractive. Though the proposed wall could certainly be made more attractive than the example cited, there is no guarantee that it will remain so or that other such walls may not turn out to be eyesores. If the Commission is open to considering such an allowance, we would recommend that it consider it in terms of an ordinance amendment so that the option would be available to other sites. We do not believe such an ordinance would improve the aesthetics of parking lots. Rather, it may detract from them. Other Considerations We have reviewed the applicant's arguments relating to the variance standards first. However, the first half of the applicant's submittal reviews the history of the application and comments on criticisms of the original plan by the City's planning consultant, Tim Griffin of Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban. As mentioned earlier, Mr. Griffin submitted a memorandum on July 2, 1992 providing an analysis of the previous Phillips 66 proposal. While the present plan has changed somewhat from that plan, we believe that many of the conclusions of Mr. Griffin's analysis are still relevant. Those conclusions include: 11 1. A gas station, convenience store is an appropriate land use along the automobile oriented Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor. October 29, 1992 5 2. It appears that the car wash element is common to the 90's version of a gas station. 3. The Phillips 66 proposal is the smallest site. [in comparison to others reviewed in the memo] Further investigation reveals that the industry standard site ranges between one acre and an acre and a half of land. 4. Brooklyn Center's minimum lot size for a gas station in the C -2 zoning district is 20,000 s.f. This is too small and should be increased in light of current gas station, convenience center configurations. 6. In general, recent developments including the Phillips 66 proposal include more site landscaping than in the past. However, inmost cases the plant material has not been supplemented with sufficient hardscape; walls, fences, railings, paving materials, sculpture, etc. to adequately enclose or define the development in an urban sense. 7. These developments and the proposed Phillips 66 initially try to maximize their signage resulting in a disproportionate visual cluttering of the environment. 8. Architecturally, the Superamerica developments, specifically in St. Paul and to a lesser degree Brooklyn Park, go the farthest in attempting to integrate their buildings into the surrounding public facade through the use of similar materials and the incorporation of building forms and details found throughout their respective districts. Apparently by design,the Phillips and Amoco sites are not interested in achieving such a relationship, but rather only stating their corporate identity and presence." Mr. Griffin recommended denial of the proposed variance because the site is too small for the proposed program, because the site design was confusing and did not take pedestrians into account, and because the building architecture is 100 percent corporate Phillips 66 image and 0 percent Brooklyn Center. Mr. Griffin went on to recommend the following relative to the Phillips 66 proposal: " 1. Enlarging the site to accommodate the proposed program. 2. Reducing the program on the existing site. 3. Integrating the proposed development as part of a redevelopment of the block bordered by Lee Avenue on the west, 70th Avenue North on the north, June Avenue North on the east, and 69th Avenue on the south. 4. Designing the development to be consistent with the Urban October 29, 1992 6 Design Principles & Guidelines of the Brooklyn Boulevard Study." Conclusion In conclusion, we believe that the proposed variance does not meet the standards for a variance and that the granting of such a variance would do damage to the prospect of improving the aesthetic standards for Brooklyn Blvd. We believe that a better plan such as Mr. Griffin's is possible and should be pursued by Phillips 66. We do not believe that the variance as proposed is in the City's best interests, but that a proposal that was more sensitive to the City's concerns and required a variance should not be ruled out. Relative to the variance standards, we would recommend the following findings: 1. The hardship experienced by the applicant results from its insistence on building a prototype building on a limited and irregularly shaped lot. The Zoning Ordinance does not recognize a right to a prototype design as grounds for granting a variance from any provision of the code. 2. The circumstances surrounding this variance application are not unique, but are likely to be repeated in other instances along Brooklyn Blvd. 3. The hardship of not being able to build a prototype building on this site is a self - imposed hardship. The requirement to dedicate 18' of right -of -way results partly from the applicant's need to eliminate R1 abutment in order to operate on this site. While the 18' dedication is a challenge to developing a proper site layout, it is not a prohibitive challenge. Design solutions exist which the applicant simply refuses to consider. 4. Approval of the variance in question would not be in the city's best interests inasmuch as it would set a poor precedent for future development and redevelopment on Brooklyn Boulevard by placing corporate image above local aesthetic standards. Submitted by, t Gary Shallcross Planner October 29, 1992 7 Approved by, Ronald A.Warren Director of Planning and Inspections October 29, 1992 8 PHILLIPS PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY HOUSTON, TEXAS 77251 -1967 BOX 1967 �„- PROPERTY TAXES, REAL ESTATE AND CLAIMS October 21, 1992 SS 27831 Brooklyn Center, MN MN /Hennepin R001 Chairman Wallace Bernards and Members of the Brooklyn Center Planning Commission City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Chairman Bernards and Members of the Planning Commission: Phillips Petroleum Company proposes a redevelopment project on its property at the northwest corner of 69th Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard, The proposed redevelopment is a state -of- the -art gasoline station which would consist of a sales building, canopy and car wash building. Approximately two years ago Phillips developed a design plan which would function well from customer and operational standpoints, and would meet all city code requirements. Thereafter, Phillips was advised by city staff that 18 feet along 69th Avenue was needed for possible future widening of 69th Avenue. As you can see from the attached drawing, the tract is widest and the most developable at the southern portion - -the portion along 69th Avenue. The taking of 18 feet along 69th Avenue obviously necessitates shifting the development north to the more narrow portion of the property. As a result, neither the originally proposed design, or any other of the numerous design plans Phillips' architects have since developed can meet the burdensome building setback requirements and parking setback requirements. Based on discussions with the City, Phillips developed a plan with the building backing up to the north property line; the plan prior to the taking of the 18 feet depicted the building backing up to the west property line. This plan met all of the parking setback /greenbelt requirements, but required a variance from the 50 foot building setback along Brooklyn Boulevard. Chairman Wallace Bernards October 21, 1992 Page Two The redevelopment request, including the variance request, was heard by the Planning Commission at its January 16, 1992 and January 30, 1992 meetings, and it recommended denial of the variance request based upon the following grounds: "1. The applicant has not demonstrated that it is economically infeasible to develop the property without a car wash and thereby meet the required setbacks. A gas station /convenience store was developed approximately two years ago by another company at 66th Avenue and Highway 252. 2. The circumstance of a shallow lot depth off Brooklyn Boulevard is not unique. Many, if not most, lots along Brooklyn Boulevard are of insufficient depth to accommodate certain types of commercial development. It is necessary to either fit the development to provide greater lot depth from Brooklyn Boulevard. 3. The hardship experienced by the applicant is self- imposed by the applicant's requirement to have a car wash as part of its development. 4. Granting a variance for this redevelopment project would set a precedent for other redevelopment in this area and all along Brooklyn Boulevard. If some relaxation of the setback along Brooklyn Boulevard is called for, it should be pursued with an ordinance amendment rather than with variance." The applications proceeded to the City Council on February 10, 1992, and were tabled so that "the Planning Commission (could) work on possible ordinance amendments. . . and explore the concept and legality of offering setback credits (for the taking of right of way) . . ." Thereafter, the City retained a consultant to study Brooklyn Boulevard. Apparently in response to the City Council's directive, on July 2, 1992 the consultant issued a Memorandum, a copy of which is attached, in which he recommended denial of Phillips' variance request based upon the following reasons: " 1. The site is too small for the proposed program. 2. The geometry of the site in conjunction with the proposed development creates a confusing and unsafe automobile circulation pattern especially the relationship of the car wash exit onto Brooklyn Boulevard. Furthermore, the proposed layout does little to accommodate pedestrian, bicycle or public transit patrons of the convenience store. Chairman Wallace Bernards October 21, 1992 Page Three 3. The building architecture is 100 percent corporate Phillips 66 image and 0 percent Brooklyn Center. Little has been done architecturally to say that this is Brooklyn Center's Phillips 66 neighborhood convenience store." Also, in his Memorandum, the consultant suggested certain concerns be considered, some of which are as follows: - "Does the proposed Phillips 66 facility contribute to the 'place' that is or will be Brooklyn Boulevard? Is the proposed design obtrusive or does it fit in with its surroundings ?" - "Does the proposed Phillips 66 appear to be rational from the street? Does its form tell you where to go and what to expect ?" - "Does the proposed Phillips 66 relate to a human scale and the scale of the surrounding buildings ?" - "Does the proposed Phillips 66 relate to its neighbors in terms of its form and appearance? Is it jarring or complimentary ?" - "Does the proposed Phillips 66 enclose and define its site as being separate from surrounding spaces? Is there a transition from Boulevard to place ?" In meetings subsequent to the consultant's Memorandum, the consultant indicated that he does not recommend reducing the building setback along Brooklyn Boulevard, apparently because he and the planning staff envision a service road along Brooklyn Boulevard through Phillips' property. It does not appear that the suggestion of setback credits for right of way dedication was explored. That being the recommendation, it was suggested that Phillips prepare a plan which meets the building setback requirements and still contemplates the 18 foot dedication along 69th Avenue. Recognizing that this would necessitate utilization of portions of the parking setback area, it was further suggested that Phillips' landscape architect incorporate designs to "enhance" the landscaped area. Thus we have come virtually full circle and will present to you at the October 29, 1992 hearing a plan substantially similar to the original plan, but which shifts the building north to accommodate the proposed 18 foot taking. The plan meets the building setback requirements and all other code requirements except that shifting the building to the north (which as previously mentioned becomes more narrow) to accommodate the Chairman Wallace Bernards October 21, 1992 Page Four proposed taking necessitates infringing upon the parking setback area. Furthermore, the plan incorporates a landscape berm from the street up to an interior keystone wall. In the narrower area along Brooklyn Boulevard, the berm will taper down from the north and south and the keystone wall will be exposed to the street. The keystone will be at least substantially similar to what has been utilized along the 69th Avenue improvement project and we believe the overall plan will be much more appealing from the street than would a landscape merely meeting minimum Code requirements. From the standpoint of fairness, common sense, and what is in the best interest of the City and Phillips, Phillips submits that the requested variance should be granted based upon the above. In addition, Ron Warren requires that prior to the hearing we furnish him with a written statement of our arguments concerning the standards set forth in Code Section 35- 240(2), and the remainder of this letter will be devoted to satisfying his requirement. As a general statement, the standards set forth in the Code can be viewed in as broad or restricted a fashion as a city governing body may choose. Different cities apply these same standards in very different ways. Case law interpreting these standards, however, indicates that a city cannot apply these standards so narrowly that no case could qualify for a variance. Regardless of how the standards are applied, unless a variance would never be granted, the circumstances which give rise to Phillips' request meet the standards from both a practical standpoint and a legal standpoint. Each standard will be addressed separately below. 1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. The need for a variance results directly from the requirement that Phillips dedicate 18 feet along 69th Avenue. Any contention that the need for a variance results from something else only begs the question. If not for the 18 foot dedication, Phillips' plan would meet all Code requirements. With the dedication Phillips must either shift the layout north and infringe upon the parking setback or relocate the building to the north property line and infringe upon the building setback. Chairman Wallace Bernards October 21, 1992 Page Five As was previously discussed, the subject property has the most depth from Brooklyn Boulevard at the southern portion (i.e. along 69th Avenue). As you proceed north on the property the depth from Brooklyn Boulevard decreases significantly. The 18 feet is being taken from the most developable portion and forcing Phillips to relocate the development more to the less developable portion. In its report concerning Phillips' previous variance request, planning staff concluded that the need for a variance did not result from the required dedication, instead concluding it resulted from the need to provide proper stacking for the car wash facility. We do not understand what staff meant by this but it should be noted that regardless of where the layout is shifted in order to accommodate the 18 foot dedication, any location necessitates a variance whether or not that location provides proper stacking. It should also be noted that the proposed plan provides proper stacking and in recent meetings City Staff has indicated it is acceptable. In its report, planning staff also suggested that eliminating the car wash would eliminate the need for a variance and one of the Planning Commission grounds for recommending denial was that Phillips had "not demonstrated that it is economically infeasible to develop the property without a car wash ". It went on to state that "a gas station /convenience store was developed approximately two years ago by another company at 66th Avenue and Highway 252 ". Phillips' economic feasibility study contemplated the installation of a car wash and the projected return on investment fell barely within the range of acceptability; therefore, to develop this service station without a car wash is not economically feasible. First it should be noted that Phillips utilizes the most state -of- the -art equipment (environmental and otherwise) which technology has to offer. Since the building and equipment costs are relatively fixed, the two variables which determine whether it would be economically feasible to develop a particular site are projected sales and land cost. The projected sales for this location are good. However, the land cost of $480,000 (approxi- mately $16.50 per sq. ft.) is slightly above normal. Without a car wash, land, building, and equipment costs, when compared to projected sales, would result in an unacceptable return on investment by any standard. Phillips has conducted extensive studies on the impact a car wash has on gasoline sales. Its studies have concluded that a car wash increases gasolines sales by 30 % -40%, and the percentage of gasoline buyers who use the car wash is 40 % -60 %. Chairman Wallace Bernards October 21, 1992 Page Six The final point which was raised regarding this standard concerned the statement that the Super America had been constructed without a car wash at 252 and 66th. Using Super America is comparing apples to oranges. Super America in in the convenience store business and includes gas sales as part of its business; Phillips is in the gasoline sales business and includes a small convenience store as part of its business. Another important point in addressing this statement is that the Super America at 252 and 66th has a total building area of approximately 3,000 to 3,500 sq. ft., and that building would not fit on Phillips' site with or without the required 18 foot dedication. Phillips' total building area with the car wash is approximately 2,000 sq. ft. Finally, it should be noted that Super America is now installing car washes in its new developments along with its large convenience store. 2. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Phillips' application for a variance request is based on the requirement that it dedicate 18 feet along 69th Avenue. That condition, coupled with the fact that the lot's shape is such that the land is being taken from the most developable portion, are unique to this parcel of land. The only precedent which would be set in ran g tang the variance would be that a future variance might be warranted where an applicant proposed a plan and was then advised it had to dedicate an amount of land which rendered its originally proposed development not possible under the then existing setback requirements. That scenario is not very likely to occur. In its previous report addressing this standard, planning staff stated that "the real reason for the variance application is the lack of depth off Brooklyn Boulevard" (recall that earlier in the report staff had attributed the need for a variance to proper car wash stacking). The Planning Commission, in its finding that the standards had not been met, stated that "the circumstance of a shallow lot depth off Brooklyn Boulevard is not unique." Both of these observations skirt the issue. True, shallow lot depth off Brooklyn Boulevard is not unique. However, lot depth off Brooklyn Chairman Wallace Bernards October 21, 1992 Page Seven Boulevard does not become a problem or become relevant until you impose the requirement that Phillips dedicate 18 feet along 69th Avenue. Again, the uniqueness lies in the combined effect of the requirement of an 18 foot dedication from the southern, more developable portion of the property and the lack of depth off Brooklyn Boulevard at the northern portion of the property. Requiring Phillips to move its development north (where there is the lack of depth) leaves no reasonable alternative but to seek a variance, just compensation, or some other relief or remedy. 3. The hardship is related to the requirements of this his ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. Phillips' current inability to develop its property is related to the requirement that it dedicate 18 feet along Brooklyn Boulevard. If not for that requirement Phillips could develop its property and meet the parking setback and building setback requirements. Phillips did not create the hardship. In its previous report staff stated that the hardship was created from insufficient lot depth, the need for car wash stacking, and Phillips' business plans. It is not Phillips' desire for a car wash that creates the hardship, it is the City's desire for a dedicated 18 foot strip. The hardship is not self- imposed, it is City- imposed. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the P arcel of land is located. The Planning Commission found that the standard had not been met because "granting a variance for this redevelopment project would set a precedent for other redevelopment in this area and all along Brooklyn Boulevard." As previously addressed, the only precedent which would be set by granting Phillips its requested variance would be that a future applicant who proposed a development plan and was then advised that it would have to dedicate an amount of land which would render its proposed development unworkable within City setback requirements, might be entitled to a variance not only on the merits of its case but on the fact one had been granted to Phillips. Again, this is an unlikely scenario. Chairman Wallace Bernards October 21, 1992 Page Eight In its report planning staff addressed the detrimental /injurious standard by noting that it is less than desirable to have cars exit the car wash and enter almost immediately onto a major thoroughfare. The layout which is the subject of this request does not have cars exiting "almost immediately" onto Brooklyn Boulevard, and in recent meetings with City Staff, it has indicated that it feels this concern is addressed with this layout. The only question which might arise on this issue would concern the width of the green strip. As previously discussed, Phillips has incorporated enhancements suggested by City Staff and enhancements developed by Phillips' architects (berming and a keystone wall) which will make the landscape view from the street more aestheti- cally pleasing than a landscape meeting minimum code requirements. Phillips respectfully requests that it be granted the requested variance. Very truly yours, Jon D. Baccus JDB:gp JDBGP141 /PPC0 Attachment cc: Gerald Splinter Ronald Warrent/f 9 r r CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council M eeting Date 2/10/9 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ke kc Ie Ic �t *�c�}e �fc �e �e *ye �c �e x�!eaeie k ��e re TC ae xye M �Ic �t �c k ��c !c �c �t �yc��cM * *MMyc �e �c M�je �e �e �e x!cM�xac�Y,cac%c �cx xsc is x aF Y,eY,e ge�x�e �e Ke �e *fie �c �e �e �K e(e „[ye �K ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 92001 — Phillips 66 Company DEPT. APPROVAL: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection � k � K � c � k � leie � e � k � k* M*** k � kMit � e �k�kk�k* �MM* �k> F�kaic�ic�k�* ae kk�k& �k> k�KMMMxRycMMM�kkk�Kk�Ie MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Planning Commission Application No. 92001 submitted by Phillips 66 is a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct an 1,831 sq. ft. gas station/ convenience store /car wash on the site of the existing Union 76 station at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard. This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 16 and January 30, 1992. Attached for the Council's review are minutes, information sheets, various drawings, a map of the area and a copy of Planning Commission Resolution 92 -1 from those meetings. Recommendation Denial of the application is recommended through Planning Commission Resolution 92 -1. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2/10/92 Agenda Item Numher REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 92002 Phillips 66 Company DEPT. APPROVAL: n Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below/attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X Planning Commission Application No. 92002 submitted by Phillips 66 Company is a request for preliminary plat approval to redraw the boundary line between the service station site at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard and the single-family residence to the north. This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its January 16 and January 30, 1992 meetings. Attached for the Council's review are minutes, information sheets, and a copy of the preliminary plat. Recommendation Approval of the preliminary plat was recommended by the Planning Commission subject to the three conditions listed on page 3 of their January 30, 1992 minutes. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2/10/ Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 92003 - Phillips 66 Company DEPT. A PPR �> Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below/attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (SLIPPIciiiental sheets attached X Planning Commission Application No. 92003 submitted by Phillips 66 Company is a request for variance approval from Section 35-400 of the Zoning ordinance to allow construction of gas station /convenience /store /car wash approximately 28 from Brooklyn Boulevard instead of the 50 required by ordinance from all major thoroughfares. This application was reviewed by the Planning commission at its January 16 and January 30, 1992 meetings. Attached for the Council's review are minutes, information sheets, and a letter from the applicant addressing the variance standards. Recommendation Denial of the application is recommended through Planning Commission Resolution No. 92-1. . .1.1 ' L r J • r tl'• - - PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS r PLANNING- COMMISSION APPLICATIONS NOS 92001_92002 AND 92()0' ` FnILLWS 66 CUMY NY The City Manager presented Planning Commission Application Nos. 92001, 92002, and 92003 submitted by Phillips 66 Company. Planning Commission Application No. 92001 is a request for site and building plan and Special use permit approval to construct an 1,831 square -foot gas station/convenience store /car wash on the site of the existing Union 76 station at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard. The application had bccn reviewed by the Planning Commission at its January 16 and January 30, 1992, meetings and denial was recommcndcd through Planning Commission Resolution No. 92 -1. Planning Commission Application No. 92002 is a request for preliminary plat approval to redraw the boundary line between the service station site at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard and the single family residence to the north. This application had been reviewed by the Planning Commission at its January 16 and January 30, 1992, meetings and was recommended for approval. Planning Commission Application No. 92003 is a request for variance approval from Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of a gas station/convenience store/car wash approximately 28' from Brooklyn Boulevard instead of the 50' required by ordinance from all major thoroughfares. This application had been reviewed by the Planning \ Commission at its January 16 and 30, 1992, meetings and denial was recommended through Planning Commission Resolution No. 92 -1. The City Manager recommended all three applications be discussed in conjunction with one another. The Director of Planning and Inspection advised the Council the minutes of the January 16 and January 30, 1992, Planning Commission meetings contained the Planning Commission's consideration of these applications, He presented a transparency of the site, which is on the northwest corner of Brooklyn Boulevard and 69th Avenue. It is in a C2 zQning district which allows gas stations, car washes and convenience stores as special uses. Public hearings would be required for both the special use permit and the variance request. The proposal is to demolish the existing building and construct a new gas station, convenience store and car wash on the site. The applicant has proposed to transfer a small triangle of land from the northwest corner of the existing service station to the site of a CI zoned residence to the north, which would eliminate an R1 abutment nonconformance. The Director of Planning and Inspection reviewed the access /parking, landscaping, grad ing/d rain age/utilitics, building, and lighting/trash proposals; and stated the applicant has either met or agreed to meet the City's requirements in these areas. 2/10/92 -8- The Director of Planning and Inspection pointed out the main issue with these applications was the request for setback variance off of Brooklyn Boulevard, The Planning Commission did not believe the standards for variance were met in this case, and consequently recommended denial of the variance request. The Planning Commission's major finding was the standards for a variance had not been met on the following grounds: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated that it is economically infeasible to develop the property without a car wash and thereby meet the required setbacks. A gas station/ convenience store was developed approximately two years ago by another company at 66th Avenue N and Highway 252. 2. The circumstance of a shallow lot depth off Brooklyn Boulevard is not unique. Many, if not most, lots along Brooklyn Boulevard are of insufficient depth to accommodate certain ty of commerci �'P development. It is n the development to provide greater Iot depth from Brooklyn Boulevrd t o either fit 3. The hardship experienced by the applicant is self - imposed by the applicant's requirement to have a car wash as part Of its development, 4. Granting a variance for this redevelopment project would set a precedent for other redevelopment in this area and all along Brooklyn Boulevard. If some relaxation of the setback along Brooklyn Boulevard is called for, it should be pursued with an ordinance amendment rather than with variance. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated that based on these four findings, Planning Commission Application Nos, 92001 and 92003 were recommended for denial through Planning Commission Resolution No. 92 -1. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Planning Commission Application No. 92002 which is the preliminary plat request. The transfer of the triangle of land to the neighboring site could be accomplished but approval should be subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The preliminary plat shall be revised, prior to consideration by the City Council, to indicate a dedication of ri fit of way for future w b dcn�n nF h9t in width. Y 6 h Avenue North nt 1 rl 2/10/92 -9 - Public hearings have been scheduled for all three applications, and notices have been sent to surrounding property owners. Counciln:ember Cohen asked the Director of Planning and Inspection if there had been discussion at the Planning Commission meeting about looking at the ordinance as a whole rather than granting variances. In response, the Director of Planning and Inspection stated there was discussion of that nature at the Planning Commission meeting, as well as at a joint meeting with the Council, The Planning Commission, however, had not pursued that avenue with this application. He felt the Planning Commission would be looking for some direction from the City C9unci for changing the setback standards through an ordinance amendment. Councilmember Cohen asked whether it was the setback or the 18' dedication that was creating the problern with this application. The Director of Planning and. Inspection felt it was the setback itself creating the problem, and the 18' dedication requirement simply moved the development 18' to the north. Councilmember Scott questioned the drainage design and specifically the need for a catch basin to prevent ice buildup on the roadway in the winter months. In response, the Director of Planning and Inspection stated that while the City Engineer had reviewed the plans, detailed discussion had not taken place yet. He felt the City Engineer will be recommending the site not drain directly off the driveway onto Brooklyn Boulevard, and will be recommending some type of catch basin to catch that water. Councilmember Scott asked if allowing a developer to get around a condition by dedicating a section of land and creating an outlet onto another piece of property would be setting a precedent. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated the 20' triangle would be transferred in a manncr where it would not be considered an outlot. Councilmember Rosene asked to what extent the applicant had tried to acquire additional land, The Director of Planning and Inspection stated he believed there had been some discussions on the possible acquisition of properties to the west and the north over the past year, Councilmember Rosene asked how the neighboring residents felt about the development. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated only one neighbor further to the north had been at the Planning Commission meeting, so it was not known what the other neighboring residents felt. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated another thing to keep in mind and what may at least lead to some justification for this application is the guidelines in the City's comprehensive plan which does rccommend an expansion of the general commerce or 2/10/92 - 10- C2 zoning district in the northwest quadrant of 69th Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard. He pointed out that entire triangular area has been recommended for redevelopment, so it is likely those residences may be removed from that area at sometime. Councilmember Rosene emphasized the need for proper drainage design to prevent ice buildup on the roadway, and also the need for the proposed fence to be acceptable to the neighboring residents. He further cautioned that an additional hazard may be created with water running off the cars as they pull out onto the roadway, The Director of Planning and Inspection stated the operators would certainly have to address those issues. The City Manager pointed out that purchasing the property to the north would not solve the abutment problem, and the major problem is the Jo' setback requirement. He further stated modern car wash technology includes drying devices to eliminate water running off the cars. ,TAN BACCUS_ PHILLIPS 66 C MpA Ty Mayor Paulson invited ,Ton BaCCUS, Phillips 66 Company, to address the Council. Mr. Baccus stated he had personally worked on the redevelopment of this site for the past one and One -half years. He presented some drawings of the proposal, and briefly addressed the comments of the Council. He felt the plan does meet the setback requirements, and the need for the variance is because of the 18' dedication requirement, Mr. Baccus took exception to the statement in Planning Commission Resolution #92 -1 stating the applicant has indicated no willingness to alter its plans to meet setback requirements. He further stated a car wash is vital to the gasoline service station. The main business is gasoline sales and car wash services; the convenience store is a very small portion of the business. In closing, Mr. Baccus stated Phillips 66 Company has eleven facilities in the Twin Cities, and the company maintains very high standards. Councilmember Scott noted the application indicates a 24 -hour operation, and asked fir. Baccus if he was aware the City Council recently approved for first reading an ordinance that would prohibit a 24 -hour operation at this location. In response, Mr. Baccus said he was aware of the ordinance. DAVE NELSON Mr. Nelson advised the Council he has been working closely with Mr. Baccus on the redevelopment of this site. He felt the City Council may have to review and revise its ordinances for effective redevelopment of the City. He briefly reviewed the site plan, and stated he felt the proposal represents good redevelopment of the area which is consistent with the comprehensive plan. In closing, fie asked the Council to carefully consider the proposal. 2/14/92 BAN RAU 0 E nF rinr tDAY STATION 6 49 RROOKLY'�T BOITr Mr. Rau advised the C - o uticl he has built two stations in the past five years, one with a car wash and one without He has experienced problems with his station/car wash in New Hope, and he felt Phillips 66 would cxperience the same problems at this site, He felt the s i te far too small for such development in that it would not allow for an adequate d s rai i e System. Another problem would be the noise created by the blowers used to dry the cars. The residents surrounding his gas stationlcar wash in New Hope complained of the noise, As a result of these problems, the City of New Hope recently placed some restrictions on his car wash facility. In closing, Mr. Rau invited the Council members to visit his station at 36th Avenue and Highway 169 in N arise. ew Hope to view the area to see how these problems can The Director of Planning and Inspection emphasized that staff and the Planning Commission certainly are not opposed to this type of development, and they have met off and on with Phillips 66 and fir, Nelson for quite some time to discuss the roblems i F w th the setback requirements and the nonconforming use problem due to the residential abutment. He felt redevelopment of this site will be difficult because of the size of the parcel. The Director of Planning and Inspection pointed out to the Council Mr. Rau went through this same process five or six y ears ago when he redeveloped the Holiday Station on Brooklyn Boulevard. The same standards were applied to his application. Mr. Rau had acquired some additional property, combined land, and also dedicated right of way property along 69th Avenue. Manager stated t he 50' setback requirement pushes the buildings back toward the City g residential area, and generally the preference is to keep The Ci the activity toward Brooklyn Boulevard so the SO' setback requirement really isn't working well for this area. The City Manager further pointed out the current guide plan basically hasn't produced much redevelopment in the City. He felt the Council needs to address these problems. As the community is aging, the Council may have to evaluate and alter its setback requirements in order to promote redevelopment. He suggested the Council may want to have the staff and Planning Commission examine these issues and asked for some direction. Mayor Paulson stated he would like to see the City move forward with a request for proposals for a consultant to provide assistance in creating character for the community, and determining the type of redevelopment the City should proactively pursue to create that character, In response, the City Manager will draft a request for proposals within the neat two weeks. Cuu Scott stated this plot of land is under the same setback restrictions as all the other plots, She does not want to see the City reduce the setback requirements which would allow businesses to develop close to the roadways. She felt it is unattractive and creates traffic congestion. She is proud of the way Brooklyn Center looks and she wants to maintain that look. She also stated she is very concerned about having a cur wash at this particular 1 2/10/92 - 12- site because of the likelihood of ice buildup on the roadway. She has seen many car accidents as a result of ice buildup from car washes, and consequently she could not support a car wash at this location. Councilmember Pedlar stated that although there is a great deal of opportunity for redevelopment along Brooklyn Boulevard, certainly nothing had been done to date. He felt the Council needs to look into the tuture and address redevelopment of Brooklyn Boulevard. He felt redevelopment of this particular site as proposed would not be a problem if the 18 dedication requirement did not apply. He felt this proposal is a good redevelopment opportunity, and would like to see something worked out to move ahead with it. Councilmembcr Cohen provided some information from a real estate journal indicating Brooklyn Center is not doing well in the area of redevelopment. In addition, he presented a 1965 map which showed very little development along Brooklyn Boulevard since that time. He noted Phillips 66 has come forward with a plan and the financial Capability to redevelop a vacant, deteriorating site, He felt the City should take advantage of it and work it out with Phillips 66. He suggested the City Ordinances be amended to either offer some type of credits for the taking of right of way to compensate for tho land that would be required for the setbacks or to develop a Brooklyn Boulevard zoning program. Councilmember Cohen suggested sending the plan back to the Planning Commission for them to review it and work out some options for ordinance amendments with whatever it takes to try to accommodate this particular development, and to look at how it fits in with the land space from 69th Avenue North to 73rd Avenue North. Councilmember Scott asked Councilmember Cohen how he would justify only the segment north of 69th Avenue and not the segment south of 69th. Councilmember Cohen suggested Possibly because the area between the freeway and 69th Avenue is more commercial. Councilmember Cohen further stated he felt the Planning Commission is looking for direction from the Council, and it is up to the Council to set the tone for desired redevelopment. He stated the City does not have the money to offer financial assistance to businesses for development and redevelopment, and therefore needs to somehow encourage businesses to come into the community on their own. Councilmember Cohen asked about the 30- day time clock running on the Phillips 66 applications. In response, the City Attorney stated the Council had 30 days to respond to the special use permit and variance request, and possibly a bit longer on the plat approval. The City Attorney stated further that the applicant could choose to waive the compliance requirement which would provide the Council addition, time. Cohen asked Mr. Baccus if Phillips 66 would agree to extend the time on these applications to allow time for the Council to explore the suggested options. Mr. Baccus stated Phillips 66 would be willing to extend the time. 2/10/92 - 13 - The City Manager stated the way this has been done in the past is that the applicant has simply waived the 30 -day time limit, and when the applicant wishes to reinstate t and start the clock running again the applicant he 30 days 0 PP Would write a letter to the City t o that effect. a t. In response, the City ty t P Attorne y stated a good approach might be to request the applicant to waive compliance to the 30 -day time limit in writing, subject to the applicant's right to reinstate it by giving written notice to the City. Councilmember Rosene stated that although he has some concerns with the possibility of Ice buildup and crowded conditions, he would prefer to see the site developed rather than left vacant. He concurred with Councilmember Cohen's recommendation that the Planning Commission work on options for ordinance amendments addressing this issue. Mayor Paulson stated he would like to see the Council address ordinance amendments separately rather than in the context of this particular applicant/land situation, There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to table Planning Commission Application Nos, 92401, 92002 and 92003 with the concurrence of the applicant, and request the Planning Commission to work on possible ordinance amendments that would encompass both sides of Brooklyn Boulevard redevelopment from 69th Avenue to 73rd Avenue and e.x - plore the concept and legality of offering setback credits to developers. Councilmember Pedlar stated that in addition to the specific area indicated in Councilmember Cohen's motion, the area at 63rd and Brooklyn Boulevard is ideal for redevelopment. He felt the City needs to move forward in the redevelopment of Brooklyn Boulevard, and asked for the Mayor's support of the motion. The City Manager noted the Council had been in similar situations on a number of occasions, wherein the Council's desire was to address ordinances as a whole rather than toward one specific application. He felt the Council should pass this motion to keep the application process moving. He stated staff will then automatically include these suggestions and options in examining a policy amendment plan. He will provide the Council with an estimate of the cost and time frame involved for obtaining assistance in examining a policy amendment plan. Mayor Paulson felt businesses are in fact approaching Brooklyn Center for development, as this was the second application for a gas station in just a couple of months. He emphasized the need, however, for the City to first decide on the type of community it wants to create, and then make some determinations, for example how many and in what areas of town gas stations should be developed. In addition, he felt the City does need to proactively seek redevelopment. 2/10/92 . 14 - Councilmember Cohen felt the City does not have the money to go with a grandiose plan for redevelopment and needs to seek development tools from the legisiature. He felt developers want incentives or hot spots in which to build. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager suggested Phillips 66 submit a letter addressing the 30 -day time limit, as ,u,gg ested by the City Attorney. RE= The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 9:06 p.m. and reconvened at 9:20 p.m. ORDINANCES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES W 1-1. AND F ESTANnrNr, SIGNS IN THE C-2, 1-1 AND T-2 ZONING I)TSTRI( The City Manager presented an Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances Regarding Wall and Freestanding Signs in the C2, I1 and I2 Zoning Districts. The City Council had discussed this ordinance amendment proposal at its December 2, 1991, and December 16, 1991, meetings. The amendment reduces the amount of allowable wall signs in the stated zoning districts from the current 30% of the wall area to 15 %. The ordinance also establishes a provision to allow additional freestanding signs in these zoning districts provided the establishments agree to forego all other permitted wall signs and comply •i various standards established. This ordinance amendment was offered for a first readinz on January 13, 1992, published in the City's official newspaper on January 22, 1992, and was offered this evening for a second reading. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter ,34 of the City Ordinances Regarding Wall and Freestanding Signs in the C2, I1 and I2 Zoning Districts at 9 :20 p,m, He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to close the public hearing at 9 :21 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO 92 - Mcmber Celia Scott introduced the following ordinancc and moved its Adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING WALL AND FRLESTANDiNU SIGNS IN 'ITIL C -2, 1 -1 AND I -2 ZONING DISTRICTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene. The motion passed unanimously. 2/10/92 - 15 - MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION JANUARY 30, 1992 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace Bernards, Bertil Johnson, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 16 1992 Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve the minutes of the January 16, 1992 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Sander and Bernards. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS. 92001, 92002 AND 92003 (Phillips 66 Company) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request by Phillips 66 Company for site and building plan and special use permit, preliminary plat and variance approval to construct a gas station/ convenience store /car wash at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary noted that these applications were considered by the Planning Commission at its January 16, 1992 meeting and that the applications were tabled with direction to prepare a resolution of denial on the grounds that the standards for a variance are not met and that the development proposal, therefore, cannot be approved as submitted. The Secretary then reviewed the draft resolution regarding all three applications and reviewed the grounds for denial. Chairperson Malecki asked whether the plat could not be approved. The Secretary stated that it was part of the development proposal package that included the plans and variance request. He stated that it could be pursued separately and that comment could be made on it if that were done. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the applications would go to the City Council at their next meeting. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. He noted that the City Council has adopted an ordinance regarding altered plans. He stated that if the applicant wishes to revise plans, he should do so now, rather than spend the time of going to the Council and then being referred back. Commissioner Bernards asked whether any changes were in the offing. The Secretary responded that there was no indication of that. 1 -30 -92 1 Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Jon Baccus, of Phillips 66 asked the Planning Commission to consider all of the aspects of the proposal. He stated that Phillips 66 could go back to the old plan that was submitted last summer, but were told at that time that dedication of right -of -way would be required. He stated that the dedication of the right -of -way requires a variance and thus, the variance request was submitted. He added that he did not think Superamerica could put their building on this site. In response to a question from Chairperson Malecki, Mr. Baccus noted that the plan that he showed the Planning Commission was different from that which was formerly submitted. He stated that this plan had been developed last summer, but that they were told that right -of -way would have to be dedicated and that the plan became impossible without a variance. The Secretary asked Mr. Baccus whether he wanted to resubmit a different plan. Mr. Baccus stated that the plan needs a variance because of the right -of -way dedication. The Secretary stated that the staff's position is that the dedication can be made and that a service station can be built on the site though perhaps without a car wash. He added that the redevelopment of the property with a service station use requires the replat in order to eliminate the abutment with R1 property at the northwest corner of the site. He explained that this proposed replat was reviewed by the County which would require the right -of -way dedication. There followed a discussion between Mr. Baccus and the Secretary regarding the right -of -way dedication and the various plans that have been submitted. Mr. Baccus asked the Commission to consider the plat separately. The Secretary reviewed the recommended conditions for the preliminary plat and stated that staff could recommend approval of that application with those conditions. He stated that the Commission would then have to omit any mention of the preliminary plat from the resolution. Commissioner Johnson asked where the requirement of 18' of right - of -way dedication came from. The Secretary responded that, to transfer the triangle of land at the northwest corner of the site, the property must be replatted. He stated that the replat of the property would go to Hennepin County and that Hennepin County would impose the requirement for right -of -way dedication. He stated that staff had simply informed the applicant ahead of time that this right -of -way dedication would be required. Commissioner Mann asked if there were no replat, would the dedication of right -of -way not be required. The Secretary stated that staff would want to discuss such a right -of -way dedication, but that the requirement really comes about as a result of the plat. Commissioner Bernards asked why Phillips would want an action on the plat at this time. The Secretary responded that it was probably because any redevelopment of the site with a service station would have to eliminate the abutment with R1 property and 1 -30 -92 2 thus, the replat is necessary in the long run. Mr. Baccus stated that some investment has already been made in the replat and that they would just as soon see it followed through to completion. Commissioner Sander noted that the minutes indicated that this was to be a 24 hour operation. The Secretary pointed out that there has been a first reading of the ordinance to limit the hours of operation of commercial establishments within 200 feet of R1 and R2 property. In response to a question from Commissioner Holmes, the Secretary stated that this operation would be affected if the ordinance is adopted and it would not be able to be open between midnight and 6:00 a.m. There followed a brief discussion of the proposed plat and the possibility of eliminating mention of it from the resolution. ACTION ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 92 -1 WITHOUT REFERENCE TO APPLICATION NO. 92002 RESOLUTION NO. 92 -1 Commissioner Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NOS. 92001 AND 92003 SUBMITTED BY PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner Sander and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. The following voted against: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 92002 (Phillips 66 Company) Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend approval of Application No. 92002 subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The preliminary plat shall be revised, prior to consideration by the City Council, to indicate a de - dedication of right-of-way - future o f 69th t of wa for widening g Y g Avenue North of 18' in width. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 1 -30 -92 3 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION JANUARY 30, 1992 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace Bernards, Bertil Johnson, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 16 1992 Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve the minutes of the January 16, 1992 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Sander and Bernards. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS. 92001, 92002 AND 92003 (Phillips 66 Company) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request by Phillips 66 Company for site and building plan and special use permit, preliminary plat and variance approval to construct a gas station/ convenience store /car wash at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary noted that these applications were considered by the Planning Commission at its January 16, 1992 meeting and that the applications were tabled with direction to prepare a resolution of denial on the grounds that the standards for a variance are not met and that the development proposal, therefore, cannot be approved as submitted. The Secretary then reviewed the draft resolution regarding all three applications and reviewed the grounds for denial. Chairperson Malecki asked whether the plat could not be approved. The Secretary stated that it was part of the development proposal package that included the plans and variance request. He stated that it could be pursued separately and that comment could be made on it if that were done. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the applications would go to the City Council at their next meeting. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. He noted that the City Council has adopted an ordinance regarding altered plans. He stated that if the applicant wishes to revise plans, he should do so now, rather than spend the time of going to the Council and then being referred back. Commissioner Bernards asked whether any changes were in the offing. The Secretary responded that there was no indication of that. 1 -30 -92 1 Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Jon Baccus, of Phillips 66 asked the Planning Commission to consider all of the aspects of the proposal. He stated that Phillips 66 could go back to the old plan that was submitted last summer, but were told at that time that dedication of right -of -way would be required. He stated that the dedication of the right -of -way requires a variance and thus, the variance request was submitted. He added that he did not think Superamerica could put their building on this site. In response to a question from Chairperson Malecki, Mr. Baccus noted that the plan that he showed the Planning Commission was different from that which was formerly submitted. He stated that this plan had been developed last summer, but that they were told that right -of -way would have to be dedicated and that the plan became impossible without a variance. The Secretary asked Mr. Baccus whether he wanted to resubmit a different plan. Mr. Baccus stated that the plan needs a variance because of the right -of -way dedication. The Secretary stated that the staff's position is that the dedication can be made and that a service station can be built on the site though perhaps without a car wash. He added that the redevelopment of the property with a service station use requires the replat in order to eliminate the abutment with R1 property at the northwest corner of the site. He explained that this proposed replat was reviewed by the County which would require the right -of -way dedication. There followed a discussion between Mr. Baccus and the Secretary regarding the right -of -way dedication and the various plans that have been submitted. Mr. Baccus asked the Commission to consider the plat separately. The Secretary reviewed the recommended conditions for the preliminary plat and stated that staff could recommend approval of that application with those conditions. He stated that the Commission would then have to omit any mention of the preliminary plat from the resolution. Commissioner Johnson asked where the requirement of 18' of right - of -way dedication came from. The Secretary responded that, to transfer the triangle of land at the northwest corner of the site, the property must be replatted. He stated that the replat of the property would go to Hennepin County and that Hennepin County would impose the requirement for right -of -way dedication. He stated that staff had simply informed the applicant ahead of time that this right -of -way dedication would be required. Commissioner Mann asked if there were no replat, would the dedication of right -of -way not be required. The Secretary stated that staff would want to discuss such a right -of -way dedication, but that the requirement really comes about as a result of the plat. Commissioner Bernards asked why Phillips would want an action on the plat at this time. The Secretary responded that it was probably because any redevelopment of the site with a service station would have to eliminate the abutment with R1 property and 1 -30 -92 2 thus, the replat is necessary in the long run. Mr. Baccus stated that some investment has already been made in the replat and that they would just as soon see it followed through to completion. Commissioner Sander noted that the minutes indicated that this was to be a 24 hour operation. The Secretary pointed out that there has been a first reading of the ordinance to limit the hours of operation of commercial establishments within 200 feet of R1 and R2 property. In response to a question from Commissioner Holmes, the Secretary stated that this operation would be affected if the ordinance is adopted and it would not be able to be open between midnight and 6:00 a.m. There followed a brief discussion of the proposed plat and the possibility of eliminating mention of it from the resolution. ACTION ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 92 -1 WITHOUT REFERENCE TO APPLICATION NO. 92002 RESOLUTION NO. 92 -1 Commissioner Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NOS. 92001 AND 92003 SUBMITTED BY PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner Sander and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. The following voted against: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 92002 (Phillips 66 Company) Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend approval of Application No. 92002 subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The preliminary plat shall be revised, prior to consideration by the City Council, to indicate a dedication of right -of -way for future widening of 69th Avenue North of 18' in width. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 1 -30 -92 3 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JANUARY 16, 1992 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The 1991 Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:47 p.m. ROLL CALL 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Kristen Mann, Bertil Johnson and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. It was noted that Commissioners Sander and Bernards were out of town and were excused. Chairperson Malecki called for a moment of silence in recognition of Commissioner Lowell Ainas who had passed away recently. Following the moment of silence, the Secretary pointed out that the City Council had adopted a resolution of appreciation for Commissioner Ainas' service on the Planning Commission and that resolution would be transmitted to the family. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 5 1991 Motion by Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Holmes to approve the minutes of the December 5, 1991 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Mann, Johnson and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURN 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Johnson to adjourn the 1991 Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. CALL TO ORDER 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION The 1992 Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki. ROLL CALL Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Mann, Johnson and Holmes. Chairperson Malecki noted that the Planning Commission members and the Chair have not been appointed for the 1992 year and that it would be appropriate to wait on the selection of a Chairperson Pro tem until that Chairperson has been appointed. APPLICATION NOS. 92001, 92002 and 92003 (Phillips 66 Company) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first three items of business, a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct an 1831 sq. ft. gas station /convenience store /car wash on the site of the existing 1 -16 -92 1 Union 76 station at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard; a request for preliminary plat approval to redraw the boundary line between the service station site at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard and the single - family residence to the north; and a request for variance approval from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of a gas station /convenience store /car wash approximately 28 feet from Brooklyn Boulevard instead of the 50 feet required by ordinance from all major thoroughfares. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports for all three applications (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 92001, 92002 and 92003 attached). The Secretary also pointed out that although the property to the north is zoned C1, the staff recommend a screening device be provided in that location. He noted that a masonry wall was recommended in the PDQ case and that the Planning Commission may want to consider such a device here though the circumstances are somewhat different. The Secretary also noted that the City Engineer has yet to review the grading and drainage plan and that a condition relative to that plan should remain in effect. The Secretary stressed that the canopy faces cannot be backlit although the stripe on the building can be backlit provided it complies with the provisions for wall signery. The Secretary pointed out that the City Council has directed staff to prepare an ordinance to prohibit 24 hour operations near R1 and R2 land and that this property would be affected by such an ordinance. The Secretary pointed out that to allow the abutment between the service station and the R1 property to the west would constitute a use variance and that is the reason for the transfer of a triangle of land to the property to the north in order to eliminate this abutment. Regarding the variance application, the Secretary stated that the standards for a variance must be met and he felt there was some significant question as to what the affect would be of a variance approval on similar situations on Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that the joint meeting with the City Council in October discussed the major thoroughfare setback question and that not a lot of desire for change seemed to come out of that meeting. He stated that approval of a variance might in effect change the ordinance. The Secretary also pointed out the possibility for allowing for a lesser setback as part of a Planned Unit Development. He stated that the site in question is not a Planned Unit Development, but, that if it were a part of a larger area, it could be considered a Planned Unit Development. He concluded by saying that the Commission has to look at this particular parcel and this particular development and must consider the effect that a variance would have on other areas of the boulevard. Commissioner Holmes asked whether 69th Avenue North was going to be widened. The Secretary responded that there are plans to do so in the future. He stated that the 18' dedication will accommodate future widening and it is not needed for the present intersection improvement related to the City project east of Brooklyn Boulevard. 1 -16 -92 2 Commissioner Holmes asked what was proposed for the neighborhood and whether homes were to be bought up. The Secretary responded that the Comprehensive Plan recommends redevelopment to C2 or general commerce of the blocks on both sides of Brooklyn Boulevard back to June and Lee Avenues. He pointed out that the homes on Brooklyn Boulevard are nonconforming and that the Comprehensive Plan recommends redevelopment back to Lee Avenue. He noted that the City is not acquiring property at this time, but that the matter could be pursued privately. He stated that if the City were to pursue a redevelopment, it could use its condemnation powers, but that it is not involved as yet. In response to another question from Commissioner Holmes, the Secretary stated that the homes on Lee Avenue are not nonconforming and that they can expand under their Ri zoning designations. He stated that the City has adopted a policy of withholding rezoning until a rezoning redevelopment plan is brought forth and found acceptable. Commissioner Holmes asked what is a "regulatory taking of property ". The Secretary stated that a taking occurs when a person is denied the reasonable use of their property and that it requires compensation under the Constitution. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Jon Baccus, of Phillips 66 Company, explained to the Commission that Phillips had bought the property last May and that they understood that the climate might not have been right to pursue a development of this corner. He stated that Phillips preferred to develop the property in the spring rather than wait three to five years for developments to change on this block. Mr. Baccus explained that the plans have been prepared over the last two years with significant input from the City staff. He stated that there has been a fair amount of give and take over that time and that the plans have changed to accommodate staff concerns. He stated that they were advised that they would have to dedicate 18 feet of right -of -way along 69th Avenue North. He then showed the plan to the Planning Commission. He stated that the fencing on the north side of the property would be provided and that Phillips actually wants to do this. He also stated that curb and gutter would be provided as required. He showed the Commission pictures of the site as it presently exists and also pictures of other Phillips stations in the metro area. With respect to the variance request, Mr. Baccus stated that he felt that setbacks could be met if not for the dedication required off 69th Avenue North. He showed the Commission a plan that was submitted last summer with the car wash traffic moving in a counter clockwise direction entering off Brooklyn Boulevard and stacking in front of the car wash, exiting out toward 69th Avenue North. He stated that the dedication of additional right -of -way for 69th made this plan impossible. He concluded that Phillips could have a car wash and meet building setbacks if no dedication were required. 1 -16 -92 3 He, therefore, concluded that it was indeed the requirement of right -of -way dedication that caused the variance. Commissioner Mann asked Mr. Baccus what the intended hours of operation for this station would be. Mr. Baccus responded that they preferred a 24 hour operation and that they are not restricted in this respect in other locations. Commissioner Mann inquired as to the trench drain whether it would serve as a debris trap. Mr. Bill Anderson of Phillips 66, explained that silt would be caught in the trench drain and that water would overflow into the sanitary sewer. He stated that the drain would be cleaned out periodically to prevent silt from entering the sanitary sewer. Chairperson Malecki asked whether the project could be feasible without a car wash. Mr. Baccus responded in the negative. He stated that everyone who builds a service station builds a car wash with it. He explained the process that Phillips went through and analyzed the location in terms of its demographics and prices of gas in the area, etc. He stated that the lack of a car wash would affect gasoline sales at this location. He added that Phillips probably would not build the station without a car wash. The Secretary pointed out that the reason for the review by Hennepin County has to do with the fact that the property is being re- platted. He stated that the County also wanted 18' to 20' of right -of -way off Brooklyn Boulevard, but were willing to forego this request. He stated that when Brooklyn Boulevard is widened, right -of -way will be taken from one side or the other in all likelihood. The Secretary stated that if the request for right -of- way is the cause for a variance, the matter should be taken up with Hennepin County. He stated that he did not feel it was appropriate for the City to grant a variance because of right -of -way taking. The Secretary stated that the property is not being denied its use. He stated that the station could be fixed up, though not expanded or rebuilt. He pointed out that the use of the property is nonconforming because of its abutment with R1 land to the northwest. The Secretary stated that the time simply may not be right to bring about a redevelopment of the property. He added he saw no problem in waiting until an appropriate development plan is submitted. Commissioner Holmes asked Mr. Baccus whether Phillips 66 had a standard sized lot that they used to develop this type of service station. Mr. Baccus responded that Phillips had developed the same facility on a 21,000 sq. ft. lot. Commissioner Holmes expressed concern regarding the 24 hour operation with the car wash. Mr. Baccus noted that the house next door is vacant and is not zoned residential anyway. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the hours would be the same for the store and the car wash. Mr. Baccus responded in the affirmative. PUBLIC HEARING Application Nos 92001 91002 and 92003) 1 -16 -92 4 Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing on all three applications submitted by Phillips and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding any of these applications. Mr. Bob Grosshans, of 6920 Lee Avenue North, addressed the Commission briefly. He stated that he had been a resident in the area for 23 years and had seen development take place over that time. He stated that he felt the granting of a variance would be a serious precedent, especially a variance to the extent being sought. He stated that others may ask for a similar type of variance on Brooklyn Boulevard. He added that Brooklyn Boulevard may be widened, thus making the shallow setback even shallower. Ms. Vicki Rau, the owner with her husband of the Holiday Express service station across 69th Avenue North, stated that she was opposed to any special use permit or variance for the proposed operation. She stated that when they had proposed their service station some years earlier they wanted more pumps, but were denied. She stated that they had given 15' of right -of -way without any compensation. She also stated that they had desired to put a car wash in their facility, but that staff had recommended against it. She stated that she did not see why Phillips 66 should be granted a special use permit or variance for things they had been denied. She added that she had been advised by City staff not to buy land at 63rd Avenue North which had a similar R1 abutment. She stated that she did not see how Phillips 66 could get what it is asking for when they were turned down for various items. She added that they have a store in New Hope and that there have been noise problems with the car wash near a residential neighborhood. Mrs. Rau stated that Phillips had indicated it was willing to take a risk. She stated that the first step in developing one's property is to check with the city. She stated that Phillips apparently had been willing to take a risk that they might be denied their use and went ahead and bought the property anyway. She stated that they created their own hardship. The Secretary stated that he did not disagree with Mrs. Rau, but also pointed out that she had the right to pursue the same sort of consideration as Phillips 66. He stated that he did not believe the staff had treated the Raus' differently from Phillips 66. The Secretary added that he did not feel the variance should be granted on the grounds of dedication of right -of -way. Mr. Dave Nelson, a party interested in re- developing this block, then briefly addressed the Commission. He stated that the city needs a re- development at 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard and that this is a good proposal. He stated that the Phillips plan is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area. He stated that he would try to buy homes on the block if the Phillips deal goes through. He recommended moving buildings closer to Brooklyn Boulevard in order to provide a buffer between them and the residential uses to the west. He concluded by saying again that 1 -16 -92 5 the proposal was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the report from the Maxfield Research Group. Chairperson Malecki asked whether anyone else present wish to speak regarding the applications. Hearing no one, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Mann, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Mann stated that the variance bothered her. She pointed out that the Planned Unit Development requires the minimum of one acre and that there is not an acre in this proposal. She stated that it would be good if homes were acquired and the lot were re- developed. She also recommended looking at the setback on Brooklyn Boulevard with an eye to possibly reducing that setback. Commissioner Johnson stated that the City had looked at Brooklyn Boulevard from Highway 100 North and that it has difficult problems with the Boulevard. He stated that his own experience is that you wait and it is difficult to comply with City regulations when a new development is proposed. He stated that the City wants development to look good, but asked how long the City should wait for a complying development. He wondered whether another 20 years would pass before something concrete happened. He stated that a 28 foot setback seems pretty tight to him, that he looked across the street and he would like to start over in this area. Commissioner Holmes stated that it was time to address the whole issue of redevelopment in this area. He stated that he did not like the variance request. He stated that one difficulty with this site is that cars would come out onto Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that the existing gas station was not a heavy traffic generator and felt that the proposed station might overtax the site especially with a car wash. As to the triangle of land at the northwest corner of the property to be transferred, he stated that it seemed like a quick fix. Chairperson Malecki asked Commissioner Holmes if he was in favor of the variance. Commissioner Holmes responded in the negative. Commissioner Johnson asked what was the position of the City with respect to the setback. The Secretary answered that the Planning Commission could certainly recommend a change to the setback requirement if it felt that it was appropriate. He stated that he felt that the proper procedure was to look at the variance first and that, if the variance is appropriate, the Commission can recommend the plat application as well. He stated that the staff did not recommend ordinance language but he felt that an ordinance amendment might well be more appropriate than a variance. He stated that he did not believe that the variance standards were 1 -16 -92 6 met. He also stated that it would be important to be consistent with the treatment of the Raus'. He admitted that staff had recommended against the car wash at the Holiday Station, but added that he did not feel that it fit in this location either. The Secretary asked the Commission whether the wanted buildings s g along a heavily traveled high speed roadway to be close to the street or set further back. He stated that a judgement ement has to be g made not only for this property but for others as well. He stated that he did not believe that the direction from the joint meeting with the City Council was for an ordinance amendment. Chairperson Malecki stated that she felt that there was some openness to the idea. She stated that the 28 foot setback proposed by Phillips does not seem adequate and that she did not want other buildings to be closer. Commissioner Johnson expressed ressed co p ncern regarding safety. He stated 9 g Y that cars will likely wait to get out onto Brooklyn Boulevard and that the whole operation will get backed up. The Secretary stated that the backup of cars would be on the Phillips property and would not be on the public street. Therefore, it would be their problem. He stated that the county could disallow any access onto Brooklyn Boulevard but that is a tough position with this property. He stated the City was not at a point that it could deny access to this parcel. Chairperson Malecki asked how large the triangle of land was that was being transferred. The Planner indicated that it was about 400 square feet. The Secretary pointed out that the C2 buffer adjacent to R1 property should be 35 feet. He admitted that the triangle is contrived although it eliminates the abutment and the requirement for 35 foot buffer. Chairperson Malecki asked whether it would be appropriate to rezone the triangle to C1. The Secretary stated that it could be done, but that the entire area could also be rezoned to C2. In response to a question from Chairperson Malecki, the Secretary indicated that the triangle would be sodded if the development is approved. In response to another question from Chairperson Malecki regarding the gas station at 63rd and Brooklyn Boulevard, the Secretary pointed out that there is Rl property across 63rd. The Secretary stated that staff had told both the Rau's and Phillips that re- development of their properties would be difficult. Commissioner Mann stated that she felt the use proposed was acceptable but did not feel that the variance standards were met. Mr. Dave Nelson stated that re- development of the 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard site would bring in other development to that block. Fie stated that the plan being proposed would create a larger buffer than exists now and that it would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. He admitted that there were some difficulties in developing an ideal plan but that the proposal was an 1 -16 -92 7 improvement over the existing service station. He stated that the dedication of right -of -way was for the 69th Avenue project. The Secretary stated that was not his understanding but that it was for a future widening which the County may pursue at a later date. Mr. Nelson asked why the dedication was asked if it was only for future widening. The Secretary stated that it was for that reason, which was the same reason as the Raus' had to dedicate 8 feet from their property. Regarding the Comprehensive Plan, the Secretary pointed out that there are a host of uses that would fit the Comprehensive Plan and would also be consistent with R1 abutment. There followed a brief discussion as to how to handle the application. It was agreed no one favored a variance. The Secretary recommended a resolution be brought back recommending denial. Commissioner Johnson stated that denying the variance won't solve the problem. He stated that he was not comfortable with denying something without providing a way for something to be built. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NOS. 92001 92002 AND 92003 WITH DIRECTION TO STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OF DENIAL Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Holmes to table applications 92001, 92002, 92003 and to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial on the grounds that the standards for variance were not met. Commissioner Mann also expressed a desire that ordinance language be developed to propose a reduced setback. The Secretary stated that he preferred to make such a suggestion to the City Council but that the direction for such language come from the City Council itself. Voting in favor of the above motion: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Mann, Johnson and Holmes. Voting against: None. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief discussion of re- development in the area and the meeting schedule for April, there was a motion by Commissioner Mann, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:13 p.m. Chairperson 1 -16 -92 8 is Planning Commission Information Sheet ~ Application No. 92001 Applicant: Phillips 66 Company Location: 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Site and Building Plan /Special Use Permit Location /Use The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct an 1,831 sq. ft. gas station/ convenience store /car wash on the site of the existing Union 76 station at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the northeast by Brooklyn Boulevard, on the south by 69th Avenue North, on the west by the Northwest Residence group home, and on the northwest by a C1 zoned single- family residence. Gas stations and car washes are special uses in the C2 zoning district. They are not permitted to abut R1, R2 or R3 zoned property, either at a property line or at a street line. The present service station site abuts an R1 zoned single - family residential property along the northwest 30' of the site. This abutment renders the existing service station a nonconforming use. A companion application, No. 92002, is a preliminary plat which proposes to transfer a small triangle of land from the northwest corner of the existing service station site to the site of the C1 zoned residence to the north. This transfer will eliminate the R1 abutment and allow for the service station redevelopment. Access /Parking The proposed site plan calls for three accesses to the site (one being strictly an exit drive from the car wash), two off Brooklyn Boulevard and one off 69th Avenue North. All accesses have been proposed at 30' in width. The Hennepin County Transportation Department has advised that the car wash exit drive be no wider than 24 It is to be signed "exit only." All access and utility work related to this development will require permits from Hennepin County since both Brooklyn Boulevard and 69th Avenue North are County roads. The plan provides for nine (9) regular parking stalls, including five (5) parallel stalls, and at least two stalls at the pumps. The ordinance requires 11 stalls for the first 2,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area or fraction thereof. Three stalls are to be located at the southeast corner of the site; two parallel stalls along 69th Avenue North; one handicapped stall in front of the store; and three parallel stalls off a bypass lane north of the car wash. It is possible to count at least two stalls at the pump islands. The parallel stalls are proposed at only 20' in length instead of the required 24 The applicant has [ndi.cated they will revise the plans to provide longer stalls. 1 -16 -92 1 Application No. 92001 continued In addition, the plan shows stacking for at least five cars for the car wash. Six is recommended and is perhaps barely possible without blocking the access off 69th. Car wash traffic will move in a clockwise direction, stacking on the west side of the site and moving through the car wash on the north side of the site. The plan calls for four pump islands beneath a canopy to the south of the main building. Landscaping The landscape plan calls for numerous shrubs, three Black Hills Spruce trees, five Red Splendor Crab trees and two Pagoda Dogwoods. No shade trees are proposed. The plantings are to be located in perimeter greenstrips which are to be sodded and irrigated. The total point value of all plantings is 73 landscape points. The point system requires only 53 points. Given the need for visibility to and through the site, the heavy reliance on shrubs is probably acceptable. The Pagoda Dogwoods are not really considered a shade tree, though their proposed size is large (2.5" diameter). The locations of the Dogwoods would be logical for shade trees, but the Dogwoods are acceptable, we believe. The original plan calls for a 6' high ivy- covered chain link fence along the west and north property lines. Staff have indicated this is unacceptable and the applicant has agreed to provide an opaque fence in these locations to serve as a screening device. Grading /Drainage /Utilities The submitted grading plan is unacceptable in that it drains most water (precipitation) off the site rather than containing it on site and conveying by storm sewer to the City's storm sewer system located beneath 69th Avenue North. The applicant has agreed to revise the plans which should be available for the Commission's agenda packets. No utilities have been shown yet, but this too should be provided _in time for the Commission's review. The plans show a large catch basin inside the car wash and a trench drain on the exit from the wash, but does not show where these drains lead. The utility plan will provide this information. The plan submitted does not show B612 curb and gutter around the building. We have conveyed to the applicant that curb and gutter is the community standard and they have indicated that it will be provided if required. Curb and gutter is indicated around the perimeter of the lot. Building The building consists of a car wash, sales room, office and a storage room, as well as restrooms accessible from. the exterior. The building itself is a prefabricated metal building with stone facing. There is to be a metal fascia band with a red stripe around the top of the building. The canopy over the pump islands 1 -16 -92 2 Application No. 92001 continued is to have a similar treatment. Staff have informed Phillips 66 that the canopy faces may not be backlit inasmuchas this would constitute separate freestanding signs. No information has been submitted on the freestanding sign, which is not part of this application. The canopy and building are to have a consistent exterior treatment all the way around. The plan proposes a 5' sidewalk around the sales building. Phillips has indicated that it is not their policy to store items outside. Therefore, a 5' wide sidewalk should be adequate for pedestrian traffic. We would recommend a condition with this application, prohibiting any outside storage or display of products or other materials on the sidewalk around the sales building. Lighting /Trash Site lighting is provided by seven pole mounted lights, 16' high, at various locations around the site. The photometric plan shows illumination to 5 foot candles crossing the property lines in various locations onto residential property. The luminaires are proposed at 400 watt metal halides. We have requested reducing those wattages to 250 watts to reduce light spillage off the site. The applicant has indicated a willingness to comply with this request. He has also informed us, however, that Phillips' lights are generally tilted up to direct light onto the site. We have expressed concern that the lights will then emit unwanted glare off the premises. We recommend that the light fixtures be required to focus downward. Even though this may not focus light intensity onto the site, it should reduce glare. Lights under the canopy will be flush with their mountings rather than crowned, thus reducing glare. The trash enclosure is to be 8' x 12' x 6' high of a masonry block. It was proposed at the northeast corner of the lot, but will be relocated to the area west of the building to make more room for the parallel stalls along the north side of the property. Special Use Standards The proposed gas station/ convenience store /car wash is a special use under Section 35 -322 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. As such, it must meet the five standards listed in Section 35 -220.2 of the ordinance (attached). The proposed service station should enhance the general public welfare and should not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort. We do not believe the service station will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor will it substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The establishment of the service station will not impede the normal and orderly 1 -16 -92 3 Application No. 92001 development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. The service station development is consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan that this block be redeveloped with commercial retail type uses. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. Particularly the car wash stacking and the general circulation pattern implicit in the site layout is probably the best that can be achieved on this limited site. Finally, the service station will have to conform to the applicable regulations of the C2 zoning district. This cannot be accomplished unless the setback variance sought under Planning Commission Application No. 92003 is granted. Therefore, approval of this application is dependent upon a favorable action on Application No. 92003. Recommendation Approval of this application is contingent on approval of the accompanying plat and variance applications. We recommend that the Commission consider all these applications together. If either of the other applications does not meet with your approval, then some and perhaps substantial alteration of the plans would be necessary or the applicant may seek a hearing before the Council on these plans. If the Commission feels that the applicant's submittal is acceptable and is, indeed, the best design that can be achieved on this site for this use, then it may recommend approval. Approval should be subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 1 -16 -92 4 Application No. 92001 continued 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 9. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the performance guarantee. 10. The property owner shall enter into an Easement and Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems, prior to the issuance of permits. 11. The special use permit is issued to Phillips 66 for the construction and operation of a gas station /convenience store /car wash. No other uses are comprehended. Any expansion or changes to the use will require an amendment to this special use permit. 12. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations. Any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 13. The replat of the property shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to the issuance of permits. 14. No outside storage or display of merchandise or other materials shall be permitted on the sidewalk around the sales buildings. It shall be kept clear as a pedestrian walkway. 15. The faces of the canopy shall not be backlit in any way. Lighting under the canopy shall be completely recessed or shielded. Pole lights shall focus directly downward. 16. Plan approval acknowledges parking spaces at the pump islands for at least two vehicles. 1 -16 -92 5 Application No. 92001 continued 17. The plans shall be modified prior to consideration by the ~ City Council to indicate the following: a) A grading and utility plan containing all precipitation on site and conveying it by storm sewer to City storm sewer in 69th Avenue North. b) The northerly access onto Brooklyn Boulevard shall be narrowed to 24 C) Parallel stalls shall be lengthened to 24 d) The wattage of the light fixtures on poles around the site shall be reduced to 250 watts and the fixtures shall focus light directly downward, not outward. e) An opaque fence or wall shall be indicated along the west and north sides of the site. f) Northwest and Southwest building elevations shall be provided. 18. All utility and access work comprehended by the development must be performed under Hennepin County permit. Submitted by, l ( Gary Shallcross Planner An roved by, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection . 1 -16 -92 6 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 92002 Applicant: Phillips 66 Company Location: 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to redraw the boundary line between the service station site at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard and the single- family residence to the north. The properties in question are zoned C2 (service station) and C1 (residence) and are bounded by Brooklyn Boulevard on the northeast, by 69th Avenue North on the south, by the Northwest Residence group home and a single - family home on the west and by a C1 zoned, single- family residence on the northwest. The purpose of the proposed subdivision is to transfer a small triangle of land from the northwest corner of the service station site to the C1 residence site in order to eliminate the abutment of the service station site with the R1, single- family residence site to the west. The abutment renders the service station a nonconforming use and would prevent any rebuilding of a service station on the site as is proposed under Application No. 92001. The proposed plat is simply a two lot subdivision to be known as Cady Addition. Lot 1 is the mostly C1 lot with a single- family home. Its area is to be 9,648 sq. ft. The minimum lot area for a C1 lot adjacent to a major thoroughfare is one acre. However, because no C1 development is proposed, and because the land being added to this parcel is zoned C2, not C1, we do not feel this lot requirement should be imposed with this subdivision. Lot 2 is the service station site and is to be 28,785 sq. ft., or .66 acre. If there is an issue with this application, it may be whether the triangle to be conveyed from the service station parcel to the C1 lot to the north is of an appropriate size or not. Staff have recommended that the triangle be as large as possible. However, to make the triangle much larger than proposed would affect the site layout in such a way that the bypass land and /or parking would be reduced. Eliminating the car wash would allow for a larger triangle, but with the car wash, the triangle is about as big as it can be. It should be pointed out that the site plan calls for a 5' buffer on the service station property. Assuming that the transferred triangle remains undeveloped, it adds an average of about 15' more to the buffer area. Aside from the fact that service stations are not allowed to abut R1 property, the minimum buffer for a general C2 use adjacent to R1 property is 35 The triangle technically eliminates the requirement for this buffer, but we feel some attention should be paid to buffer requirements when the size of the triangle is considered. 1 -16 -92 1 Application No. 92002 continued Another matter that should be noted is the dedication of land for 69th Avenue North right -of -way. The site plans show a dedication of 18' of right -of -way as requested by Hennepin County. However, the plat submitted to date does not show this dedication. We have raised this issue with Phillips 66 and they have indicated a willingness to dedicate the requested right -of -way. We await a revised preliminary plat as of the writing of this report. Recommendation This redevelopment project cannot be approved without some transfer of land along the lines proposed by the applicant. If the Commission is inclined to recommend approval of the development, approval of the plat also is recommended and should be subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The preliminary plat shall be revised, prior to consideration by the City Council, to indicate a dedication of right -of -way for future widening of 69th Avenue North of 18' in width. Submitted by, Gary Shallcross Planner A roved by, �-J LAJ Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 1 -16 -92 2 Preliminary plat of: CADY ADDITION _ O r....• . r a rr• .. �1. ,�. te a•• ✓ ''' � .. . � ra� �� ,., . o..,�, u.,,. A. \ ...�� 112 2544 .r) B 1 :. th; - e� " <s 6 3 W ,.,../ i«<, \��• '. °ass �` k ��:'• \ ae� , « " 69 f WE B° • 34i sr1: N m,b. � \ „69i+I AE13 -N -¢� {�i..S�D —�Je. i • —i " - - ire, —"— ---------------- -• _ - -- - -- — -- -- « « ......r..� .._� ...—. �._ ......., —� \ \ '� CAA' 8 ASSOCIATES Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 92003 Applicant: Phillips 66 Company Location: 6901 Brooklyn Blvd. Request: Variance The applicant requests approval of a variance from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of a gas station/ convenience store /car wash approximately 28' from Brooklyn Boulevard instead of the 50' required by ordinance from all major thoroughfares. Brooklyn Boulevard is classified as a major thoroughfare because it is a county road. The property in question is located at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard and is the subject of Application Nos. 92001 and 92002. The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration. A variance may be granted after demonstration by evidence that the standards for a variance contained in Section 35 -240 of the ordinance are met. The applicant, in the person of Jon Baccus, has submitted a letter (attached) in which he argues that the standards for a variance are met. The applicant's arguments and staff response pertaining to each standard are contained below: (a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. Applicant: "Because of the particular physical surroundings and shape of the specific parcel of land involved, a particular hardship to Phillips would result if the 50' building setback standard is imposed. The tract is relatively small, being approximately 29,000 square feet. Furthermore, the tract is very irregular. The site would become even smaller with the dedication of an 18' wide strip along 69th Avenue, which City staff has advised would be required to secure any redevelopment approval. The dedication would involve approximately 3,500 square feet with an approximate value of $60,000. "Phillips initially proposed its standard layout, but Phillips subsequently learned the City would require the dedication of land which rendered its layout impossible. Since then Phillips has worked with City staff and furnished them with numerous proposed layouts. Phillips has produced every conceivable layout which would still enable it to have a reasonable chance to obtain a reasonable return on such a sizable investment and compete with 1 -16 -92 1 comparable state of the art facilities in Brooklyn Park. The proposed layout which gives rise to the variance request is a special design to accommodate the dedication. It addresses more City staff concerns than the other layouts, and all other conceivable layouts would require more than one variance. "Phillips request is not based upon an attempt to avoid a situation of mere inconvenience. Unless Phillips is not required to dedicate 18' along 69th Avenue, is granted the requested variance, is granted other variances, or some combination thereof, it will be deprived of its intended use of the property. Furthermore, the existing circumstances make redevelopment into any higher and better use than the existing use infeasible." Staff: The applicant appears to reason that the need for setback variance from Brooklyn Blvd. results from the required dedication of land for 69th Avenue North. It also results from attempts to meet staff concerns with the site layout. Those concerns had to do primarily with stacking for the car wash, parking and circulation. They also related to variances for greenstrips, etc. The applicant is correct in stating that the proposed layout meets the most staff concerns regarding the layout while still providing a full gas station /convenience store /car wash facility. We must point out, however, that the setback deficiency relative to Brooklyn Boulevard is not caused directly by the dedication of land for a widening of 69th Avenue North, but is more directly a result of providing proper stacking for the car wash facility. This raises the question, which the applicant has not explicitly addressed, as to whether a car wash facility is indeed a necessary component of this development. Apparently, Phillips 66 feels it is necessary "to have a reasonable chance to obtain a reasonable return on such a sizable investment." To meet the 50' setback requirement will probably require either other variances or the elimination of the car wash. If the car wash is eliminated, the value of the land may be somewhat adversely affected. This raises a question as to whether the denial of a variance could constitute a regulatory taking of property. It should be pointed out relative to the takings question, that the land would still have substantial value and that there is no car wash presently located on the site. It is, therefore, not something which is being "taken away." (b) The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Ap plicant: "To the best of Phillips' knowledge the conditions upon which the application for a variance is based, taken as a whole, are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought., _ 1 -16 -92 2 ' and are not common to other property within the same zoning classification. Phillips does admit, however, it has been advised the City has given some consideration to reducing front setback requirements in certain locations along Brooklyn Boulevard in order to encourage redevelopment. Based upon this, Phillips assumes there are other parcels with situations similar to one condition upon which Phillips' application is based; that being there is insufficient depth from Brooklyn Boulevard, coupled with a large 50' setback requirement, for redevelopment to be feasible." Staff: This parcel is fairly unique in shape, but the real reason for the variance application is the lack of depth off Brooklyn Boulevard which, as the applicant notes, is not really a unique condition. It is one of the reasons the City's Comprehensive Plan recommends that redevelopment go back to the next street beyond the Boulevard so that adequate lot depth can be achieved. We have discussed redevelopment of this entire block with Mr. Dave Nelson, but he does not control any of the properties at this time. Redevelopment of this corner parcel must, therefore, be considered on its own merits and within the constraints of that parcel. It should be pointed out that it is anticipated that other C2 parcels, as well as other parcels along Brooklyn Boulevard, would like to take advantage of a lesser building setback on the same basis as Phillips 66 is proposing. (c) The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. Applicant: "Phillips' hardship is related to the requirements of the ordinance and /or the requirement that it dedicate its property along 69th Avenue. The hardship has been created by the apparent need for right of way for any future expansion of 69th Avenue, by the particularities of the tract of land, and by the ordinance." Staff: We would argue that the hardship, if there is one, is only minimally related to the requirement of right -of -way dedication for 69th Avenue North, if at all. - The inability to meet the setback arises from the insufficient depth of the lot and the need for car wash circulation and stacking. The ordinance probably cannot be met with a rational design as long as the car wash is a part of the redevelopment plan. Since the car wash is proposed by the applicant and is not a requirement of the ordinance or the parcel of land, the hardship may be caused at least in part by the applicant's business plans. (d) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. 1 -16 -92 3 will be prepared to help develop language related to the variance standards if that is the Commission's wish. Submitted by, Gary Shallcross Planner Approved by, Ronald A. Warren Diector of Planning and Inspection 1 -16 -92 5 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 11/09/92 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: STAFF REPORT REGARDING ICE CONTROL PRACTICES DEPT, APPROVAL: �, Ae7lvo Sy Vapp, Director of Public Works MANAGERS REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /a'ltached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes ® A suggestion was made during the Financial and Service Prioritization Process to move toward using straight salt for streets ice control rather than the current 80 percent sand /20 percent salt mixture. The proposal would improve ice control, reduce labor spent on spring cleanup, and reduce stormwater pollution from excess sand use. Street and Park Maintenance Supervisor Bob Cahlander recommends that the Council consider amending the existing ice control policy and consider using 100 percent salt to control ice. Bob's recommendation is based on (1) information which he and Marc Booth obtained at the APWA Snow Conference held in St. Paul last spring and (2) a followup survey which they conducted (see attached memo from Marc Booth dated 4/21/92). Sand /salt would continue to be used when the temperature is too low for effective salt use, or where traction is necessary. BACKGROUND Brooklyn Center has traditionally used about twice as much sand /salt mixture as straight salt for ice control. Sand /salt mixture, an abrasive, provides an immediate improvement in skid resistance-on icy roads, especially when temperatures are low. Sand /salt mixture costs less than one -third as much as salt - about $9.20 per ton compared to $32.00 per ton. Sand /salt mixture has a somewhat lesser adverse environmental effect than straight salt. However, sand /salt mixture has a number of disadvantages. First, sand provides traction, but does not assist in removing ice which is bonded to pavement. Second, sand fills and blocks catch basins and storm sewers or remains on the streets, necessitating extensive cleanup of streets, sewers, and catch basins each spring. Third, sand collected during cleanup must be disposed of, and opportunities for disposal are becoming less available and more costly. Finally, sand makes its way through the storm drainage system to lakes, streams, and rivers. Salt (sodium chloride) is an effective de -icer. It works to eliminate the problem - ice - rather than work around it. By breaking ice's bond with the underlying pavement, it increases the effectiveness of plowing and blading. Much less straight salt than sand /salt mixture is required to effectively control icy conditions. Many agencies are moving toward using straight salt. Hennepin County uses 100 percent salt in its urban areas; MNDoT uses a 2:1 sand /salt mix in the Metro area. Brooklyn Park uses 100 percent salt. Rochester uses 100 percent salt in its downtown area. COST If this policy change is approved, street maintenance staff would use Winter, 1992 -93 as a test period, where street maintenance crews would evaluate the most effective combination of straight salt and sand /salt use. Crews would also • evaluate the effectiveness of strategies such as pre- wetting the salt, which may reduce the quantity of salt needed. While salt is considerably more expensive than sand, much less salt is needed to provide effective ice control. Reducing the amount of sand used also results in less sand to dispose of in springtime, and reduced dumping fees. It is expected that considered solely on materials and dumping costs, this policy change would probably result in either no or a slight increase in materials cost. However, the labor and overhead associated with sanding, hauling, cleaning, sweeping, and storm sewer and catch basin cleanout should be reduced. Reducing the amount of sand used and thus the amount of time spent on spring cleanup would: • Increase time available to pursue other spring activities, such as fixing winter patches; repairing potholes; repairing boulevards; and trimming boulevard trees. • Enable street maintenance staff to prepare streets for sealcoating during regular hours, reducing overtime spent on patching. It is possible that reduced overtime could "net out" the increase in materials cost. • Increase time available for other types of storm sewer maintenance and repair. • Result in cleaner streets earlier in the spring, reducing the amount of sand carried through the storm sewers to surface water by spring storms. • Operationally, the increased salt would be more effective in reducing ice and increasing the effectiveness of plows. This would increase the drivability of the streets. 0 Reduce the need to dump contaminated sand. Dumping fees continue to increase, and there is a growing concern regarding the nature of the items dumped. It is possible in the future that street sweepings will be regarded as hazardous waste. �I RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Review and approve by motion the proposed policy change. t 4/21/92 To: Sy Knapp /Bob Cahlander From: Marc Booth Re: Salt /Sand mixtures used by other agencies. Sy /Bob, As per your request I have surveyed several Public Works agencies, in a random manner, as to their salt /sand or chemical use for snow and ice control. The results are as follows: City of Brooklyn Park Contact: Gordy Surgess- Street Supt. Brooklyn Park uses 100% road salt. Gordy stated that going with straight salt actually saves time and money Y : Y Cutting the amount of material spread to melt the ice. Cutting the time it takes to "burn off" problem areas as all the material spread melts ice. >Saves alot of time sweeping and hauling sand in the spring, and eliminates the sweepings disposal problem. >Saves long term on storm sewer maintenance as the the sand never reaches the storm drainage system. >EPA has tested at storm sewer outfalls and so far they have been within pollution guidelines. City of Eden Prarie Contact: Jerald Prodoehl- Street Foreman Eden Prarie use a 5:1, sand /salt mixture. Jerry stated that they will adjust the mixture as they have to for existing conditions. Hennepin County Contact: Ted Hoffman - Division Engineer Hennepin County uses 100% road salt in urban settings, and only a 5% salt mix with sand in rural areas. Many of the same reasons that Brooklyn Park cited were used as justification in the urban areas. In rural areas ice buildup is not as bad, there are no storm sewers to clog, and sand blows /washes off into ditches without a lot of sweeping. Ted also stated that they have not had good luck with calibration devices for spreading material. Minnesota DOT Contact: Rodney Pletan -State Maintenance Engineer The State uses a 2:1, sand /salt mix in the e m tro area a nd a 3:1, sand /salt mix in outstate areas. Rodney stated: >He feels they use too much sand overall. >All salt should be used except where an abrasive is called for because sand does not melt ice. -2- >Sand laying on pavement is like "marbles" as far as vehicle control. >Mixtures should be a judgment call depending on conditions. City of Richfield Contact: Bob Swanson - Foreman Richfield used a 4:1, sand /salt mix. Bob stated that personally he would like to move toward all salt. City of Rochester Contact: Roger Plumb- Director of Public Works Rochester uses 100% salt in downtown areas, and a 10:1, sand /salt mix in residential areas. Information was gathered from a presentation at the APWA Snow Conference 1992. City of Woodbury Contact: Jim Triebold- Street Supervisor Woodbury uses a 4:1, sand /salt mix. Jim feels this is a good mix, and that 100% salt would lead to a lot of winter kill for them. City of Scarsdale N.Y. George Jacob- Director of Public Works Scarsdale uses almost 100% road salt for snow /ice control on their roadways. Some sand is used for abrasion when temperatures are very low. George also stated that they like the new electronic calibration devices as a guide for spreading. This information was gathered from a presentation at the APWA Snow Conference 1992. It is tough to draw any firm conclusions from such an informal survey, but it seems that while many agencies are still using sand /salt mix, many are at least looking at using more salt. This consideration seems to be driven by the desire for quicker melting, lower maintenance related to storm sewers, and less pickup and disposal of salt tainted sand in the spring. On the other side the move to more salt brings up environmental, cold weather traction, winter kill, and initial material cost questions. Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in between; increase the use of salt, but keep sand in the picture as a viable tool under certain conditions. If you have any questions please contact me. Marc CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 11/09/92 Agenda Item Number qU REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: STAFF REPORT REGARDING PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM REGARDING ABATEMENT OF WATER POLLUTION DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Kna p, Direct r of Public Works MANAGERS REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /tithed SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes • The Storm Drainage Utility annual budget includes $5,000 for public education programs. At its July 27, 1992 meeting, the Council approved the concept of publishing educational material regarding storm drainage and water pollution abatement, and the concept of a coloring contest. The Council requested that staff provide additional information regarding these items, along with cost estimates. Staff will work with the Water Management Plan Task Force to develop a plan for several educational campaigns in 1993. A coloring contest can be implemented yet in 1992. The following is a suggested format for the coloring contest, for Council review and approval. SUGGESTED FORMAT This campaign would be aimed at children age 8 or younger. Its intent would be to make children aware of the storm drainage system as a potential source of water pollution. Children would be encouraged to color a STORMIE graphic (attached) which would be included with City newsletters. Entries would be judged in two age groups: 4 and under, and 5 -8. One grand prize winner in each category would be awarded a one month family pass to the Community Center water slide. Five honorable mentions in each category would receive a one day family pass. All entries would be displayed at the Community Center. r • The estimated cost of this campaign would be: Materials 12,000 copies $ 487 Prizes 2 @ $54, 10 @$7.50 $ 183 $ 670 All costs would be charged to the Storm Drainage Utility. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Approve implementation of the coloring contest, and authorize the expenditure of funds for materials and prizes. • r d d b b d b b b b b ' b ° b b 0 o v M b o S- 0�0 b b ono ti NAME: AGE: ADDRESS: i . Coloring Contest How can you help STORMIE protect our wetlands and preserve our water quality? With thousands of storm sewer inlets around town, stormwater is a major contributor to water pollution. O M ' Anything washed into a storm sewer eventually makes its Q� way into our lakes, streams, and wetlands. Leaves, grass clippings, litter, sand, and lawn fertilizer are just some examples of STORMWATER POLLUTION. Nothing ut rainwater should enter storm . drains. s Remember, WATER POLLUTION BEGINS ON LAND. COLORING CONTEST RULES 1. The contest is open to persons 8 years old and under. One entry per person. 2. Entries should be submitted to: City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55412 3. Entries are due by DECEMBER 28, 1992. 4. Entries will be judged in two age groups: 4 and under, and 5 -8. 4. The grand prize in each age group is a one month family pass to the Brooklyn Center Community Center Pool and Waterslide. Five honorable mentions will receive .a one day family pass. SPONSORED BY: The Brooklyn Center Storm Drainage Utility CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 11/9/92 Agenda It= Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: STAFF REPORT RE: RATES AND POLICIES FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: E Sy Knapp, Directo of Public Works ti d ' MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMIl UNDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ! SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes The City Council annually reviews water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage utility rates to ensure that the utilities' financial goals are met. Attached to this item is the 1993 public utility rate and policy review. This report consists of a number of short papers discussing various operating policies, as well as reviewing utility rates. Each of these papers presents an issue, identifies options, and then makes a recommendation. I have summarized those issues and recommendations below. These recommendations do include increases to each of the utility rates. These increases are necessary, in staff's analysis, for a number of reasons. The primary reason is the need to continue a program of capital projects. This need is especially acute for the sanitary sewer utility. In addition, the water utility faces increased operating costs from the state - imposed Water Connection Surcharge. The recommended increases would increase the annual utility bill of the average residential customer about 14 percent. Table 1 details that increase. • TABLE 1 AVERAGE ANNUAL PUBLIC UTILITY COSTS, TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER BASED ON RECOMMENDED 1993 RATES 1992 Rate 1993 Rate WATER $81.92 $93.44 SANITARY SEWER 143.00 160.00 STORM DRAINAGE 18.00 24.00 TOTAL $242.92 $277.44 Percent Increase 14.2y In October, the City sent a notice to all non - residential utility customers notifying them of the possibility that rates would increase (see attached copy). This was done because commercial customers have in the past requested this information as early as possible, to facilitate budgeting. One written complaint was received, from "The Residents and Staff of Earle Brown Commons." This letter (copy attached) expresses concern and requests "a fair increase." The City's water rate continues to be among the lowest in the area, while the • sanitary sewer and storm drainage rates are somewhat higher than average. Because each city may have differing ways of accounting between utility funds, it is important to consider the three utility rates as a total. The table below presents the estimated 1993 annual utility bills for an average residential customer for various cities. As can be seen, Brooklyn Center's charges are below the median and well below the average. TABLE 2 1993 UTILITY BILLS OF AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS CITY WATER SEWER STORM TOTAL Minneapolis $188.16 $282.88 $0.00 $471.04 New Hope 175.72 233.32 15.00 424.04 Richfield 161.28 136.96 28.80 327.04 Crystal 153.60 120.00 9.00 282.60 Robbinsdale 171.14 94.40 12.00 277.54 BROOKLYN CENTER 93.44 160.00 24.00 277.44 Brooklyn Park 109.00 128.00 0.00 237.00 Fridley 76.80 113.40 7.00 197.20 . RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION 1) The City should enact an automatic odd -even sprinkling ban from May 1 to September 30 of each year. This water conservation measure would help keep peak water demands within the water supply system's capacity. Such a policy would allow the postponement of construction of a two million gallon reservoir and pumping station, at an estimated cost of $3.3 million. Approve by motion this policy change. 2) The water shutoff policy should be amended to clarify that shut off for delinquent bills applies only when the responsible person currently resides or is in business at the property. Delinquent final bills and other cases of delinquent bills, where the person responsible for the bill no longer resides at the property, will be certified for collection as special assessments. Certification would occur quarterly. Approve by motion the shut off policy amendments. 3) In 1992 the Governor and Legislature enacted a Water Connection Surcharge. • This fee of $5.21 per water connection is assessed to each public utility and is intended to finance the cost of water testing programs. It is recommended that the fairest way to pay this cost, $46,100 annually, is by including it in the rates, rather than passing along a $5.21 charge to each customer. Approve by motion this rate - setting approach. 4) Assuming that the policy recommendations in items one and three above are implemented, it is recommended that water rates be increased from $0.64 to $0.73 per 1000 gallons. Five of that nine cent increase is due to the water connection surcharge. The other four cents results from inflationary operating cost increases, sales tax, and phasing out the interest earnings rate subsidy. 5) Some adjustments to water fees and charges are recommended, including increasing the cost of water meters from $40 to $50, and initiating a series of escalating scale charges for non - return of meter reading cards. Approve the resolution establishing water rates, fees, and charges. • 6) The sanitary sewer utility requires major capital outlays in the coming few years. These outlays are necessary to protect the integrity of the system and to provide adequate levels of service. It is recommended that the quarterly residential charge be increased from $35.75 to $40.00. This increase is necessary to maintain the integrity of the fund. Without a rate increase, the magnitude of the capital outlays undertaken in the past few and the next few years will almost totally deplete the fund. 7) No adjustments to sanitary sewer fees and charges are recommended. Approve the resolution establishing sanitary sewer utility rates, fees, and charges. 8) The Local Water Management Plan for the storm drainage utility is currently under way. It is anticipated that a number of maintenance and capital outlay requirements will be identified by Fall, 1993, in time for the 1993 rate review. Some projects have already been identified as high priority. To begin these high - priority projects, and to expand the activities of the utility, it is recommended that the residential quarterly charge be increased from $4.50 to $6.00. Approve the resolution establishing storm drainage utility rates, fees, and • charges. 9) It is recommended that water and sanitary sewer hookup rates be increased for inflation, or 3.2 percent. Approve the resolution establishing water and sanitary sewer hookup rates. • CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY • OF :BYROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE: 569-3300 C ENTER FAX: 569 -3494 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE October 16, 1992 911 Dear Utility Customer: The City of Brooklyn Center's water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage utilities strive to keep costs and utility rates as low as possible. The City's water utility rates for many years have been, and continue to be, among the lowest in the state. The costs to operate all three utilities are expected to rise in 1993. Because by law these utilities may not lose money (nor make a profit), it is expected that utility rates will increase in 1993. At this time we anticipate that utility rates will be reviewed by the City Council at the end of November. We understand that for budgeting purposes, many commercial and management customers appreciate having rate increase information as early as possible. The table below shows our best ESTIMATE of the 1993 rates. These increases will be reviewed for 0 their adequacy in November. It is important to note that the actual rate increases could be greater or less than the increases shown below. A major cause of the water rate increase is a surcharge imposed by the Minnesota Department of Health (DOH) on city water utilities. This surcharge is intended to finance DOH's program of water testing. The City of Brooklyn Center will be charged about $50,000 each year for this program. 1992 RATE 1993 RATE (est) Water (per 1000 gallons) $0.64 $0.76 Sanitary Sewer Residential (per quarter) $35.75 $40.75 Apartment (per quarter) $25.03 $28.53 Commercial (per 1000 gallons) $1.43 $1.63 Storm Drainage (per quarter) Residential $4.50 $6.00 Apartment /Churches (per acre) $54.00 $72.00 Commercial (per acre) $90.00 $120.00 A ka rIc Browf� CofflinotI October 28, 1992 Mr. Sy Knapp Director of Public Works City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr. Knapp: On behalf of our seniors at Earle Brown Commons we would like to express our outrage about the ro osed water utility rate increase. P P Y The increase for water consumption is over 18 %. The increase for sanitary sewer is 14 %. The increase for storm drainage a mere 33.33 %. These percentage increases are absurd, given the current economic slowdown/re- cession we are in today. Has anyone heard of "reducing expenses "? Projecting our 1993 budget for sewer and water usage, based on 1992 usage, the annual increase amounts to $3,420.00. (More, if our water consumption increases.) An addition in excess of three thousand dollars to our budget is significant, and ultimately must be passed on to the fundamental consumer, which in this case, is the senior resident. We sincerely hope that you will speak out against such an extreme increase in water utility rates at the City Council meeting in November. Please reconsider and negotiate for a fair increase. Thank you. The Residents and Staff of Earle Brown Commons o o e oeocao o ®aaoo 6100 6ummit Drivc j lortlt BrooklyrLCntef. - Minnesota 55430 Phone (612) 560 -6829 OF CITY BROOKLYN CENTER 1993 PUBLIC UTILITY RATE AND POLICY REVIEW TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY .................. ..............................1 WATER RESTRICTIONS ......... ............................... 3 WATER SHUTOFFS............ .............................5 WATER CONNECTION SURCHARGE . ..............................9 WATER RATES ............... .............................11 WATER FEES AND CHARGES ... ............................... 21 SANITARY SEWER RATES ..................................... 24 SANITARY SEWER FEES AND CHARGES ........................... 32 STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY RATES .............................. 34 i WATER AND SANITARY SEWER HOOKUP RATES .................... 39 • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1992 PUBLIC UTILITY RATE REVIEW SUMMARY The Council on October 7, 1991 established public utility rate schedules. These schedules established rates for 1992 and 1993. The City Council annually reviews established public utility rates to ensure their adequacy in meeting financial goals. The rates are established following three general objectives: • The base charge is a single rate, with neither conservation nor volume discounts. The exception is that the standard quarterly sanitary sewer rates for senior citizens and for apartment units are proportions of the residential quarterly rate. Those rates are based on the demonstrated lesser volume of use by these customers; • That the policy of using one -half the interest earnings on retained investments to subsidize rates be phased out 20 percent each year, until 1996, when no subsidy will be provided. All interest earnings will be used to provide financing for capital outlay projects; • That certain minimum balances be retained as "restricted investments" to provide for certain needs. In the Water Utility Fund, $3.7 million is to be retained for purposes of partial funding of a future water treatment plant. In the Sanitary Sewer Fund, $300,000 is to be retained for unexpected, major capital improvements. No minimum balance has yet been established for the Storm Drainage Utility Fund. FINDINGS Several policy questions have been discussed, as well as rates reviewed. The following is a summary of each issue and a recommendation. 1) The City should enact an automatic odd -even sprinkling ban from May 1 to September 30 of each year. This water conservation measure would help keep peak water demands within the water supply system's capacity. Such a policy would allow the postponement of construction of a two million gallon reservoir and pumping station, at an estimated cost of $3.3 million. 2) The water shutoff policy should be amended to clarify that shut off for delinquent bills applies only when the responsible person currently resides or is in business at the property. Delinquent final bills and other cases of delinquent bills, where the person responsible for the bill no longer resides at the property, will be certified for collection as special assessments. Certification would occur quarterly. 3) In 1992 the Governor and Legislature enacted a Water Connection Surcharge. This fee of $5.21 per water connection is assessed to each public utility and is intended to finance the cost of water testing programs. It is recommended that the fairest way to pay this cost, 2 . $46,100 annually, is by including it in the rates, rather than passing along a $5.21 charge to each customer. 4) Assuming that the policy recommendations in items one and three above are implemented, it is recommended that water rates be increased from $0.64 to $0.73 per 1000 gallons. Five of that nine cent increase is due to the water connection surcharge. The other four cents results from inflationary operating cost increases, sales tax, and phasing out the interest earnings rate subsidy. 5) Some adjustments to water fees and charges are recommended, including increasing the cost of water meters from $40 to $50, and initiating a series of escalating scale charges for non - return of meter reading cards. 6) The sanitary sewer utility requires major capital outlays in the coming few years. These outlays are necessary to protect the integrity of the system and to provide adequate levels of service. It is recommended that the quarterly residential charge be increased from $35.75 to $40.00. This increase is necessary to maintain the integrity of the fund. Without a rate increase, the magnitude of the capital outlays undertaken in the past few and the next few years will almost totally deplete the fund. 7) No adjustments to sanitary sewer fees and charges are recommended. 8) The Local Water Management Plan for the storm drainage utility is currently under way. It is anticipated that a number of maintenance and capital outlay requirements will be identified by Fall, 1993, in time for the 1993 rate review. Some projects have already been identified as high priority. To begin these high - priority projects, and to expand the activities of the utility, it is recommended that the residential quarterly charge be increased from $4.50 to $6.00. 9) It is recommended that water and sanitary sewer hookup rates be increased for inflation, or 3.2 percent. • • ISSUE: WATER RESTRICTIONS ISSUE: Whether water use restrictions should be automatically implemented each year to conserve water and postpone construction of a $3.3 million water reservoir and pumping station. BACKGROUND The consulting firm of Black and Veatch in 1989 evaluated the City's water system. Analysis of the system's ability to supply enough water to meet demand concluded that to meet future demand, two new wells and a 2 million gallon reservoir must be constructed. Water restrictions during peak demand periods would reduce that need for new facilities to one well and a reservoir. The Capital Improvement Program anticipated that such a reservoir would be evaluated for construction in 1993. Given the amount of time needed to design such a facility, the earliest possible construction date is now 1994. A new well, well #10, was constructed in 1990, and came on line in 1991. Even with this new capacity, Stage 2 water restrictions, a sprinkling ban between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m., were needed in • 1992 to reduce peak demand. The restrictions sufficiently reduced demand so that the nine wells could meet the demand while still maintaining an adequate fire reserve in the towers. Without the restrictions, the wells could not have kept up, and the towers would have fallen dangerously low. Water restrictions were enacted in 1987, 1988, and 1992 - three out of the past six years. It is clear from demand that either additional capacity must eventually be constructed, or water restrictions will continue to be implemented every year. OPTIONS The Black and Veatch study estimated the cost of constructing a 2 million gallon reservoir and pumping station at $3.3 million. Bonds would have to be issued to finance construction. Debt service on the bonds would raise utility rates an estimated $0.07 per 1000_ gallons, or about $9 per year for the average residential customer. Some communities have chosen to automatically implement water restrictions every year, as a means of conservation and to restrict peak demand. It is very time consuming, costly, and difficult to adequately announce mid -season water restrictions. It has been the City's policy to have a flier announcing the restrictions hand delivered to each residence in the City. A letter is sent to commercial customers. Announcements are made on cable TV and in the papers. In 1992, because there were so many people either unaware of the restrictions or intentionally violating them, a second flier was distributed. The police issued over 100 warnings one weekend. 4 Implementation of an automatic odd -even sprinkling ban could reduce demand enough, at least in the short term, to postpone the need for the reservoir. This "water conservation" approach would ask residents to change their outdoor water use habits so as to avoid a major utility expenditure. Private, regulated utilities such as NSP are required by law to encourage conservation before making capital improvements to increase capacity. In the 1989 City Residential Survey, residents were asked their opinion of the 1988 water restrictions. Residents were asked if those restrictions were: A. Too restrictive and unfair; B. About right in view of the problem; or C. Not tough enough and would support more stringent ones if the need arose. The results were: A ..... 5% B ..... 70% C ...... 21 % Don't know ..... 4% It appears that there is support for water restrictions in the community. One in five persons asked would support more stringent restrictions Only five percent thought water restrictions were too stringent. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Council approve a policy of automatic, annual water restrictions to encourage water conservation. The restrictions would be a ban on lawn and garden sprinkling during all hours of the day, on an odd -even basis. In other words, residents whose street address is an. odd number would only be allowed to water lawns on odd days of the month. Effective dates would be May 1 to September 30. If severe drought conditions return and the odd -even restrictions do not sufficiently reduce demand, this policy could be supplemented with a total ban on sprinkling from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m. daily. 5 ISSUE: WATER SHUTOFFS ISSUE: Whether to amend the existing policy of shutting off water service to customers with unpaid public utility bills. BACKGROUND It has been a long standing water utility policy to shut off the water to properties with delinquent water bills. It has been found over the years that the threat of water shutoff has been most effective in enforcing collections. While some municipalities certify unpaid water bills as special assessments, Brooklyn Center as a rule certifies only delinquent sanitary sewer, storm drainage or recycling charges. Water charges are only certified under special circumstances, such as if the property owner is in bankruptcy. in situations administratively s However, this policy can be ad y cumbersome and has at times resulted P Y which are seen by utility customers as less than fair. • • At many rental properties, the utility bills are in the name of and are the responsibility of the renter. Some rental properties are chronically delinquent in payment, and generate shutoff notices or even shutoffs nearly every quarter. The existing shutoff policy can result in substantial work for utility billing and utility maintenance staff. o According to City ordinances, the property owner is ultimately responsible for the utility bill. However, under the existing policy, if one renter moves out and leaves an unpaid water bill, it is the next renter who faces wat er shutoff if the bill is not P aid. • A few property owners do not pay their final utility bill after selling their home or business. Again, it is the purchaser who faces water shutoff if the bill remains unpaid. CURRENT POLICY The water shutoff policy has two components: dealing with customers who are in arrears, and dealing with unpaid final billings. Customers have 28 days to pay their utility bills. A second notice provides another 28 days. The third notice, the "blue notice," informs customers that they have 5 days to make payment. After five days, the property is "red tagged." Five days after hanging a red tag, the water is shut off. • When a customer moves, a final meter reading is taken. A final bill is generated, and the customer has 28 days to pay. If it is not paid, utility billing staff continue to attempt to collect. The past due 6 amount is also added to the account of the owner or tenant. The new customer is advised that the charges run with the land and that it is their responsibility to see that the past due amount is paid. It is also suggested that they try to collect from the previous owner or tenant, or the landlord. From January to September, 1992, 637 red tags were issued. Water service was shut off 53 times. Some properties were issued multiple red tags and were shutoff more than once. Once water is shut off there is a $25 charge for restoration of service. Most red tags are issued to customers whose accounts are in arrears. As of September, 1992, about $36,800 in utility charges were past due. About $4,900 in final billings was outstanding, along with an additional $14,700 owed by two large accounts. Red tags and shutoffs are very labor intensive. An average of 70 per month are hand written by utility billing staff, then hand delivered by utility maintenance staff. Tagged customers must then make payment or face shut off. A number of customers delay paying until utility maintenance staff show up at their property to shut off the water. Utility maintenance staff have made a total of 832 trips to customer's homes or businesses in enforcing the shutoff policy. OPTIONS Rental Pro ep rties • There are some rental properties where unpaid utility bills are a chronic problem. In almost all cases, these are properties where the utility bill is in the name of the renter, not the property owner. Two options for amending the policy for rental properties are: 1) Require that utility accounts be billed to the property owner. Brooklyn Park is one area city that follows this policy. The property owner is then responsible for ensuring that utility bills are paid. Under the current policy, since the renters bear all the responsibility and the consequences, the property owner has no incentive, and no reason, to ensure payment. This option would relieve renters of the burden of having their water shut off because the previous tenants did not pay their water bill. It would make property owners more responsible for problem tenants. Under such an option, property owners would either bill their tenants directly in the amount of the utility bill, or include utility charges in the rent charge. There is the possibility that some property owners may raise rents in excess of anticipated bills. Unpaid bills would then automatically be certified as special assessments, rather than cause water shutoffs. If this option is adopted, it is recommended that special assessments be certified quarterly rather than annually. This policy would indicate to property owners that delinquent utility bills are a serious matter. It is likely that adopting this policy would increase the number of special assessment certifications. 7 2) A second option would continue the policy of water shut off, but only if the current tenant is . the customer with a bill in arrears. If a renter falls behind in paying their utility bill, and they continue to live at the property, then they would be red tagged and threatened with shut off. However, if, for example, a renter moved out owing a utility bill, the next tenant would not be red tagged. Rather, that delinquent bill would be certified as a special assessment and become the responsibility of the property owner. Other Properties The water utility also experiences delinquent final water bills from the owners of other types of property, such as residential or commercial. There are three primary reasons behind the delinquency: • The property owner sells the property and for whatever reason does not pay the closing bill; • The property owner declares bankruptcy; or • The property is foreclosed upon. These bills are collected enerall one of four ways: g Y s: Y • The owner eventually pays the bill; • The purchaser is red tagged and pays the bill; • The property is eventually sold and the outstanding bill is paid from the proceeds; or • The delinquent amount is certified as a special assessment and collected with the property taxes. It is the second of these cases that causes misunderstandings and anger from customers, many of whom are new property owners in Brooklyn Center. They believe it is unfair that they should have to suffer the threat of water shut off because the previous owners did not pay the water bill. Two options for dealing with such a situation are: 1) Do not change the current policy of red tagging and then shutting off the water to a property with an unpaid final bill. 2) Rather than threaten shut off, certify the unpaid bill as a special assessment. While the new property owner would still assume responsibility for paying the bill, this removes the immediate threat of water shut off. It may also provide the new owner with some leverage in recovering payment from the previous owner; time to accumulate savings to pay the charge; or the ability to divide the amount in monthly mortgage escrow payments. RECOMMENDATIONS The recommended shut off and collections policy is as follows: 8 1) Continue the policy of issuing red tags and shutting off water to residential and commercial . customers who are resident at the property and who are in arrears. 2) Amend the current shut off procedure to provide for a public hearing prior to water shut off. 2) Certify as a special assessment all rental property utility accounts more than 60 days past due. 3) Certify as a special assessment all closing bills more than 30 days past due. 4) Certify special assessments for utility service accounts quarterly, rather than annually. • 9 ISSUE: WATER CONNECTION SURCHARGE ISSUE: The most equitable way to finance the new state - mandated annual Water Connection Surcharge. The Department of Health has begun billing water utilities a $5.21 per water connection surcharge to fund water testing required by the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. BACKGROUND During state budget deliberations earlier this ear, the Governor and Legislature approved implementation g Y g PP P of a Water Connection Surcharge. Revenue from this surcharge, levied on all water utilities in the state, would be used to fund the Department of Health's water testing and research programs mandated by the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. The amount t of the surcharge is $5.21 per water connection. With 8,845 water connections as of July 1, 1992, the Brooklyn Center Water Utility has been charged about $46,100. The first quarterly payment was due to the Department of Health on September 30, 1992, and was a aid from reserve funds. The second payment is due December 31 and will also be aid from p PY P reserve funds. At issue is whether the surcharge should be passed along directly to the utility customers, i.e., charge each customer an additional $5.21 per year, or if the expense should simply be built into the rates. The reserve funds will have to be reimbursed the $23,050 expended in 1992 regardless of which option is chosen. OPTIONS 1) Under this option, each customer would pay $5.21 yearly, regardless of consumption. That is, a customer whose consumption is so low that they are usually billed the minimum charge would pay the same as a large industrial user charged thousands of dollars quarterly. The rationale for this option is that water testing requirements are mandated on a per unit basis, not per consumption. For example, the Lead and Copper Rule required water utilities to test a particular number of connections for lead and copper, based on their total number of connections. The number required was the same whether the utility served 5,000 heavy consumption industrial users or 5,000 low consumption residential users. An additional $5.21 flat charge per year would represent an 18.6 percent increase in the average annual bills for low consumption users; 5.7 percent for middle consumption; and 0.3 percent for high consumption users. 10 2) Under this option, the revenue required to pay the surcharge would simply be added to the overall revenue requirements in determining future utility rates. The rationale for this option is that testing and water quality in general is an issue that affects the entire utility. The utility currently conducts a number of other water quality tests, which will continue to be its responsibility, and those costs are included in the rates and charged to all customers. This $46,100, plus an additional $23,050 to reimburse the reserves for payment of the 1992 installments, would in 1993 represent a six percent increase in revenue requirements. In 1994, only $46,100 would be required, and the increase would be four percent. It would increase rates in 1993 by 5 cents per 1000 gallons of water consumed, or from $0.71 per thousand to $0.76 per thousand. It would increase the average annual bills for middle and high consumption users seven percent and would have no impact on high consumption users. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Council adopt option 2, to include the cost of the surcharge in the rates. This option is fairer than option 1 and is consistent with treatment of other testing costs. It is further recommended that on the utility bills that portion of the water charge resulting from the surcharge be a separate line item and identified as a state - mandated charge. • • 11 ISSUE: WATER RATES ISSUE: Whether water utility rates established for 1993 need to be amended. BACKGROUND The City Council on October 7, 1991 adopted Resolution 91 -244, which established water rates for 1992 and 1993. The Council annually reviews established rates for their adequacy and makes adjustments as necessary. In 1992, the Council approved a policy change regarding the use of interest earnings to subsidize rates. Previously, one half of interest earnings were used to offset operating costs; starting in 1992, this subsidy is being phased out 20 percent per year. WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE, 1991 AND 1992 • OPERATING COSTS Operating costs in 1991 were slightly higher than expected, due mainly to contractual costs, such as consultant work on the SCADA system. Operating costs in 1993 are expected to be slightly higher than 1992 due mainly to increased utility costs. This increase reflects: 1) sales tax; 2) increased NSP and Minnegasco rates; and 3) well #10 coming on line. REVENUES Revenues from water use were in 1992 higher than expected. A dry spring and early summer increased residential water use. Water restrictions from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m. reduced peak usage, but overall, water use was up. Miscellaneous revenues, which include penalties, water hookups, assessments, etc., were higher than expected. Interest earnings were much lower than expected. CAPITAL OUTLAYS Substantial outlays were made in 1991 and 1992 on three major projects: the construction of well #10, water main improvements associated with the 69th Avenue street improvement project, and major distribution system improvements in the area of Dupont Avenue and 69th Avenue. Well #10 is intended to provide the City with greater peak water pumping capacity, although it does not meet the entire need. The distribution system project was designed to make better and more efficient use of Water Tower #2. While not technically a capital outlay, for 1992 that total includes the $23,050 state water connection surcharge (discussed separately) paid from reserve funds. 12 RATE REVIEW, 1993 AND 1994 PROJECTED EXPENSES Personnel and utility expenses are projected to increase at three percent per year, while other operating expenses are projected to increase five percent per year. A new expense, the State Connection Surcharge, is discussed separately. Table 1 on the following page details the program of capital improvements outlined in the Capital Improvements Program. RATE SETTING CONSIDERATIONS The schedule at the end of this report labelled W1 shows the projected effect of the existing rate schedule. No rates for 1994 or 1995 have been officially established, so the schedule shows the rates continuing at even increases. The schedules labelled W2 through W5 detail three alternatives for establishing rates. A potential future capital project which would have a significant impact on rates is the possible construction of a two million gallon reservoir and pumping station. This additional capacity may be needed to meet peak water demands. As discussed separately, by instituting a program of regular water conservation, we may be able to avoid the expense of building the reservoir. Finally, as also discussed separately, the state Water Connection Surcharge may either be charged directly to customers, or simply added to the rates. • 1) Discussed separately is the concept of full -time water conservation. This past summer, Stage Two Water Restrictions, a sprinkling ban, were implemented to reduce peak water demand.. Residents and commercial customers did respond to the ban, and consumption was kept to a manageable level. Implementation of permanent water conservation measures would reduce the need for the reservoir and the substantial rate increase needed to finance it. Rate schedule W2 shows the rate increases necessary for operating revenues to approximately equal operating expenses, assuming a program of water conservation and annual water restrictions. 2) Construction of a reservoir is shown for discussion purposes as occurring in 1994. The cost of this project is currently estimated as $3.3 million, and would be financed by a bond issue. Annual bond payments would be made from the water utility fund; debt service would be charged as an operating expense, to be partially offset by interest earnings, and principle would be paid from the construction fund. Schedule W2 shows the costs and rates necessary to finance this potential project. 3) Also discussed separately, the state Water Connection Surcharge could be implemented as either a $5.21 charge to each customer, or added to the rates. Schedules W1 through W4 show the surcharge added to the rates If the charge were simply to be passed on to customers, then that cost would not have to be recovered through the rates. Schedule W5 reflects this option. • • • i TABLE 1 - Capital Improvement Program - Detail of Capital Outlays Water Utility Capital Improvements 05- Nov -92 199 1992 i!g93 1994 1995 .1996 - -2000. EUNQ SOURCE EXPENDITURES: Au vvater uun WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Well 10 to Well 6 585,900 100,000 0 Shingle Creek Pkwy to Brooklyn Bbd (69th Avenue Street Project) 333,600 0 Well 6 to Shingle Creek Pkwy 300,000 WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM Construct Well #10 656,600 0 2 MG Reservoir & Pumping Station 3,300,000 0 Construct Well #11 1 1,000,000 MISCELLANEOUS New Electric Controls at Wells 5, 6, 7 90,000 0 Routine Well Maintenance 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 Cathodic Protection 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 Loop 2" Water Main at Lawrence Circle 15,000 0 WATER TOWERS Paint Tower #1 166,000 Paint Tower #2 150,000 0 Paint Tower #3 158,000 FACILITIES &EQUIPMENT Water Sample Lab Update 25,000 0 Qty Garage Remodelling 50,000 0 SCADA System Update 50,000 50,000 Computer Hardware & Software 7,500 0 Backhoe 47,630 0 Pickups 10,000 10,000 0 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Neighborhood Street Improvements 131,000 164,000 164,000 820,000 57th Avenue, Logan to Lyndale 50,000 0 63rd Avenue, W City Limits to Brooklyn Blvd 95,000 0 Noble Avenue, Brooklyn Blvd to N City Limits 13,000 0 69th Avenue, Shingle Creek Pkwy to Oliver 32,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,292,5001 13,500 1 $3,679, 3 3 679 000 $497 000 $2 901000 FUND SOURCES: Water Utility 1,292,500 591,230 313,500 3,679,000 497,000 2,901,000 TOTAL $1,292,5001 13 500 $3 679 000 $497 000 $2,901 1 I w 14 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that permanent water conservation measures be implemented, starting in 1993. Peak water use under these conditions would then be evaluated to determine if additional water capacity would be required. These measures would postpone any rate increases for this large capital outlay for at least three or four years. It is also recommended that the water connection surcharge be included in the rates, rather than passed directly on to customers. Basing the charge on usage is fairer than requiring all customers, regardless of size and use, to pay the same charge. The options labelled W1, W2, and W3 are consistent with the policy recommendations above. Considering all these policy issues, it is recommended that the Council adopt the rates shown on schedule W1, the rates approved last year. While these rates would result in a modest, short-term operating loss, that deficit is small. This would be a 14 percent increase in the base rate. TABLE 2 WATER UTILITY BASE RATE SCHEDULE RATE- SETTING OPTIONS RATE PER 1000 GALLONS YEAR W 1: W2: W3: W4: Current Rate Conservation, Conservation, Construct Include Separate Reservoir Surcharge Surcharge 1992 $0.64 $0.64 $0.64 $0.64 1993 $0.73 $0.76 $0.71 $0.76 1994 $0.82 $0.82 $0.79 $0.82 1995 $0.89 $0.86 $0.86 $0.93 IMPACT OF RECOMMENDED RATE INCREASE Table 3 below illustrates the impact the recommended rate increase would have on the summer water bills of various types of customers. 15 TABLE 3 IMPACT OF RECOMMENDED WATER BASE RATE INCREASE SUMMER WATER BILLS OF VARIOUS CUSTOMERS Type of Customer 1992 1993 Charge Charge T2ESMENTIA>C, Low Use (Minimum) $7.00 $7.00 Average Use (38) 24.96 28.08 High Use (116) 72.32 81.36 Apartment, 36 Units (630) 403.20 453.60 COMMERCIAL Car Dealership (235) $150.40 $169.20 Heavy Commercial Use (864) 552.96 622.08 Table 4 is a summary of 1993 water rates per 1000 gallons for a number of Metro area cities. Brooklyn Center continues to have one of the lower rates in the area. TABLE 4 1993 WATER RATES OF VARIOUS METRO AREA CITIES CITY PER CITY PER 1000 G 1000 G Minneapolis $1.47 Minnetonka $0.85 Bloomington 1.40 Anoka 0.79 Robbinsdale 1.337 Brooklyn Park 0.75 Richfield 1.26 Plymouth 0.75 Crystal 1.20 BROOKLYN 0.73 CENTER Golden Valley 1.13 Fridley 0.60 Maple Grove 0.90 Blaine 0.55 PUBUTIL \watrat93:dfs Water Utility: Current Rates W1 05- Nov -92 1991 <::. 1992 1993 1994 1995 ; t'996 __ _ EXPENDITURES 1) Operations Personal Service 233,744 340,000 340,000 350,200 360,706 371,527 Contractual 251,903 140,000 144,200 148,526 152,982 157,571 Supplies & Materials 94,945 90,000 92,700 95,481 98,345 101,296 Heat, Light & Power 116,516 160,000 168,000 176,400 185,220 194,481 Interest on Debt 3,695 1,855 0 0 0 0 State Connection Surcharge 0 69,150 46,100 46,100 46,100 Depreciation Expense 253,574 233,447 264,898 305,000 305,000 305 000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $954 $965,302 $1,078,948 $1 $1,148 $1 REVENUES 2) Billing Revenues $675,708 $844,800 $930,750 $1,045,500 1,134,750 1,211,250 Billable water in MGAL 1,184,359 1,320,000 1,275,000 1,275,000 1,275,000 1,275,000 RATE :PER: 1;000 GAL $U 55 $0;64 $0.73 _. .... _ .. .. ... 3) Miscellaneous Operating 27,714 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 4) Miscellaneous Non - operating 45,587 15,000 15,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5) 1/2 Interest Earnings (Phased Out By 1996) 172,417 115,179 69,491 39,864 ,...__.,...._. 19,813 0 TOTAL REVENUES $921,426 $999,979 $1,040,241 $1,120,364 $1,189,563 $1,246,250 OJ ED_ NC Ltd 5... 32> 95y 34 677 38 707 1 343 41 %209 70 275. P.R ECT $ $ , 6 1/2 Interest Earnings 100% By 1996 172,417 172,768 162,145 159,456 178,313 203,302 .....::.. .....:.:.::.;::.;:::.. .;.:..; ..::::.;:.:.;:::: N'ET IN >COM:E OR::0* S :.:<> : >'; <.::::'::: $1 466 207 445 I 438 t58 113 $219 522 273 577; ..... .. :...... $:. 1.991`: 1392 ' 1993 199:4: '::1995 11996 EFFECT ON CASH & INVESTMENTS: 7) Start of Year Cash & Inv $5,064,602 $4,429,953 $4,211,565 $3,986,401 $3,962,514 $4,066,037 8) Capital Outlay (950,383) (614,280) (613,500) (3,787,000) (421,000) (447,000) 9) Net Income or Loss 139,466 207,445 123,438 158,113 219,522 273,577 10) Bond Debt Retired (45,000) (45,000) 11) Depeciation Add -back 253,574 233,447 264,898 305,000 305 000 305,000 12� Ertd of Year Ca h tnv $?�4Z9 ', $4;11,565 $3,986,401 $3,962,514 $4`,066;1737 $4,197,613'. I L. Restricted Inv 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 Unrestricted Inv 729,953 511 286 262 366 497,613 See attached footnotes rn • 0 0 PUBUTIL\watrat93:dfs Water Utility: Water Conservation, No Reservoir W2 05-Nov-92 EXPENDITURES 1) Operations Personal Service 233,744 340,000 340,000 350,200 360,706 371,527 Contractual 251,903 140,000 144,200 148,526 152,982 157,571 Supplies & Materials 94,945 90,000 92,700 95,481 98,345 101,296 Heat, Light & Power 116,516 160,000 168,000 176,400 185,220 194,481 Interest on Debt 3,695 1,855 0 0 0 0 State Connection Surcharge 0 69,150 46,100 46,100 46,100 Depreciation Expense 253,574 233,447 264,898 305,000 305,000 305_000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $954,377 $965,302 $1,078,948 $1,121,707 $1,148,353 $1,175,975 REVENUES 2) Billing Revenues $675,708 $844,800 $969,000 $1,045,500 1,096,500 1,147,500 Billable water in MGAL 1,184,359 1,320,000 1,275,000 1,275,000 1,275,000 1,275,000 ................................. .... . ..... :0 0 9 PEFV4 0 . : GA L . RATE A .............. $ .................... ............ .. ...... 3) Miscellaneous Operating 27,714 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 4) Miscellaneous Non-operating 45,587 15,000 15,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5) 1/2 Interest Earnings (Phased Out By 1996) 1 172,417 115,179 69,491 40,247 20,013 0 TOTAL REVENUES $921,426 $999,979 $1,078,491 $1,120,747 $1,151,513 $1,182,500 .............. li .......... ............. .. ..... 9 ............ ........... 0 ($ ) 77 7 PR OjECTE oil .... : U LO . ......... 6) 1/2 Interest Earnings (100% By 1996) 172,417 172,768 162,145 160,986 180,120 203,498 ............ ....... .... ....... ............... .......... ............... .... .. 60* :::::;; .......... .. . ............... :2 $1 7.4 T INC R . ..... ......... ��Q! 023�. ..................... ......... ............................... . ... EFFECT ON CASH & INVESTMENTS: 7) Start of Year Cash & Inv $5,064,602 $4,429,953 $4,211,565 $4,024,651 $4,002,677 $4,069,957 8) Capital Outlay (950,383) (614,280) (613,500) (487,000) (421,000) (447,000) 9) Net Income or Loss 139,466 207,445 161,688 160,026 183,281 210,023 10) Bond Debt Retired (45,000) (45,000) 11) Depqplatiqq back 253,574 233,447 264,898 305,000 305,000 305,000 ........ 4 6..6.. : .. I ... ..... .. .... .. ............. .... . .......... . , F , X .......... Year AS .::j 4 ............. .............. '65 40 4 002.677�i.:xxx $4 h A I E ........... ........ .y ................................ ....... Restricted Inv 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 Unrestricted Inv 729,953 511,565 324,651 302,677 369,957 437,980 See attached footnotes 0 . 0 PUBUTIL\watrat93:dfs Water Utility: Exclude Water Connection Surcharge W3 05- Nov -92 1991;;: X992 1993. 1994 1995;: 1996 EXPENDITURES 1) Operations Personal Service 233,744 340,000 340,000 350,200 360,706 371,527 Contractual 251,903 140,000 144,200 148,526 152,982 157,571 Supplies & Materials 94,945 90,000 92,700 95,481 98,345 101,296 Heat, Light & Power 116,516 160,000 168,000 176,400 185,220 194,481 Interest on Debt 3,695 1,855 0 0 0 0 State Connection Surcharge 0 Depreciation Expense 253,574 233,447 264,898 305,000 305,000 305.000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $954,377 $965,302 $1,009 $1,075,607 $1,102,253 $1,129,875 REVENUES 2) Billing Revenues $675,708 $844,800 $905,250 $1,007,250 1,045,500 1,096,500 Billable water in MGAL 1,184,359 1,320,000 1, 275,000 1,275,000 1,275,000 1,275, 000 RATE;PER 1;000 GAL $0 55 $0.64 $0.7y $0.79 $Oj.82 $0.86! 3) Miscellaneous Operating 27,714 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 4) Miscellaneous Non - operating 45,587 15,000 15,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5) 1/2 Interest Earnings (Phased Out By 1996) 172,417 115,179 69,491 40,301 20,081 0 TOTAL REVENUES $921,426 $999,979 $1,014,741 $1,082,551 $1,100,581 $1,131,500 P,ROJE .T LOSS $3 ,951 $34,57.7 $4,943 $6,944 $1,672 $1,625' 6 1/2 Interest Earnings 100% By 1996 172 172 162,145 161,202 180,729 203,963 NET INCOME O LfJSS:.::::: 13.9;486..::: ..:.:207 445 67 88 168 46. .. , _. $. $1 ,� $ ,1. $179,Q57 $205,587 1993 1994: 1995 1996 EFFECT ON CASH & INVESTMENTS: 7) Start of Year Cash & Inv $5,064,602 $4,429,953 $4,211,565 $4,030,051 $4,016,197 $4,079,253 8) Capital Outlay (950,383) (614,280) (613,500) (487,000) (421,000) (447,000) 9) Net Income or Loss 139,466 207,445 167,088 168,146 179,057 205,587 10) Bond Debt Retired (45,000) (45,000) 11) Depeciation Add. -. back ........................................... ............................... 253, 574 ......................... 233, 447 ......... ..........264,898. 305,000 305,000 305,000 1 Year :: 2 . End of [ny : >::: > 953 .:. 565 $4,0$0,051 ::':$4 6,197 $4;079;253 $4;1;42,841 !! Restricted Inv 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3 Unrestricted Inv 729 511,565 330,051 316,197 379,253 442,841 See attached footnotes co • • +� PUBUTIL\watrat93:dfs Water Utility: Construct Reservoir in 1994 W4 05- Nov -92 1991 :; 1992 4993"1.1. 1994 1995 1'996 EXPENDITURES 1) Operations Personal Service 233,744 340,000 340,000 350,200 360,706 371,527 Contractual 251,903 140,000 144,200 148,526 152,982 157,571 Supplies & Materials 94,945 90,000 92,700 95,481 98,345 101,296 Heat, Light & Power 116,516 160,000 168,000 176,400 185,220 194,481 Interest on Debt 3,695 1,855 0 0 264,000 256,000 State Connection Surcharge 0 0 69,150 46,100 46,100 46,100 Depredation Expense 253,574 233,447 264,898 305,000 305,000 305,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $954377 $965,302 $1078,948 $1,121707 $1,412,353 $1,431,975 REVENUES 2) Billing Revenues $675,708 $844,800 $969,000 $1,045,500 1,185,750 1,249,500 Bi Ilable water in MGAL 1,184,359 1,320,000 1,275,000 1 1,275, 000 1,275,000 DATE :PER 1000 $0.64 $0 .76 $0.82 $0.93 $0.98'. 3) Miscellaneous Operating 27,714 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 4) Miscellaneous Non - operating 45,587 15,000 15,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5) 1/2 Interest Earnings (Phased Out By 1996) 1 172,417 115,179 69,491 40,247 200,134 151,808 TOTAL REVENUES $921,426 $999,979 $1,078,491 $1,120,747 $1,420,884 $1,436,308 PRWE' TED: N tO C I .COME t3R L.:. :S :....:': >`' > << $32,951 $34,677 $457 $960 $8;531 $4,333 6 1/2 Interest Earnings 100% by 1996 172 172,768 162,145 160 0 0 N ET _ 0 0 $139,486 $27,4 $161,688 $y 6Q,026': $$;531 $4,333`. 1951 ;:: 1;992. 19:93 1994 ;:'1995 : 1996 EFFECT ON CASH & INVESTMENTS: 7) Start of Year Cash & Inv $5,064,602 $4,429,953 $4,211,565 $4,024,651 $4,002,677 $3,795,207 8) Capital Outlay (950,383) (614,280) (613,500) (487,000) (421,000) (447,000) 9) Net Income or Loss 139,466 207,445 161,688 160,026 8,531 4,333 10) Bond Debt Retired (45,000) (45,000) (100,000) (100,000) 11) Depeciation Add- back 253, 574 233,,447 264,898 305,000 305,000 305,000 12 En e d of Y ar..Cash &Inv $4,429,95 $4,211,585 $4,024,651 $.4 02,677 $3;,795,;207 $3,557,540', Restricted Inv 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 Unrestricted Inv 729 511,565 324,651 302,677 95,207 142,460 See attached footnotes 0 ! t WATER UTILITY FOOTNOTES:. 1. Operations Personal service: The costs of full and part time labor and benefits. Contractual service: Administrative costs such as LOGIS charges, postage, insurance, administrative services, and contracted repairs. Supplies and materials: Office supplies, repair and maintenance supplies, safety equipment, water traetment chemicals. Heat, light, and power: NSP and Minnegasco charges for well houses, booster pumps, etc. Interest on debt: Interest and fiscal fees on bond payments. Depreciation expense: A method of financing fixed assets over the anticipated life of the asset. Straight -line depreciation is used, meaning the asset is depreciated in equal installments. Any new fixed asset ( such as a new water main) is added to the total for the fixed asset category (mains and lines, structures, equipment, land, and construction in progress). Any addition or repair to an existing fixed asset that adds to the life of the asset (such as well repair) is also added. 2. Billing Revenues Billable water: Approximately 98 percent of water pumped is billed out. The remainder is used by utilities crews to flush hydrants, mains, etc. with less than one percent unaccounted for. After two years of higher than average pumping, it is expected that 1990 water use will be more like 1985 -86 than 1988 -89. Because the number of residential connections is not expected toincrease substantially, it is assumed that billable water would increase at a modest one percent per year. 3. Misc. Operating Revenues Revenues from other fees and charges, such as meter rentals. 4. Misc. Non - operating Revenues Revenues from other sources. 5. 1/2 Interest Earnings Restricted and unrestricted assets are invested in the City's Investment Trust Fund. Interest is earned at about eight percent per year. I PROJECTED INCOME OR LOSS Operating revenues minus operating expenditures, plus 1/2 interest revenue. Numbers in parens are losses. 6. 1/2 Interest Earnings See #5 above. I NET INCOME OR LOSS Projected operating Income or loss, plus 1/2 interest income. A positive is a net gain in retained earnings, while a negative is a net loss to the fund. 7. Start of Year Cash & The sum of restricted and unrestricted ( "cash on hand ") assets. Investments 8. Capital Outlay The estimated cost of anticipated capital projects. 9. Net Income or Loss From above; the net operating impact on the fund. 10. Bond Debt Retired Annual bond payment. 11. Depreciation Add -back Depreciation is "added back" because it is not a true cash outlay. Because it is treated as an expense for rate - setting purposes, some capital outlay is paid for from water charges, and the outlays in excess of that are paid from cash reserves. 12. End of Year Cash & The sum of restricted and unrestricted assets, after considering #8 -11. p Investments Restricted Assets: $3.7 million reserved for partial funding of a future water treatment plant. p Unrestricted Assets: All non - restricted assets. "Cash on hand." o M N 21 ISSUE: WATER FEES & CHARGES Issue: Whether to amend any fees and charges in the water utility rate schedule. BACKGROUND The water utility rate schedule contains a number of fees and charges in addition to rates for service. The following list describes each fee or charge and its current level and describes any recommended amendment. FEES A. 5/8" x 3/4" WATER METER Property owners are currently charged $40.00 for a water meter when a water account is opened with the City. The City then buys the water meter from the property owner when the water account is closed, and the new owner is then charged for the water meter when the new account is opened. Since most of the water meters in the City are of this size, it is administratively convenient to charge the same fee to all accounts. The cost of water meters has increased, and is expected to increase further. It is recommended that this fee be increased to $50. B. 3/4" OR LARGER WATER METER Property owners requiring water meters larger than the standard residential water meter are charged the cost of the meter plus a $2.00 administrative fee. Since there are far fewer of the larger meters, it is not as difficult to administer the buy -back of the water meters. C. FIRE PROTECTION INSPECTION Property owners with fire sprinkler systems are charged an annual fire inspection fee of $50.00 to test the fire sprinkler system. D. PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANT MAINTENANCE Property owners who have privately owned fire hydrants located on their property are billed • the cost of labor, materials, equipment and overhead whenever the City performs maintenance of their fire hydrants. 22 CHARGES A. DELINQUENT ACCOUNT CHARGE The present delinquent account charge is $3.00 or 10 percent of the utility bill. It applies to the bill as a whole. B. CERTIFICATION TO TAXES The special assessment service charge for delinquent accounts recovers the cost of certification with the County Auditor of the delinquent amounts to taxes. The charge is $25 and applies to the bill as a whole. C. RESTORATION OF SERVICE - MONDAY TO FRIDAY, EXCEPT HOLIDAYS, BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:30 A.M. TO 3:00 P.M. The restoration of service charge during working hours is $25.00, and includes the cost of one hour labor, labor additive, and vehicle rental. It is charged in all instances where a customer's water has been turned off, whether by a customer's request or for non - payment of utility bills. D. RESTORATION OF SERVICE - ANYTIME SATURDAYS, SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS AND BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 3:00 P.M. AND 7:30 P.M. ON MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY EXCEPT HOLIDAYS Restoration of service during off hours is much more expensive because Public Utility employees are called back to work for a minimum of two hours at overtime pay. The restoration of service charge is $75.00 during these hours. E. DELINQUENT METER READING The delinquent meter reading charge is designed to motivate water customers into reading their own meter and forwarding the meter reading card to the City for billing. The current charge is $2.00. The City Council on October 26, 1992 approved the discontinuation of yearly on -site meter reading by City staff and reliance on meter reading cards. This policy change increases the importance of timely return of the cards. It is recommended that this charge be increased, to underscore this importance. The recommended charge is: $2.00 the first and second consecutive time; $5.00 the third time; and $10 the fourth time. After four quarters, the customer must either submit a reading card or schedule a meter reading, or face water shutoff. This recommended increase is in line . with penalties charged by other area cities. 23 F. WATER HOOKUP CHARGE Properties that have never been assessed, or not fully assessed for water are charged a hookup charge when water hookup is requested. The charge is intended to cover the cost of the lateral water main, supply, and trunk capital investment in the water system. It is calculated on a per lot basis for single family residential and on a linear foot plus square foot basis for all other properties. It is established annually by resolution. G. HYDRANT METER CHARGES The hydrant meter charges are for meters that attach to fire hydrants used as a temporary water connection, usually for construction projects. The City has two sizes of hydrant meters, 5/8" x 3/4" and 2 /z ". The charges for the smaller meter include $100.00 deposit, $1.00 per day rental, $20.00 minimum charge, and the cost of the water used at the prevailing water rate. The charges for the larger meter include $700.00 deposit, $7.00 per day rental or $100.00 per month rental, $35.00 minimum charge and the cost of water used at the prevailing water rate. H. CURB STOP STAND PIPE REPAIR City crews are called on to repair curb stop stand pipes for private properties due to damage or settling. In cases where the curb stop stand pipe is bent or otherwise damaged, a • substantial amount of time can be involved in repair. A standard charge of $40.00 is charged for each curb stop stand pipe repair. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the fees and charges portion of the water utility rate schedule be approved as amended. 24 • ISSUE: SANITARY SEWER RATES ISSUE: Whether sanitary sewer rates established for 1993 need to be amended. BACKGROUND The City Council on October 7, 1991 adopted Resolution 91 -245, which established sanitary sewer rates for 1992 and 1993. The Council annually reviews established rates for their adequacy and makes adjustments as necessary. In 1992, the Council approved a policy change regarding the use of interest earnings to subsidize rates. Previously, one half of interest earnings were used to offset operating costs; starting in 1992, this subsidy is being phased out 20 percent per year. SANITARY SEWER UTILITY FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE, 1991 AND 1992 OPERATING COSTS Operating costs in 1991 were lower than expected, primarily for two reasons. First, the $80,000 expended for emergency repair of a collapsed sanitary sewer line near lift station #1 was transferred from an operating cost to a capital outlay. Second, the bump in depreciation from retiring old lift station #2 was delayed from 1991 to 1992, due to the timing of the completion of the project. The final MWCC charge was slightly higher than expected. Operating costs in 1992 are expected to be greater than 1992. Depreciation will be up, due to lift station #2, and MWCC charges are expected to total about $90,000 more than 1991. REVENUES Revenues are estimated to be slightly lower than expected, due mainly to reduced interest earnings from lower interest rates. CAPITAL OUTLAYS Substantial outlays were made in 1991 and 1992 on four major projects: the construction of new lift station #2; replacement of sanitary mains under I94/694 and near the Brookdale Shopping Center; and the sanitary main improvements associated with the 69th Avenue street improvement project. 25 REVIEW OF ESTABLISHED RATE INCREASES, 1993 AND 1994 • PROJECTED EXPENSES Personnel and utility expenses are projected to increase at three percent per year, while other operating expenses are projected to increase five percent per year. A new expense, the State Connection Surcharge, is discussed separately. Table 1 on the following page details the program of capital improvements outlined in the Capital Improvements Program. The MWCC charge for 1993 is now expected to be substantially lower than what was estimated last year. This is because MWCC advised estimating 1993 charges assuming a six percent increase in rates, plus an additional one to two percent for I/I (inflow and infiltration) increases to sewage flows. The actual 1993 rate increase was three percent, and I/I apparently was less than expected. RATE SETTING CONSIDERATIONS The schedule at the end of this report labelled SS 1 shows the projected effect of the existing rate schedule. No rates for 1994 or 1995 have been officially established, so the schedule shows the rates continuing at even increases. Because MWCC charges will be substantially less than what was expected, the rate increase for 1993 which would be necessary to simply finance operating costs would be less than the established rate increase. While adequately meeting operating costs is a major financial goal in the consideration of proper utility rates, equally important is the maintenance of adequate capital reserves to finance necessary capital improvements. The sanitary sewer fund has financed several major capital improvements in the past few years, and several major projects are contemplated for the coming few years. Each of these projects are necessary improvements. While in preparing a capital improvement program they may be moved from one year to another, these major projects must be undertaken in order to maintain the integrity of the system. Among these improvements are the reconstruction of another aging lift station and replacement of considerable sections of corrugated metal sewer main. This main is of the same type as that that collapsed near lift station #1 and which was recently replaced under I94/694 and near Brookdale Shopping Center. As schedule SS indicates, existing rate increases are more than adequate to meet operational financial goals. If operations were the only consideration, then the rate increase for 1993 could be considerably reduced, as shown on schedule SS2. However, with the very large capital outlays expected in the next few years, SS2 would result in capital reserves falling precariously low. Schedule SS shows the unrestricted reserves falling to only about $150,000. Given the magnitude of the expected capital outlays, at least some of the capital cost must be funded by rates; the capital reserves cannot afford to pay the entire cost. RECOMMENDATION Given the policy discussion above, the Council should consider a rate increase which would be sufficient to support some portion of the capital improvement program. It is recommended that the TABLE 1 - Capital Improvement Program - Detail of Capital Outlays Sanitary Sewer Utility Capital Improvements 05- Nov -92 199rt 1992. 1993 1.994 >< 1995 19962000 FUN) EXPENDITURES: All san sewer utiii LIFT STATIONS Replace Lift Station #2 154,500 517,700 0 Lift #1 Rehab, Replace Forcemain 600,000 0 Intrac /Motorola Update 90,000 0 Lift #1 Driveway 26,855 Replace Lifts #8 & #9 220,000 SEWER REPLACEMENT: 69th Avenue, Brooklyn Blvd to Drew 337,000 0 53rd Avenue (By Brookdale 10 Apts) 32,000 0 James Avenue (55th to the South) 70,000 0 69th Avenue to Lift Station #1 250,000 750,000 0 1- 94/694 220,132 0 Replace Sewer Line at Brookdale 139,456 MISCELLANEOUS Annual Televising Program 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 40,000 1/1 Remediation Program 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 100,000 FACILITIES & EQUIPMENT 0 Garage Remodelling 50,000 0 Computer Hardware & Software 6,000 0 Pickups 10,000 0 Mobile Emergency Pump 30,000 0 Sewer Jet/Vacter (shared w/ Storm Drainage) 80,000 0 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Neighborhood Street improvements 261,000 326,000 326,000 1,630,000 57th Avenue, Logan to Lyndale 4,000 0 63rd Avenue, W City Umits to Brooklyn Blvd 5,000 0 Noble Avenue, Brooklyn Blvd to N City Umits 1,000 0 69th Avenue, Shingle Creek Pkwy to Oliver 2,000 $182,500J$1,275,1431$1,219,0001 $640,0001$1,110,0001 $1,992,000 FUND SOURCES: Sanitary Sewer Utility 182,500 1,275,143 1,219,000 640,000 1,110,000 1,992,000 TOTAL $182,5001 $1,275,1431 $ 0001 $1,992,000 rn 27 Council adopt the rates shown on schedule SS1, the current rate schedule. This option would provide some protection for the utility cash reserves. This would be a 12 percent increase. TABLE 2 SANITARY SEWER UTILITY BASE RATE SCHEDULE RATE - SETTING OPTIONS YEAR SS1: Established Rate SS2: Expenses =Revenues Residential Per 100 Gal Residential Per 100 Gal 1992 $35.75 $1.43 $35.75 $1.43 1993 40.00 1.60 36.25 1.45 1994 42.50 1.70 40.25 1.61 1995 45.00 1.80 42.50 1.70 IMPACT OF RECOMMENDED RATE INCREASE Table 3 below illustrates the impact the recommended rate increase would have on the summer sanitary sewer bills of various types of customers. TABLE 3 IMPACT OF RECOMMENDED SANITARY SEWER BASE RATE INCREASE SUMMER UTILITY BILLS OF VARIOUS CUSTOMERS Type of Customer 1992 Charge 1993 Charge RFII�ENTIAL Senior $19.66 $22.00 Residential 35.75 40.00 Apartment, 36 Units 901.08 1,008.00 GOlYIMERCIAL ... . Car Dealership $336.05 $376.00 Heavy Commercial Use 1,235.52 1,382.40 28 Table 4 is a summary of 1992 or 1993 sanitary sewer rates per 1000 gallons for a number of Metro area cities. Brooklyn Center continues to have one of the lower rates in the area. TABLE 4 1993 QUARTERLY SANITARY SEWER OF VARIOUS METRO AREA CITIES (CONVERTED TO QUARTERLY RATE WHERE NECESSARY) CITY PER CITY PER QUARTER QUARTER Hopkins $61.60 Brooklyn Park $32.00 Minneapolis 54.20 Crystal 30.00 Anoka 50.75 Minnetonka 29.60 New Hope 44.50 Fridley 28.35 New Brighton 43.60 Richfield 26.40 Plymouth 40.40 Bloomington 25.20 BROOKLYN 40.00 Robbinsdale 23.60 CENTER Blaine 33.00 Golden Valley 22.00 PUBUTIL:sewrat93/dfs Sewer Utility Current Rates SS1 01 - Nov -92 ... ....... 1. 1993:...: .1 994 ;.:; EXPENDITURES 1) Operations Personal Service 135,521 220,000 226,600 233,398 240,400 247,612 Contractual Service 191,966 60,000 63,000 66,150 69,458 72,930 Supplies & Materials 19,685 11,000 11,550 12,127 12,734 13,371 Heat Light, & Power 16,933 19,000 19,950 20,948 21,995 23,095 Depreciation Expense 127,973 194,879 124,652 214,000 214,000 214,000 Subtotal: City O&M Expense $492,078.00 $504,879.00 $445,752.00 $546,623.00 $558,586.19 $571,007,50 MWCC Charges $1,348,313.00 $1,444,165.00 $1,437,800.00 $1,524,068.00 $1,615,512.08 $1,712,442.801 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,840,391.00 $1,949,044.00 $1,883,552.00 $2,070,691.00 $2,174,098.27 $2,283,450.31 REVENUES 2) Billing Revenues $1,697,886 $1,794,917 $2,015,683 $2,147,911 $2,281,053 $2,415,141 Residential Accts 6,865 6,845 6,815 . 6,790 6,765 6,740 X....; X .......... 0 : . ............ 5 .... ... ........... . . ... ....... . 9.4Z .......... .... ... ........ Senior Accts 1,600 1,625 1 1,675 1,700 1,725 X........ ...... $2613 I ...... h , y A .......... .... .. " " 1 '* . .. . . ..... ......... .. . ........ ................... *. � 9 Apartment Accts 3,537 3,545 3,545 545 3, 545 Quarterly Charge $22.05 $29.03 $28.00 $29.75 $31.50 $33.25 Non-residential Water 230,000 234,600 239,300 244,100 249,000 254,000 0:. $1.90 A. . . .... ftAt. Iftf : 'd ......... ................ ... ... 3) Miscellaneous Operating 41,884 25,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 4) Miscellaneous Non-operating 1,373 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5) Interest Earnings (Phased Out By 1996) 146,997 95,894 45,021 19,364 8,492 TOTAL REVENUES $1,888,140 $1,925,811 $2,080,705 $2,187,275 $2,309,546 $2,435,141_ $ : 35 44 7 .. ........ .. . 743 XX .. 1.51: 69Q� j .23 .. $ 47 C. . - T. ($ 6) Interest Earnings (1 00% By 1996) 146,997 143,840 105050 77,457 76,430 50,917 . ............... 87 ED 0 ss 12G. 97 $194 071. M ..... 8 EFFEC ON CASH & INVESTMENTS 7) Start of Year Cash & Inv $3,661,206 $3,688,214 $2,728,560 $1,936,414 $1,698,455 $1,018,333 8) Capital Outlay (383,390) (1,275,140) (1,219,000) (646,000) (1,106,000) (354,000) 9) Net Income or Loss 194,745 120,607 302,202 194,041 211,878 202,607 10) Depreciation Add-back 127,973 194,879 124,652 214,000 214,000 214,000 .............. ............... .94U . . .. .. ...... $1 ii X. Restricted Investments 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 Unrestricted Investments 3,388,214 2,428,560 1,636,414 1,398,455 718,333 780,940 See footnotes attached PUbUTIL:sewrat93 /dfs Sewer Utility : Operating Expenses = Operating Revenues SS2 01- Nov -92 :.;;.:•:.;.:...:.. _ ....._ :1......_ ......:. ....:1.9 5 ... ;> .: 49 EXPENDITURES 96 1) Operations Personal Service 135,521 220,000 226,600 233,398 240,400 247,612 Contractual Service 191,966 60,000 63,000 66,150 69,458 72,930 Supplies & Materials 19,685 11,000 11,550 12,127 12,734 13,371 Heat, Ught, & Power 16,933 19,000 19,950 20,948 21,995 23,095 Depreciation Expense 127,973 194,879 124,652 214,000 214,000 214,000 Subtotal: City O &M Expense $492,078.00 $504,879.00 $445,752.00 $546,623.00 $558,586.19 $571,007.50 MWCC Charges $1,348,313.00 $1,444,165.00 $1,437,800.00 $ 1,524,068.00 $1,615,512.08 $1,712,442.80 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,840,391.00 $1 $1,883 $2 $2 $2,283,450.31 REVENUES 2) Billing Revenues $1,697,886 $1 $1,826,713 $2,034,198 $2,154,328 $2,262,606 Residential Accts 6,865 6,845 6,815 6,790 6,765 6,740 X1..50...... 36,25 40 25 5 $44.5G y........ 9 ............................. . ....:..................:...... ........ ... ........$ ......... ............_ .. .... _ ........ ..:..:.......: $42.0 $4 5 . Senior Accts 1,600 1,625 1,650 1,675 1,700 1 r 6;> 9 2. 4u tart char <> : > `<; >: >':> :. " >,..<:. ".. a 6 1 .9 3 ':s Y ..... ..9 ....... .........:.::.:...... ...:.::::..: ...::.:. $17.33 .. $ $. 4 A $. 2.14 $2 , ,3 $24.48 Apartment Accts 3,537 3,523 3,545 3,545 3,545 3,545 Quarterly Charge $22.05 $25.03 $25.38 $28.18 $29.75 $31.15 Non - residential Water 230,000 234,600 239,300 244,100 249,000 254,000 ELATE P.EFt ! Of10 GAL . >'.'<'::::::.. .... .. ....... . $1!,5 > $1 43 $1:45 $1,1;61 $1.70 $1.78 :! i 3) Miscellaneous Operating 41,884 25,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 4) Miscellaneous Non - operating 1,373 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5) Interest Earnings (Phased Out By 1996) 146,997 95,894 45,021 17,474 6,932 TOTAL REVENUES $1,888 $1,925 $1 $2 . $2 , 181 , 260 $2,282,606 P O ECT D INCO: R E MER.. Q .$...........: >.:;.::;:: »:::::: 23 2.3 182 .......... ............................... ............ ....$?�.. ........ $... , .... $$., 6 Interest Earnings 100% By 1996 146,997 143,840 105,050 69 62 385 28 N':ET INCOME OR LOSS . >` ` >< <<' < > < <:_: :: <' 74:5. ... 120 67:> 113>232 :; 70879 6 3 ! ......................... $.......y ...... ... .. $.. 0 ......... _ $ _, $69,54 $27, 49. ...... ........................ .. _. ::.: 993 ; 1;994 .. ;. '1:995. 199& EFFECT ON CASH & INVESTMENTS 7) Start of Year Cash & Inv $3,661,206 $3,688,214 $2,728,560 $1,747,444 $1,386,323 $563,869 8) Capital Outlay (383,390) (1,275,140) (1,219,000) (646,000) (1,106,000) (354,000) 9) Net Income or Loss 194,745 120,607 113,232 70,879 69,546 27,349 10) Depreciation Add -back 127 ,973 194, 879 124,652 214,000 214,000 214,000 End of Y�rsh :. }.....:;.;:. >;:::::;.:::.; ::.::.::::: ::::::::::..:.:....:..:........ ::..:.:.$3..:.::...... t.:.:....:::. $ �.: 6.:: $ ,74.x. $1 38 323. _ 63 $69 218' ,...........� ................. ...... ......�. _ ........ . $5 Restricted Investments '300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300 Unrestricted Investments 3.388,214 2,428 1 447 444 1,086 263 869 151 See footnotes attached W 0 SANITARY SEWER UTILITY FOOTNOTES: 1. Operations Personal service: The costs of full and part time labor and benefits. Contractual service: Administrative costs such as LOGIS charges, postage, insurance, administrative services, and contracted repairs. Supplies and materials: Office supplies, repair and maintenance supplies, safety equipment, degreaser, uniform cleaning. Heat, light, and power: NSP and Minnegasco charges for lift stations, etc. Depreciation expense: A method of financing fixed assets over the anticipated life of the asset. Straight -line depreciation is used, meaning the asset is depreciated in equal installments. Any new fixed asset ( such as a new lift station) is added to the total for the fixed asset category (mains and lines, structures, equipment, land, and construction in progress). Any addition or repair to an existing fixed asset that adds to the life of the asset (such as sewer line repair) is also added. MWCC charges: Charge by MWCC, based on sewage flow. 2. Billing Revenues Residential accounts: The quarterly fee is calculated by multiplying the number of accounts by the average water use of 274 gallons per day times 365 days, divided by 1000. That total flow is multiplied by the rate per 1000 gallons, for the total residential charge. That total is divided by the number of accounts, then by four for a quarterly charge. Senior accounts: Seniors may request the senior sewer rate, which is 55% of the residential rate. Accounts are assumed to increase by 25 per year. Apartment Accounts: Apartments are charged 70% of the residential rate per unit. Non - residential water: Commercial and other non - residential accounts are charged based on actual water consumption in the winter quarters. 3. Misc. Operating Revenues Revenues from other fees and charges, such as meter rentals. 4. Misc. Non - operating Revenues Revenues from other sources. 5. 1/2 Interest Earnings Restricted and unrestricted assets are invested in the City's Investment Trust Fund. Interest is earned at about eight percent per year. PROJECTED INCOME OR LOSS Operating revenues minus operating expenditures, plus 1/2 interest revenue. Numbers in parens are losses. 6. 1/2 Interest Earnings See #5 above. NET INCOME OR LOSS Projected operating income or loss, plus 1/2 interest income. A positive is a net gain in retained earnings, while a negative is a net loss to the fund. 7. Start of Year Cash & The sum of restricted and unrestricted ( "cash on hand ") assets. Investments 8. Capital Outlay The estimated cost of anticipated capital projects. 9. Net Income or Loss From above; the net operating impact on the fund. 10. Bond Debt Retired Annual bond payment. 11. Depreciation Add -back Depreciation is "added back" because it is not a true cash outlay. Because it is treated as an expense for rate- setting purposes, some capital outlay is paid for from water charges, and the outlays in excess of that are paid from cash reserves. 12. End of Year Cash & The sum of restricted and unrestricted assets, after considering #8 -11. Investments 0 Restricted Assets: $3.7 million reserved for partial funding of a future water treatment plant. M Unrestricted Assets: All non - restricted assets. "Cash on hand." 0 w � ~ N 32 ISSUE: SANITARY SEWER FEES & CHARGES Issue: Whether to amend any fees and charges in the sanitary sewer utility rate schedule. BACKGROUND The sanitary sewer utility rate schedule contains a number of fees and charges in addition to rates for service. The following list describes each fee or charge and its current level and describes any recommended amendment. FEES The only fee for sanitary sewer service is the SAC (Service Availability Charge) unit charge, which is established by MWCC. This fee goes directly to MWCC. CHARGES A. DELINQUENT ACCOUNT CHARGE The present delinquent account charge is $3.00 or 10 percent of the utility bill. It applies to the bill as a whole. B. CERTIFICATION TO TAXES The special assessment service charge for delinquent accounts recovers the cost of certification with the County Auditor of the delinquent amounts to taxes. The charge is $25 and applies to the bill as a whole. C. LINE CLEANING CHARGE The line cleaning charge recovers the cost of cleaning City sanitary sewer lines due to misuse by the property owner. The most common infraction is grease build -up due to improper sewering of restaurant greases. The charge is actual labor, materials, equipment, and overhead. D. SANITARY SEWER HOOKUP CHARGE Properties that have never been assessed, or not fully assessed for sanitary sewer, are charged a hookup charge when water hookup is requested. The charge is intended to cover the cost of �3 the lateral sanitary sewer main and is calculated on a linear foot basis. It is established annually by resolution. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the fees and charges portion of the water utility rate schedule be approved as presented. 34 ISSUE: STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY RATES ISSUE: Whether storm drainage utility rates established for 1993 need to be amended. BACKGROUND The City Council on October 7, 1991 adopted Resolution 91 -246, which established storm drainage utility rates for 1992 and 1993. The Council annually reviews established rates for their adequacy and makes adjustments as necessary. The City's consultants, Bonestroo, Rosene, and Anderlik (BRA) are in the process of finalizing their initial study of the City's storm drainage system. This study, which is the basis of the City's Local Water Management Plan, is to review all aspects of the system, including maintenance and capital improvement needs. A detailed proposed expenditure plan cannot be developed until this local plan is complete. By the time the 1993 rate study is to be reviewed, the complete needs should be known. These needs will be prioritized during the second half of 1993 and into 1994. An essential part of that prioritization process will be the development of a financial plan, which will be implemented in 1994 and subsequent years. • Some major projects have already been identified. The Council has already determined that a high priority project is addressing the severe drainage problems in the 63rd /Halifax /Indiana Avenues area. Improvement options ranging in cost from $237,000 to $3 million have been developed. Storm drainage components of several street improvement projects have also been identified. Table 1 on the following page details the program of capital improvements outlined in the Capital Improvements Program. OPTIONS The schedule labelled SD1 shows the financial impact of the existing rate schedule. This schedule includes no specific Local Plan projects. The cash reserves built up in the utility fund would be available to help fund future improvements, and be the basis of a financing plan to be developed in 1993 and 1994. Schedule SD2 assumes that the 63rd Avenue drainage project would be begun in 1993. It assumes what BRA identified as "Option 2," the construction of a detention pond on Brooklyn Boulevard. This project would be implemented in two phases. In 1993, it is proposed to purchase the property on which the pond is to be built. Actual construction would occur in 1994. This option assumes another rate increase in 1994, and may require some internal borrowing, or careful timing of cash flows. • TABLE 1 - Capital Improvement Program - Detail of Capital Outlays Storm Drainage Utility Capital Improvements 03- Nov -92 1 ;991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 -2000 FU "ND SOURCE All Storm Drainage EXPENDITURES: Utility Repair or Replace Defective Sections of System 80,000 80,000 80,000 400,000 Watershed Commission Capital Improvements 26,500 100,000 Miscellaneous Improvements (oversizing, etc.) 36,500 7,500 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 Water Quality Improvement Projects* 50,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 FACILITIES & EQUIPMENT 0 Street Sweeper 64,700 0 Sewer Jet/Vacter 80,000 0 Computer Hardware & Software 1,500 0 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Neighborhood Street Improvements 180,000 344,000 344,000 1,720,000 57th Avenue, Logan to Lyndale 326,000 0 63rd Avenue, W Qty Limits to Brooklyn Blvd 135,000 0 Noble Avenue, Brooklyn Blvd to N City Limits 0 0 69th Avenue, Shingle Creek Pkwy to Oliver 45,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ $73,7001 $355,000 1 $975,000 1 $704 $2,990,000 FUND SOURCES: Storm Drainage Utility 63,000 73,700 355,000 975,000 704,000 2,990,000 TOTAL $63 $73 $355 000 $975 000 1 $704,0001 $2,990 *If the 63rd Avenue Drainage project is constructed as discussed, in 1993 this item would be $250,000 and in 1994 $363,000. a� Ln 36 RECOMMENDATION The Council has identified the 63rd Avenue drainage problem as a high priority project. In r to g p g ode P yp r J accomplish that project, as well as the other projects identified for 1993, it is necessary to increase the rates. It is therefore recommended that the rate increase already established for 1993 be implemented as planned. Rates for the various classes of property would be increased as follows: TABLE 2 RECOMMENDED 1993 STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY RATES Classification /Land Use 1992 1993 BASE RATE $18.00 $24.00 l: Cemeteries, Golf Courses 4.50 6.00 2: Parks 9.00 12.00 3: Single Family, Duplex, Townhouse 4.50 /lot 6.00 /lot 4: Schools, Government Buildings 22.50 30.00 5: Multiple Family, Churches 54.00 72.00 6: Commercial and Industrial 90.00 120.00 • 7: Vacant Land As As Assigned I Assigned. Table 3 details the quarterly storm drainage charges of several area cities for residential properties. TABLE 3 1993 RESIDENTIAL STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY RATES CITY QUARTERLY CITY QUARTERLY RATE RATE Bloomington $7.80 New Hope $3.75 Hopkins 7.50 Robbinsdale 100 Richfield 7.20 Crystal 2.25 BROOKLYN CENTER 6.00 Fridley 1.75 Roseville 4.38 Golden Valley 1.00 PURATES:sdurat93\dfs Storm Drainage Utility: Current Rates S D 1 04- Nov -92 '[ 994 E 995 1996 EXPENDITURES 1) Operations $116,688 $210,868 $163,581 $150,000 $152,500 $155,000 Storm Sewer Maintenance 40,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 Street Sweeping 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 Watershed District Dues 36,688 34,868 33,581 45,000 47,500 50,000 Local Plan 0 75,000 25,000 0 0 0 Public Education 0 1,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 2) Capital Outlay $63,119 $73,700 $335,000 $955,000 $684,000 $614,000 Repair or Replace Defective Sections 0 0 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 Watershed /Miscellaneous Projects 63,119 7,500 25,000 25,000 25,000 45,000 Water Quality Improvement Projects 0 0 50,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Facilities & Equipment 0 66,200 0 80,000 0 0 Street Improvement Projects 0 0 180,000 670,000 479,000 389,000 Internal Borrowing 0 0 0 0 0 0 REVENUES TOTAL EXPENDITURES $179 $ 284 , 568 $498 $1 $836 $769 3) Billing Revenues $374,040 $468,000 $624,000 $702,000 $702,000 $702,000 REF Acres 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 Jj 0 .... $1 00 $24 00 $27 : :C;O $2 7 00 ;'! $27;00;; Residential rate per lot $3.00 $4.50 $6.00 $6.75 $6.75 $6.75 Schools & govt buildings per acre $15.00 $22.50 $30.00 $33.75 $33.75 $33.75 Multiple family & churches per acre $36.00 $54.00 $72.00 $81.00 $81.00 $81.00 Commercial and industrial per acre $60.00 $90.00 $120.00 $135.00 $135.00 $135.00 4) Interest Earnings 2 628 12,796 21,620 27,006 0 0 TOTAL REVENUES $ 376,668 $480 $645 $729 $702,000 $702 000 �....:LN : :.: �I�A�.:...:: E�:: � .:.. :.:.::...:..................... '�.�.... ��1.:..:..:...... $1:86.228... ;:..:::..., 14 039 3:75 99:4 <: _ .......................... .....�......................... .............�....... $ T,....::.. $134,500: $6'x,000 199.x ....... ..:: ........ 1992 ..:.:. 1993. ;:....... 1.:994 .1995.::.. 1996 EFFECT ON CASH & INVESTMENTS. 5) Start of Year Cash & Inv $0 $196,861 $393,089 $540,128 $164,134 $29,634 6) Net Income or Loss ,,,;; , ,,,,;, 196 861„ 196,228 147,039 375,994 134 500 67 000 7 ;L d t Yep { f:.:.:..::. C;.. ..�Ol >:...; :.:::: ::.:::.:,.•,••..::. .::.:::..f.$�:.: $88:3 08.9 $540:: 28 1:64 !:34 9 �. ...... $2 ($37,366 ;J J 0 • 0 PURATES:sdurat93 \dfs Storm Drainage Utility: Construct 63rd Avenue Project SD2 05- Nov -92 1992 996 1993 [994 1995 1 EXPENDITURES 1) Operations $116,688 $210,868 $163,581 $150,000 $152,500 $155,000 Storm Sewer Maintenance 40,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 Street Sweeping 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 Watershed District Dues 36,688 34,868 33,581 45,000 47,500 50,000 Local Plan 0 75,000 25,000 0 0 0 Public Education 0 1,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 2) Capital Outlay $63,119 $73,700 $535,000 $1,218,000 $992,866 $1,072,809 Repair or Replace Defective Sections 0 0 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 Watershed /Miscellaneous Projects 63,119 7,500 25,000 25,000 25,000 45,000 Water Quality Improvement Projects 0 0 250,000 363,000 100,000 100,000 Facilities & Equipment 0 66,200 0 80,000 0 0 Street Improvement Projects 0 0 180,000 670,000 479,000 389,000 Internal Borrowing 0 0 0 0 308,866 458,809 TOTALEXPEND/TURES $179,807 $284,568 $698,581 $1,368000 $1,145,366 $1,227,809 REVENUES 3) Billing Revenues $374,040 $468,000 $624,000 $702,000 $702,000 $702,000 REF Acres 6 500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 . BASE RATE PER ACRE $12 00 $18 00 $24 OQ! $2 ?00 $27.OQ $27.00; Residential rate per lot $3.00 $4.50 $6.00 $6.75 $6.75 $6.75 Schools & govt buildings per acre $15.00 $22.50 $30.00 $33.75 $33.75 $33.75 Multiple family & churches per acre $36.00 $54.00 $72.00 $81.00 $81.00 $81.00 Commercial and industrial per acre $60.00 $90.00 $120.00 $135.00 $135.00 $135.00 4) Interest Earnings 2,628 12,796 21,620 17,006 15.443) (22,940 TOTAL REVENUES $376,668 $480,796 $645 $719 $986 $679 PROJECTEd ME!. R SOS$ . : ` ;:. $196;061 ; $196,228 $52,961 40; $6994 $458,809 $548;749 1991;; 1:992 1993 - :::1994...' .. 19.95 1996.;!; EFFECT ON CASH & INVESTMENTS: 5) Start of Year Cash & Inv $0 $196,861 $393,089 $340,128 $0 $0 6) Net Income or Loss 196,861 196,228 (52,961) (648,994) (458,809) (548,749) 7j End of Year Cash Z Inv $340,128; $1'96,861 $093,089 ($308;866} {$450,809) ($540;749 W 39 ISSUE: WATER AND SANITARY SEWER HOOKUP RATES ISSUE: Annual inflationary increase to hookup rates. BACKGROUND Water hookup rates are adjusted annually to account for inflation. This year the change in the Twin Cities Consumer Price Index was 3.2 percent. Accordingly, the proposed water and sanitary sewer hookup rates for calendar year 1993 have been increased 3.2 percent. RECOMMENDATION Approve the following hookup rates: Type of Property /Assessment 1992 1993 WATER HOOKUP Single Family Residence With Service $3,094.80 $3,195.85 Single Family Residence Without Service 2,365.40 2,441.10 Frontage (front 135 feet) $31.54 per $32.55 per front foot front foot Area (area outside front 135 feet) $9.78 per 100 $10.10 per 100 square feet square feet Service Hookup $729.40 $752.75 SANITARY SEWER:.. IIO(JKtW . Frontage $18.34 per $18.93 per front foot front foot Service Hookup $729.40 $752.75 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE WATER UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, a municipal Public Utilities Division exists for the purpose of providing and maintaining water and sanitary sewer facilities for the citizens of the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, it is a requirement of the City Charter that the Public Utilities Division be a self - sustaining entity through revenue provided by a uniform schedule of rates, fees and charges; and WHEREAS, City of Brooklyn Center Ordinances state, "The City Council shall adopt by resolution schedules of water and sanitary sewer rates, fees, and charges which schedules shall be known as the Public Utilities Rate Schedule "; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that it is necessary to restrict $3.7 million of reserved investments within the Public Utilities Fund for the purpose of partial payment of the cost of constructing a water treatment facility. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the following Water Utility Rate Schedule be adopted with the first increase effective for all billings issued after January 1, 1993 and successive increases effective for all billings issued after January 1, 1994. WATER UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE 1. WATER RATES BASE RATE AMOUNT PER YEAR 1,000 GALLONS 1992 $0.64 1993 Proposed $0.73 1994 Proposed $0.82 RESOLUTION NO. QUARETERLY MINIMUM RATE 1992 QUARTERLY 1993 METER SIZE MINIMUM CHARGE CHARGE 5/8" X 3/4" $ 7 Same 3/4" $ 11 " 1" $ 14 " 1 1/2" $ 18 it 2 $ 35 it 3" $ 70 it 4 $119 it 6" $273 it 8" $515 " 10" $686 " 2. FEES PRESENT PROPOSED Water Meters 5/8" x 3/4" $40.00 $50.00 3/4" or larger Cost Plus $2.00 Same Fire Protection Inspection $50.00 Same Private Fire Hydrant Maintenance Labor, Materials Same Equipment and Overhead 3. CHARGES PRESENT PROPOSED Delinquent Account Greater of Quarterly $3.00 or 10% Same Certification to Taxes Per Account $25.00 Same Restoration of Service Monday to Friday Except Holidays Between the Hours of 7:30 A.M. and 3 :00 P.M. $25.00 Same Restoration of Service Anytime Saturday, Sunday and Holidays and Between the Hours of 3:00 P.M. and 7:30 A.M. on Monday Through Friday Except Holidays $75.00 Same RESOLUTION NO. 3. CHARGES (continued) PRESENT PROPOSED Delinquent Meter Reading $2.00 lst & 2nd qtr. Per Account $ 2.00 $5.00 3rd quarter $10.00 4th quarter (consecutive) Curb Stop Stand Pipe Repair $ 40.00 Same Hydrant Meters 5/8" x 3/4" Deposit $100.00 Same Daily Rental $ 1.00 Same Minimum Rental $ 20.00 Same 2 1/2" Deposit $700.00 Same Daily Rental $ 7.00 Same Monthly Rental $100.00 Same Minimum Rental $ 35.00 Same 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. ,t Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SANITARY SEWER UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, a municipal Public Utilities Division exists for the purpose of providing and maintaining water and sanitary sewer facilities for the citizens of the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, it is a requirement of the City Charter that the Public Utilities Division be a self - sustaining entity through revenue provided by a uniform schedule of rates, fees and charges; and WHEREAS, City of Brooklyn Center Ordinances state, "The City Council shall adopt by resolution schedules of water and sanitary sewer rates, fees, and charges which schedules shall be known as the Public Utilities Rate Schedule "; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that it is necessary to restrict $300,000 of reserved investments within the Public Utilities Fund for the purpose of paying the cost of unanticipated capital improvements. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the following Sanitary Sewer Utility Rate Schedule be adopted with the first increase effective for all billings issued after January 1, 1993 and successive increases effective for all billings issued after January 1, 1994. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City staff is directed to complete a rates study in 1993, or at any time previous to that, that staff is directed to conduct a study of water rates. SANITARY SEWER UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE 1. RATES QUARTERLY RESIDENTIAL RATES SINGLE SENIOR YEAR FAMILY APARTMENT CITIZEN 1992 $35.75 $25.03 $19.66 1993 Proposed $40.00 $28.00 $22.00 1994 Proposed $42.50 $29.75 $23.38 RESOLUTION NO. NON- RESIDENTIAL RATES PER 1,000 FIXTURE YEAR GALLONS UNITS 1992 $1.43 $2.25 1993 Proposed $1.60 $2.50 1994 Proposed $1.70 $2.75 2. FEE PRESENT PROPOSED SAC Charge Set by MWCC Set by MWCC 3. CHARGES PRESENT PROPOSED Delinquent Account Greater of Quarterly $3.00 or 10% Same Certification to Taxes Per Account $25.00 Same Line Cleaning Charge Labor, Materials Labor, Materials Equipment and Equipment and Overhead Overhead Sanitary Sewer Hookup Established Established Annually by Annually by Resolution Resolution Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, it is a requirement of the Brooklyn Center City Charter that Brooklyn Center's municipal utilities be self - sustaining entities through revenue provided by a uniform schedule of rates, fees, and charges; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has reviewed the financial requirements of the Storm Drainage Utility and has developed a recommended rate schedule. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the following schedule of Storm Drainage fees will be in effect as of January 1, 1993: CHARGE PER QUARTER PER ACRE CLASSIFI- CATION LAND USE 1992 1993 1994 Base Rate $18.00 $24.00 $27.00 1 Cemeteries, Golf Courses $4.50 $6.00 $6.75 2 Parks $9.00 $12.00 $13.50 3 Single Family, $4.50/ $6.00/ $6.75/ Duplex, Townhouse lot lot lot 4 Schools, Government $22.50 $30.00 $33.75 Buildings 5 Multiple Family, Churches $54.00 $72.00 $81.00 6 Commercial and Industrial $90.00 $120.00 $135.00 7 Vacant Land As As As Assigned Assigned Assigned RESOLUTION NO. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. �c y Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WATER AND SANITARY SEWER HOOKUP RATES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1993 WHEREAS, Resolution Nos. 74 -45 and 77 -113 provided for the annual adjustment of water assessment rates for non - single - family residential and single - family residential rates, respectively; and WHEREAS, said adjustment in water hookup rates is to be effective January 1 of each year; and WHEREAS, Resolution 88 -05 changed the month from which the annual price index change is to be calculated from October to July; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported to the City Council that the change in the Twin Cities Consumer Price Index from July, 1991 to July, 1992 was an increase of 3.2 percent; and WHEREAS, City policy, based on Village policy established in April, 1956, is to calculate the cost of sanitary sewer hookup based on the average cost of a lateral system of sanitary sewers for a standard Village lot. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the water and sanitary sewer hookup rates effective January 1, 1993 shall be as follows: Type of Property /Assessment 1992 Rate WATER HOOKUP Single Family Residence With Service $3,193.85 Single Family Resident Without Service $2,441.10 Frontage (front 135 feet) $32.55 per front foot Area (area outside front 135 feet) $10.10 per 100 square feet Service Hookup $752.75 SANITARY SEWER HOOKUP Frontage $18.93 per front foot Service Hookup $752.75 RESOLUTION NO. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 11/9/92 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: DISCUSSION ITEM ON JOINT DISPATCHING VENTURE AND RESOLUTION OF INTENT RELATING TO JOINT PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHING *************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Geralyn R. Barone, Personnel Coordinator MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMIVIENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ******************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X ) • The city council is being asked to discuss a proposal to consolidate the City's public safety answering and dispatch operations for the cities of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope, and Robbinsdale. If the council wishes to move towards participating in a joint venture in this area, the attached resolution of intent relating to joint public safety dispatching should be approved. A committee comprised of city managers, police chiefs, and fire chiefs has been meeting to determine the feasibility of creating a joint facility at one location. A study has been conducted by W. M. Montgomery and Associates to report on the possibility of joining resources with the intent of saving money and increasing efficiencies. A copy of this report is attached. The facility is proposed to be built in Golden Valley by expanding the lower level of the current public safety facility there or in a separate existing building in Crystal. The possible timetable for this project is as follows: STEP 1: November 1992 - Each of the five city councils should pass a resolution of intent indicating an initial commitment to .pursuing this project. STEP 2: December 1992 - Each participating city would enter into a joint powers agreement establishing an organization to provide joint public safety dispatching services. • STEP 3: December 1992 to February 1993 - Recruit and hire a public safety communications manager to oversee development of a new dispatching center and the hiring of personnel. • STEP 4: December 1992 to December 1993 - Complete facility plans, begin and complete facility construction. STEP 5: May to December 1993 - Recruit, hire and train public safety dispatch personnel. STEP 6: January 1994 - Facility opens and begins operation. The City would continue to have in -house equipment to communicate if needed, but there would not be a regularly scheduled 24 -hour dispatch operation located here. If the council approves the resolution of intent and enough other cities do so too, you will be asked in December to approve the joint powers agreement. It is anticipated that more definitive cost figures indicating the City's actual financial savings and commitment will be available at this time. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Discuss the joint public safety dispatch venture and approve a Resolution of Intent Relating to Joint Public Safety Dispatching. • qd, Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF INTENT RELATING TO JOINT PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHING WHEREAS, a committee of representatives of the cities of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, New Hope, Robbinsdale, and Golden Valley (Cities) have been discussing the possibility of establishing a joint public safety answering and dispatching facility for the five Cities (Project); and WHEREAS, a report (Report) on the financial and operational feasibility of the Project has been prepared by the committee and has been reviewed by the Council; and WHEREAS, based on a preliminary review of the Report, this Council finds and determines that the establishment of the Project, as proposed, is a desirable goal for the city and that significant efficiencies and economies in the delivery of public safety services in the Cities can be achieved by such a Project; and WHEREAS, an essential element of the Report is a recommendation that the Project be constructed, owned, and operated as a joint project by the Cities pursuant to the Minnesota Joint Powers Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59; and WHEREAS, the Council finds and determines that the conduct of the Project by the Cities under the Joint Powers Act is a reasonable and desirable concept and states its willingness to proceed with the necessary steps to conduct the Project in this manner. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the City Council approves in principle the concept of establishing the Project to be operated jointly by the Cities under the Joint Powers Act. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City Manager, City Attorney, and other City staff are authorized and directed to continue to develop recommendations for the Project and to report those recommendations to the Council. 2. The City Council states its present intent to enter into a joint powers agreement to establish the Project, provided that satisfactory arrangements as to location, financing, and operation of the Project are embodied in the joint powers agreement. RESOLUTION NO. 3. The City Council urges the other Cities to proceed with due diligence to participate in the successful establishment and operation of the Project. 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. { REPORT COMBINED PUBLIC SAFETY ANSWERING POINT BROOKLYN CENTER, CRYSTAL GOLDEN VALLEY, NEW HOPE ROBBINSDALE July 27, 1992 a W. M. Montgomery & Associates 18321 Ridgewood Road Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 (612) 470 -1099 TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION 1 BACKGROUND 1 Makeup of a PSAP 1 Siting 2 Existing Equipment' 2 Staffing 3 Current Wage & Equipment Maintenance Cost 3 Current Telephone Costs 5 PSAP Activity Levels 5 Staff Workload 6 Dispatcher Work Load Calculations 9 Staff Efficiencies 11 DETAILED STAFFING COST DATA 14 Existing Wage Structure 14 Total Wage Costs 14 Fringe Benefits 16 DETAILED TELEPHONE COST DATA 16 9 -1 -1 Network 17 PSAP Telephone Equipment Cost 17 Connecting Lines 18 7 Digit Numbers 18 Dedicated Lines & Alarm Monitoring 18 BENEFITS OF CONSOLIDATION 25 Reduced Cost of Infrastructure 25 Improve Coordination 26 ORGANIZATIONAL, STRUCTURAL & SITING ISSUES 27 Contract for Service Model 27 Joint Powers Model 27 Existing Staff 28 Management Considerations 28 Funding 29 In -Kind Equipment/Resource Contributions 29 W. M. Montgomery & Associates Minnetonka, Minnesota TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Paragraph Page RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 29 Coverage 30 Radio Channel Assignments 31 Dispatch Center Radio Equipment 31 Dispatch Center Consoles 32 Mobile/Portable Radio Modification 34 Pager Modification 35 Logging Recorder 35 EQUIPMENT CREDIT 36 MAINTENANCE 36 BUDGET 36 W. M. Montgomery & Associates Minnetonka, Minnesota EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S Montgomery & Associates was retained to investigate the financial and operational feasibility of consolidating public safety answering and dispatching operations (PSAPs) for the cities of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope, and Robbinsdale. The authors find: ■ a consolidated PSAP with six fewer dispatchers can handle all the traffic now carried by the four stand -alone PSAPs and save $111,400 per year in payroll cost. If a more conservative salary model is used .($12.00/hour), annual payroll savings of -$182,757 can be achieved. ■ the consolidated facility can maintain the same or higher level or service than now offered through individual PSAPs. ■ consolidation will make a mobile data terminal system and direct access to a state -of -the art computer aided dispatch /records management system economically feasible whereas cost of these systems probably cannot be justified by the individual cities. Efficiencies described in this report are accomplished by: a) eliminating duplication of 9 -1 -1 telephone equipment and radio dispatch consoles; b) pooling the efforts of dispatchers; c) raising the number of dispatchable incidents /year handled by each dispatcher. The underlying assumption of improved dispatcher efficiency in a consolidated environment is that existing dispatchers at their individual PSAPs are seldom all busy at the same time. Now, when a particular dispatcher is busy, there is no mechanism to distribute telephone and radio calls to a neighboring dispatcher who may be idle. Because many of the dispatchers are working alone some of the time special arrangements must be made to relieve them periodically. This represents a hidden cost which is difficult to measure. Physical separation of dispatchers is the limiting factor to work sharing. 9 -1 -1 call processing equipment now installed in each of the PSAPs is aging. This equipment was "turned on" ten years ago this fall. While still operating with acceptable reliability, contemporary 9 -1 -1 equipment provides more features and can be purchased outright - an option not available when the system was installed. Equipment purchased at current prices has a payback term of approximately 5 years compared to equipment now leased. Although not a cost saving which directly benefits the five communities, consolidation will also reduce the cost of 9 -1 -1 network facilities to the state of Minnesota. W. M. Montgomery & Associates Minnetonka, Minnesota Workload for dispatchers in the currently separated PSAPs is uneven despite similarities in community makeup and number of dispatch employees. Dispatcher activity ranges from approxi- mately 10 dispatchable incidents/day /dispatcher to 22 dispatchable incidents /day /dispatcher. Synergy of a consolidated PSAP will increase efficiency to 33 incidents /day /dispatcher. With proper employee selection and training these performance levels are readily achievable. Models for consolidated PSAP operation can be found in the Twin Cities area. Anoka County operates one PSAP for 22 jurisdictions using a front line staff of 26. Dispatch employees in Anoka County average 34 dispatchable incidents/day /dispatcher plus handle vehicle license, warrant, and hot file checks over the radio. Police officers in the five cities studied under this project use mobile data terminals whereas Anoka County officers do not enjoy this service. Even without a MDT system, the consolidated Anoka. communications center is dramatically more efficient than the stand -alone PSAPs studied here. Radio systems used by Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope, and Robbinsdale covers all five communities. While existing antenna locations probably would not have been used if the original intent were to provide area -wide coverage, there is no pressing need to move antennas to implement a consolidated PSAP. When all of the radio channels now used for police and fire dispatch are pooled, it will be possible to have separate police channels for dispatch, tactical, and information traffic. Fire departments will be able to enjoy separate dispatch and fire ground frequencies. Almost all mobile and portable radios can be modified at modest cost to incorporate all of the police and fire channels used by the five cities. The consolidated PSAP should be built around new console equipment, leaving existing consoles in place for casual radio communications with "home" departments. A second benefit of pur- chasing new radio consoles for a consolidated PSAP is avoidance of interruptions to service while the new facility is tested and debugged, as well as escaping electrical incompatibilities between the various brands and models of console equipment now in place. Finally, opportunities for new sources of revenue exist in the consideration of a consolidated dispatching facility. We estimate a minimum of $20,000 per year can be generated to offset cost of the cooperative PSAP. Alarm monitoring of private subscribers can be accomplished using new equipment installed in the PSAP. Alternately, actual monitoring can be left to alarm industry "central stations" but special equipment installed to facilitate electronic transmission of alarm information directly to the PSAP when a response is required. Both approaches can include extra fees for the, higher level of service offered. Front -end cost to implement a consolidated PSAP is estimated to be $801,000 including pur- chase of the old Norwest Bank building, remodeling, E -9 -1 -1 telephone equipment, new radio consoles, and modification of existing mobile /portable radios. This cost can be expected to be saved in five or six years of operation. W. M. Montgomery & Associates Minnetonka, Minnesota FINAL REPORT A COMBINED PUBLIC SAFETY ANSWERING POINT FOR BROOKLYN CENTER CRYSTAL GOLDEN VALLEY NEW HOPE ROBBINSDALE INTRODUCTION Montgomery & Associates was retained to investigate the- financial and operational feasibility of consolidating public safety answering and dispatching operations (PSAPs) for the cities of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope, and Robbinsdale. Work performed under this commission was scaled down by desire of city administrators from our original proposal. The instant project includes only an examination of feasibility for combined dispatch, probable cost savings, and estimated requirements for new or relocated radio and telephone equipment. Tasks which were originally proposed by Montgomery but eliminated in the instant project are: work to investigate candidate locations for the consolidated center(s); potential role for computer aided dispatch (CAD); suggested management strategy for the consolidated center(s); impact on command and control of field officers; 800 mHz trunked radio options; merit of mobile data terminals (MDT); public perceptions of the change; candidate funding mechanisms for the con- solidated center(s); and recommended action plan. Although work to investigate candidate loca- tions for a consolidated PSAP was eliminated from the project as a matter of contract, we ulti- mately had to give this matter some attention to give credence to feasibility and cost issues. Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Golden Valley, and Robbinsdale presently operate 24 hour - per -day PSAPs. New Hope receives dispatching services under a contract with Golden Valley. Cost to support these individual operations in 1991 totalled $886,346. More than 85 percent of this cost is allocated to payroll and fringe benefits. BACKGROUND - Makeup of a PSAP Our feasibility study examined three domains integral to PSAP operations. a) staffing used to operate the now separate facilities; b) equipment currently used as well as equipment required to operate a consolidated facility; W. M. Montgomery & Associates 1 Minnetonka, Minnesota ALL PSAPs — 1991 COST DISTRIBUTION Total expense $ 886,346 122% OTHER 14A% FRINGES 73A% WAGES W. M. Montgomery - 1992 GRAPt LOO C) cost of separate PSAPs versus estimated cost of a consolidated PSAP. We considered a scenario which consolidates four PSAPs into two PSAPs either as an interim or permanent measure. We discount this approach because duplication of staffing and equip- ment required with two PSAPs is significantly more expensive than operating one, consolidated PSAP. Si ins Cost is approximately equal to communicate with citizens by telephone from a common point anywhere in the five communities. Cost of control circuits for existing radio equipment is approximately equal for a dispatch center located anywhere in these cities. While there appears to be no cost advantage to locating a consolidated PSAP at any particular place in the five cities, there are some practical dimensions to siting such a facility, among which are available existing space; new space which can be purchased, built, or remodeled at an attractive price; site security; and standby power availability. G Existing Equipment We considered relocating existing telephone 9 -1 -1 premise equipment and dispatch consoles to the consolidated PSAP to contain start-up cost. We also considered how radio and telephone service can be maintained without interruption during the period while equipment is removed from service at one location, transported, re- installed, and tested at another location. We believe W. M. Montgomery & Associates 2 Minnetonka, Minnesota there are good reasons to not move existing 9 -1 -1 and radio consoles. Telephone equipment is now 10 years old and while serviceable, is no longer state -of -the art. 9 -1 -1 automatic number identification (ANI) and automatic location information (ALI) equipment used by the four PSAPs is leased from U.S. West. Relocating consoles is not especially attractive since all cities will want to maintain a modicum of local communication capability. While none of the cities would buy such elaborate radio consoles for local communication in a consolidated environ- ment, the fact of the matter is that existing equipment is bought and paid for. Leaving it alone and buying appropriate new console equipment for the consolidated facility is clearly the best choice and perhaps in the long run, the least cost choice. Staffne Your reduced work flowing from the down - scaled schedule of consulting work plan eliminated our task to evaluate staff -to- activity ratios for the existing PSAPs. Notwithstanding, we found it necessary to do this work anyway to compare and evaluate current personnel costs with pay- roll and head count necessary to operate a stand -alone PSAP. We found that incident activity rates vary widely among the four existing PSAPs so we attempted to establish a benchmark which can be used to plan new staffing ratios. We also compared existing and proposed staff- to-incident ratios against a typical staffing scenario in a similar jurisdiction. Finally, we made some general comparisons between existing operating costs of the four stand -alone PSAPs with estimated operating cost for a consolidated facility. Current Wage & Equipment Maintenance Cost Current payroll cost and equipment maintenance show some similarities for each of the four existing PSAPs. However, because of the way data is maintained by the different communities it wasn't possible to determine an exact cost for every aspect of PSAP operations in a directly comparable format. There are likely to be some "hidden" costs of operation not identified here. We are confident that we have identified significant cost items within the scope of this commission. existing facilities Our study approach m imilar c sts amo ex st . O s u has been to compare s o Y P g g whenever possible. In every case salaries are the single largest recurring expense and therefore provide a reference point for estimating savings which will be achieved by consolidation. Wages shown below do not include fringe benefits in all cases. Also, because some of the communities had vacancies in dispatch positions in 1991, wages paid last year may actually understate the true costs of operating the PSAP. Maintenance costs include ongoing fees for items like repair contracts of radio consoles, logging recorders, and connection charges for terminals accessing the State of Minnesota's computer network. Costs for separate maintenance of logging recorder equipment averages $2,000 annu- ally per site. With a consolidated facility the need to maintain local recording capability becomes an option rather than a requirement under Minnesota law. Similarly, because individual radio control consoles are no longer in front line service, the need for contract maintenance is W. M. Montgomery & Associates 3 Minnetonka, Minnesota PSAP TOTAL O P E RATI NG COSTS i 1991 Data for B.C. estimated based on '92 figures 400000 300000 ol ol 200000 Robbinsdle 100000 Gidn Dally Crystal 0 Brook. Cnt Dollars W. M. Mortoomery -1932 GMPtL02 eliminated. Time and material maintenance becomes a more viable consideration with associated reductions in cost. 1991 PSAP Wage & Maintenance Costs Community Waees A Maintenance e Total Operating Cos c Brooklyn Center $155,302 $10,142 $230,194 Crystal $135,308 $11,880 E $182,015 Golden Valley /New Hope $207,028 $ 9,100 $296,039 F Robbinsdale $124,008 8,172 E 178 098 TOTAL $621,646 $39,294 $886,346 „ Notes: A Cost includes salaries (full and part time) plus overtime; does not include fringe benefits. B Includes recurring contract cost such as maintenance on console equipment, logging recorders, and CJIS connections; excludes telephone cost. C Includes all costs of operating PSAP including fringe benefits and telephone. W. M. Montgomery & Associates 4 Minnetonka, Minnesota D Estimate for 1991; actual cost for 1991 not available. It is calculated by reducing the 1992 total dispatch operating center budget by five percent. E Includes cost for mobile and portable radio maintenance. F Taken from "Total Expense" column of Joint Dispatch Operations account summary furnished by City. Telephone cost of $26,670 included in this amount is approximately twice that of the other PSAPs and may include funding for new 9 -1 -1 premise equipment referenced elsewhere in this report. G Does not include cost of MDT access on Hennepin County network. . H Includes estimate of '91 total operating costs for both Brooklyn Center and Crystal. Current Telephone Costs Reduced lease cost paid to U.S. West for 9 -1 -1 premise equipment will generate the largest savings in telephone cost. The four separate PSAPs now pay $47,988 annually for specialized equipment to process 9 -1 -1 calls. Cost to lease similar equipment for a consolidated facility will be not much more than one -fourth of this amount. When current equipment was obtained in the fall of 1982, leasing from Northwestern Bell was the only practical procurement option. Today, multiple manufacturers offer equipment with greater flexibility, more features, and improved performance. Equipment may be leased, purchasers, or procured through a combina- tion of the two financing approaches. Competition between vendors permits the procurement of entirely new equipment capable of outfitting the necessary number of positions (plus modest expansion) in the consolidated facility for about $150,000 or less depending upon the equipment selected. Golden Valley recently entered into a contract with Motorola to buy 9 -1 -1 premise equipment for their existing PSAP. The new equipment is expected to be in service later this year at which time the leased equipment will be returned to U.S. West. The remaining three PSAPs will still collectively pay $35,592 per year to lease their 9 -1 -1 premise equipment. As we point out later in the report, 9 -1 -1 equipment bought by Golden Valley can be expanded to serve a consoli- dated facility for about $58,000 over and above cost for equipment now on order. Some "in kind" contribution from the other cities benefitting from the use of this equipment would probably be needed to offset Golden Valley's capital expenditure for the equipment in the first place. This topic requires further discussion since there are other opportunities for "in kind" contributions. PSAP Activity Levels Through excellent cooperation with police department staff of each of the five cities, we assembled data relating to operations, personnel, activity, equipment inventory, and budget for PSAP operations shown below. Column titles are as follows: P.O. is the number of sworn police officers; VEH is the number of vehicles in the police fleet; SUPP is the number of W. M. Montgomery & Associates 5 Minnetonka, Minnesota support personnel such as CSOs who are currently on staff and may be called upon to assume occasional dispatching and, in some cases, jailer type duties; DISP is the number of dispatchers on staff; SUPV is the number of people having dedicated supervisory responsibility over dis- patch operations; and FIRE VEH is the number of vehicles in the fire department fleet. COMMUNI'T'Y P.O. VEH SUPP DISP SUPV FIRE VEH Brooklyn Center 40 6 2.7 6 0 11 Crystal 27 15 5 5 1 10 Golden Valley 30 17 5 6 1 11 New Hope 27 17 0 0 0 9 Robbinsdale 18 9 2 4 4 0 8 Total 142 64 14.7 21 2 49 Notes: 1. Dispatchers serve both Golden Valley and New Hope. 2. Vehicle count includes reserve cars and animal warden van. 3. Does not include 3 full time clerks, 6 part time clerks, and 1 office supervisor. 4. Two part time CSOs regularly perform dispatch duties to supplement 4 full time dispatchers. Robbinsdale considers the two part time CSOs as Toughly the equivalent of one full time employee. For conservative purposes we have only counted the four full time dispatchers as a part of the analysis of Robbinsdale's communications costs. Staff Work Load About 85% of dispatcher's work in typical full service PSAP is devoted to police matters; about 10% focuses on EMS (Emergency Medical Service) activity; and about 5% relates to fire dispatching functions. One competent dispatcher can effectively manage about 20 -25 well disciplined, front line police response units active at once. These rules of thumb permit us to make some assumptions about this project concerning necessary staffing levels and operating positions required to satisfy the communications needs of the five communities. Using the supplied incident data and coupling it with information collected about the number of police officers and dispatchers in the communities, some patterns emerge: ■ Each of Brooklyn Center's six dispatchers handle approximately 3,865 dispatchable incidents per year. This translates to about 0.80 incidents per capita. In addition to conventional dispatching, the Brooklyn Center communications center staff also do light report typing and supervision of the lockup when prisoners are being held. Dispatchers may be the only employees in the station during certain hours of the night; in this capacity they handle walk in traffic via a telephone hookup to the lobby. W. M. Montgomery & Associates 6 Minnetonka, Minnesota Incidents Incidents 1991 /dispatcher % of Total 1990 /capita % of Total Community Incidents ear Incidents Population /year Population Brooklyn Center 23,191 3865 28% 28,887 0.8 26% Crystal 12,114 2423 15% 23,788 0.5 22% Golden Valley 32,101, 5350, 39% 20,971 0.7 19% New Hope 21,853 20% Robbinsdale 15,219 3044 18 o 14,396 1.0 13% Total 82,625 100% 109,895 100 Notes: " 1 Figures for Golden Valley also include calls dispatched to New Hope. ■ Each of Crystal's five dispatchers handle approximately 2,423 dispatchable incidents per year. This translates to about 0.5 incidents per capita. If Crystal's supervisor is counted in the incident workload, the number drops to 2,019 dispatchable incidents per dispatcher per year. Crystal's dispatchers also do data entry, record keeping, some report typing, and supervision of the lockup. Dispatchers may be the only employees in the station during certain hours of the night; in this capacity they handle walk in traffic via a telephone hookup to the lobby. ■ Each of Golden Valley's six dispatchers handle approximately 5,350 dispatchable incidents per year. This translates to about 0.74 incidents per capita for the combined populations of Golden Valley and New Hope. If Golden Valley's supervisor is counted in the incident workload the number drops to 4,586 per dispatcher per year. In addition to dispatching, Golden Valley's dispatchers also do audio and CCTV monitoring of the lockup. Dispatchers may be the only employees in the station during certain hours of the night; in this capacity they handle walk in traffic via a telephone hookup to the lobby for about 16 hours of the evening and night shifts and all day on Saturday and Sunday. ■ Each of Robbinsdale's five dispatchers handle approximately 3,044 dispatchable incidents per year. This translates to slightly more than 1 incident per capita. Dispatchers /CSOs in Robbinsdale typically handle all walk up traffic 24 hours per day. Refer to Graph 03 on the next page. Note that with its six dispatchers, Golden Valley's dispatchers handle nearly twice the activity handled by Robbinsdale's five dispatchers (partially because Robbinsdale can't operate with less than one dispatcher on duty). Note also that Robbinsdale appears to have double the number of incidents per capita of Crystal. We suggest the actual frequency of dispatchable incidents in these cities is roughly equivalent. We surmise that the difference occurs as a result of the types of activities which are logged by dispatchers; this boils down to differences of policy and procedure. W. M. Montgomery & Associates 7 Minnetonka, Minnesota PSAP INCIDENT ACTIVITY Dispatchable tnciderits 40000 ol ol 30000 ._...._ - ol ol 20000 ol ol _ - .. - - -- Robbinsdle - -- - - 10000 G1dn Vally Crystal 0 Brook. Cnt '91 Data W. M. Montgomery -1992 GP" -03 PSAP INCIDENTS PER DISPATCHER Dispatchable Incidents 6000 4000 3000 2000 _ Robbinsdle Gldn. Vally 1000 Crystal 0 Brook. Cnt '91 Data W. M. malgwwy - 19W GRAPF(_04 W. M. Montgomery & Associates 8 Minnetonka, Minnesota Incidents per dispatcher per year at Golden Valley demonstrate the efficiency which can be achieved through consolidation. For comparative purposes we have collected data from the Anoka County PSAP. There, one centralized PSAP handles all communications for 22 commun- ities and delivers service to 11 law enforcement agencies and 15 fire departments across the county. Anoka utilized 20 dispatchers and 6 lead dispatchers (total 26) to process 196,562 dispatchable incidents in 1991. (Compare this against the 21 dispatchers working in the five communities under study handling fewer than 83,000 incidents in 1991.) Anoka County popu- lation is approximately 245,000. Using the same formula as above to determine Anoka County's per employee workload their staff handles 7,560 incidents per dispatcher. See to Graph 04 on the previous page. Dispatcher Work Load Calculations Using the 1991 incident occurrence (IO) data (82,625) and comparing it to the staffing of the individual dispatching centers we can estimate the projected staffing necessary to operate a consolidated communications center for the five communities. We have first calculated the average number of dispatches per working dispatcher (D) for the existing separated PSAPs. (Note that we have not included supervisory staff in the head count.) The formula used is IO _ D ID or 82,625 _ 21 3,935 Note that the average of 3,935 incidents /dispatcher (ID) is higher than the current workload for dispatchers in Brooklyn Center, Crystal, and Robbinsdale but lower than the current workload for Golden Valley's consolidated dispatchers. Assuming that an employee works an average of 221 days per year (DW) the incidents/dispatcher number of 3,935 works out to approximately 18 incidents per employee per day (IED). The formula used is ID - DW = IED or 3,935 - 221 = 17.80 The following calculation is used to derive days worked per dispatcher. The figures are in hours: Maximum availability 2,080 Vacation Leave , (nominal) (80) Holidays (80) Sick Days (80) Compensatory Leave (45) Training (24) Total Deployable Hours 1,771 1,771 - 8 (hours /day) = 221 days worked (DW) W. M. Montgomery & Associates 9 Minnetonka, Minnesota We suggest that 17.80 incidents /dispatcher /day is artificially low. It is the result of the historical decision to operate individual PSAPs despite the relative inefficiency of this approach. This rate is less than 2 incidents per dispatcher per hour. The separate nature of the individual communications centers creates a condition where there are significant periods of idle time for the communications staff. Also, physical separation between dispatchers in the four PSAPs does not contribute to sharing or distributing of the workload among available employees. Our moni- toring of radio channels of the participating communities confirms there is extensive idle time between either field generated or dispatcher generated incidents. Even Golden Valley with the highest actual activity levels for its combined dispatch operation has long periods of inactivity during what are typically the busiest hours of the day. A more appropriate ratio for basic planning purposes (at the start-up of a consolidated facility) is 7,115 incidents /dispatcher /year. We calculated this number utilizing the current number of incidents being handled by Golden Valley staff (5,350) and adding 33% (1,765). The 33% figure is somewhat arbitrary. It is based on the proposition that Golden Valley dispatchers, while already handling more incidents per person than dispatchers from the other communities, still have significant periods of idle time. Assuming the incident rate will rise 3 % in 1992 over 1991 and 3 in 1993 over 1992, we project that 87,583 incidents will be recorded for all five communities in 1992. Anticipating that a consolidated dispatching operation will start in 1993, we calculate the following minimum dispatching staff will be needed to operate the facility: 1993 IO _ ID = D 1993 or 87,583 T 7,115 = 12.3 dispatchers Four dispatchers will be available on the payroll for each of three shifts. This means that a minimum of two dispatchers will generally be working, exclusive of sick leave, vacation, and training; occasionally, three dispatchers will be on duty. Peaks and lulls in activity levels will occur which do not conform to the averaged computational model. The staffing challenge is to have enough dispatchers on duty to handle most contingencies in the short term but not so many employees on duty that lengthy periods of inactivity occur for individual dispatchers. The nature of public safety communications requires that staff have enough time to handle emergent situations with care to avoid errors and facilitate effective communication between the caller and field responder(s). 100% dispatcher efficiency is achievable only on paper. Dis- patchers need time to compose themselves between calls. Skilled dispatchers can handle short, occasional periods of continuous activity but it is unwise over the long term to plan a practical scheduling system around those patterns. Workload activity indicators being used here to mea- sure dispatcher efficiency do not account for every transaction or task which dispatchers may be involved with. (This also holds true for the figures cited for Anoka County.) Certain types of calls generate more than one citizen report of the same situation (serious traffic accidents, for example). Further, some telephone calls which occupy the dispatcher's time don't result in a dispatch being generated. W. M. Montgomery & Associates 10 Minnetonka, Minnesota Whether existing dispatchers will be used in a consolidated dispatching environment for the northwest suburbs or an entirely new cadre of employees is hired "off the street ", there is a practical reality which must be addressed. This problem is the orientation which staff requires to become acclimated to a new environment. Using the current workload of most employees of the existing PSAPs, we now find them handling about 4,000 incidents each per year (averaged). The question of whether these same employees will be able to adjust to a workload which almost doubles upon start-up of the consolidated facility must be considered. We suggest it is unrealistic to bring a group of employees together in a new environment, with new equipment, rules, work relationships, geographical boundaries, and procedures and expect them to immediately adjust to a 78 % increase in workload. Some dispatchers may simply not have skills to meet this heightened level of performance. For the success of the venture it is better to ease the transition instead of forcing it. Our suggested staff complement for a consolidated PSAP uses fewer people than now employed in the four PSAPs but is less aggressive than scheduling used at Anoka County, for.example. We recommend including "supplemental" staff to permit a more comfortable. incident to staff ratio upon start-up and assure service continuity during periods of peak activity. By supplementing the basic complement of 12 dispatchers with 3 lead dispatchers or front -line dispatch supervisors, the incident/dispatcher ratio is reduced somewhat. We envision these lead employees will be working dispatchers who will supplement the efforts of the 12 regular employees. Adding lead dispatchers will result in a staff complement of 15.3 full time equivalent employees or.approximately 5 employees on each of three shifts. With proper atten- tion to scheduling, a system can be established which will have four or five dispatchers on duty during peak periods and a minimum of two dispatchers at other times. Refer to Table 1 on the next page for a specimen work schedule for a staff of 15. Assuming 87,583 incidents will be logged in 1993, an annual incident/dispatcher workload of 5,838 is achieved using 15 dispatchers. This is within the range of activity which Golden Valley dispatchers are currently providing and within reason of what dispatchers from less active PSAPs should be able to achieve. Over time, as dispatchers become acclimated to their new environment and activity level continues to climb, the consolidated PSAP will reach the efficiency already enjoyed at Anoka County and other similarly situated PSAPs. It is our opinion that more staff will not be needed until levels of approximately 8,000 incidents/ dispatcher /year are experienced. Refer to Graph 06 on page 13. Staff Efficiencies We suggest a goal of 8,000 incidents /dispatcher /year can be reached in a consolidated PSAP, a 49% increase in efficiency over the best PSAP now operating in the five cities of this study. If this incident workload model is adopted and the type of work does not change significantly, the 15 line level dispatchers proposed in this analysis can process approximately 120,000 incidents annually before additional staff is needed. W. M. Montgomery & Associates 11 Minnetonka, Minnesota Schedule title: SINGLE PSAP STAFFING - EXAMPLE Starting date Sunday - May 17, 1992 Employee Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat ispatcher 1 00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 Dispatcher 2 00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00 08 :00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 Dispatcher 3 00:00 00 :00 00 :00 00:00 00:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 I Dispatcher 4 08:00 08 :00 08:00 08:00 08:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 Dispatcher 5 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08 :00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 Dispatcher 6 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 Dispatcher 7 08:00 08:00 08 :00 08:00 08:00 y� 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 Dispatcher 8 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 I 24:00 24:00 24:00 24:00 24:00 spatcher 9 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 24:00 24:00 24:00 24:00 24:00 Dispatcher 10 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 24:00 24:00 24:00 24:00 24:00 Dispatcher 11 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 24:00 24:00 24:00 24:00 24:00 ` Coverage 10 Hr 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 II 03:00 03:00 03:00 03:00 {i II Lead 1 00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 II Lead 2 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 �I Lead 3 16 :00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 24:00 24:00 24:00 24:00 24:00 TABLE 1 PRESENT /FUTURE DISPATCHER WORKLOAD Incidents/ Dispatcher 9000 _ ol .......... - 7500 0 Future AM. Target 6000 " Anoka Initial _ 4500 Goal R'Dale 3000 ® Gldn Vally 1500 Crystal 0 M Brook. Cnt W. M. Montgomery —1992 GaRAPH Benefits to be derived from consolidation include: 1) Improved dispatch competency and higher service delivery resulting from elimination of: a) dispatchers involved with report preparation and records functions; b) dispatchers monitoring prisoners in the lock -up. 2) Reduced cost and increased efficiency. 3) Activity levels high enough to maintain dispatcher skills and minimize boredom. 4) Available pool of working dispatchers to assure appropriate response during surges in traffic. 5) Equal consideration of the technical and operational needs of both police and fire departments. Current PSAPs are predominantly operated with a police management "flavor ". Establishing a stand -alone communications organization permits staff and supervisors to be service and agency neutral. W. M. Montgomery & Associates 13 Minnetonka, Minnesota DETAILED STAFFING COST DATA Existing Wage Structure Good correlation exists in pay rates between the four PSAPs. This is helpful to establish a wage structure for a consolidated communications center. Communit Hourly Rate Brooklyn Center $11.10 13.51 Crystal $10.13 - 13.88 Golden Valley $10.48 - 13.62 Robbinsdale $10.63 - 12.70 Average Hourly Rate $10.58 - 13.43 We suggest an assumed wage for dispatchers of $14.00 per hour be used to assess the financial viability of a consolidated communications center. Although some staff will be employed at a lower rate, it must be assumed that some of the existing top scale dispatchers may be utilized. Consideration for extra compensation should be given for the higher workload and increased responsibility these employees will assume. Formula: (Top Wage Rate)(Number of Dispatchers) (Hours per Year) = Base Salary Budget ($14.00)(12.3)(2,080) = $358,176 for the first year A pay differential will be needed to pay lead dispatchers more than regular dispatchers. We suggest this differential be $1.00 per hour for planning purposes. Using the formula above, the additional cost for the lead dispatchers will be: ($15.00)(3)(2,080) _ $93,600 for the first year for 3 lead dispatchers Total Wage Costs Dispatchers $358,176 Lead Dispatchers $93,600 Total Line Staff $451,776 Note that salary calculations assume all line staff are at top step of the .wage scale. Actual wages paid to existing staff in the four PSAPs is lower than assumptions made here. We also suggest that a dispatch center coordinator is appropriate to manage activities of the consolidated operation. This employee will be responsible for overall consolidated dispatch operations, planning, budgeting, disciplinary matters, and be the focal point of contact for the W. M. Montgomery & Associates 14 Minnetonka, Minnesota participating agencies. We believe that a salary approximately 16% higher than the hourly scale for lead dispatcher is appropriate. Dispatch Manager $ 36,192 Line Staff Wages $451,776 Total Staff Wages $487,968 Anticipated overtime pay of 5% of straight time pay for hourly rate employees adds an additional $22,590 to the total wage cost estimated above. Total Straight Time Wages $487,656 Overtime Pay $22,590 Total Estimated Wage Cost $510,246 Total estimated wage cost for the consolidated facility, including overtime, is still $111,400 per year under the $621,646 wages paid to operate the four existing PSAPs in 1991. i PSAP Salary Costs Current Salaries & Fringes Proposed 93 Salaries & Fringes Doaiam 800000 _ _. M1050 700000 607193 600000 500000 400000 .300000 . ...... 200000 _. _...... ___.._._. 100000 __ __ ___ ____ Proposed 0 E fisting W. M. Montgomery -1932 GRAPR -07 W. M. Montgomery & Associates 15 Minnetonka, Minnesota Fringe Benefits For u p rposes of budget protections, we estimate that fringe benefits (retirement, health, life uniforms, etc.) will be 19% of total wages. Wages g $510,246 ($510,246)(1.19) $96,947 Projected Total Annual Staff Costs $607,193 (When comparing this estimate of annual staff cost of $607,193 to the figure of $621,646 annual wages found in "Current Wage & Equipment Maintenance Costs" on page 4, keep in mind that the above estimated annual cost of $607,193 for a consolidated PSAP includes benefits whereas the annual wage cost cited on page 4 for the four existing PSAPs does not include fringe benefits. See Graph 07 on the previous page. DETAILED TELEPHONE COST DATA Telephone costs for PSAP operations have several component parts. They include: N 9 -1 -1 Network: The Minnesota Department of Administration currently pays all of the costs for delivery of the enhanced 9 -1 -1 (E- 9 -1 -1) calls and associated information to the PSAPs. Included is cost for data circuits used to transport automatic location information . (ALI) data from the US West, computer to the PSAPs, individual "EM" trunks from the tandem switch - ing center to the local PSAP, and "ES" trunks used to transport the 9 -1 -1 calls from the end central office to the tandem switching office. ■ E -9 -1 -1 PSAP Equipment: Each PSAP must have specialized equipment to receive enhanced 9 -1 -1 calls over and above a conventional telephone set. Included in this inventory are ANI/ALI controllers, printers, and associated common equipment such as power supplies. Cost for PSAP premise equipment is paid by each local agency. We calculate premise equipment is collectively costing the five cities $47,988/year. ■ Answering Equipment: Some PSAPs have special telephone answering equipment in place which works to both receive 9 -1 -1 calls and conventional calls in the same device. Some PSAPs lease the answering equipment and others own it. ■ Connecting Lines: Included in this category are "switched" lines, dedicated lines, and "hot" lines. Switched lines are those used to receive and place calls into and out of the PSAP for conventional calls. Dedicated lines are those used to support alarm connections, equipment monitoring (such as pumping stations) as well as remotely located radio equipment. Each PSAP presently also has at least one "hot line" to certain frequently called destinations such as North Memorial Medical Center. W. M. Montgomery & Associates 16 Minnetonka, Minnesota 9 -1 -1 Network Telephone ' - - 1 delivery each P p fines, data circuits, and other facilities .required. for 9 i 1 cal ry to ea AP S are established in administrative regulations published by the State of Minnesota. The State pays cost for these lines and facilities regardless of the number of PSAPs serving an area. Brooklyn Center, Crystal, and Golden Valley each utilize three 9 -1 -1 "EM" trunks and Robbinsdale util- izes two "EM" trunks for a total of eleven "EM" trunks. Based upon the State mandated level of service to calculate the required number of trunks per "access line" (telephone subscribers) for'the five cities, we find that five of the eleven 9 -1 -1 trunks can be eliminated in a consol- idated 9 -1 -1 PSAP. If done, the State of Minnesota will save approximately $1,560 per year ($26/trunk/month for 6 trunks) as a result of the reduction of 9 -1 -1 trunks from eleven to six. PSAP Telephone uipment Costs As this report is written, each of the four existing PSAPs leases E -9 -1 -1 premises equipment from U.S. West. Golden Valley has executed a contract with a vendor to obtain 9 -1 -1 premises equipment (which they will own) thereby eliminating their ongoing lease payments once the equipment is installed and operational. Nothing prevents the other individual communities from following the same path Golden Valley has taken. Golden Valley determined that the trouble- some maintenance history of their existing dispatch center telephone answering equipment coupled with the recurring costs paid to U.S. West for the common premises equipment needed to answer 9 -1 -1 calls made purchase of new equipment a better value. While there are minor variations in the configuration of the telephone systems used in the existing PSAPs, some common cost elements exist. Each PSAP presently uses a ANI (automatic number identification) and ALI (automatic location identification) controller. Only one ANI and one ALI controller would be needed if a single PSAP were established for all five cities. Equipment purchased by Golden Valley includes both ANI and ALI controller functions in a single apparatus. This equipment can be expanded to accommodate E -9 -1 -1 requirements of a consolidated facility. Based on competitive bid prices for the same equipment in other jurisdictions, we estimate expansion cost at $53,000 to $58,000. Consistent with other opportunities for in -kind contributions to a consolidated PSAP, adjustment to Golden Valley for community use of their new 9 -1 -1 equipment is not included in budget figures of this report. Recurring costs paid to U.S. West for premise equipment is $1,033 per month or $12,396 per year per PSAP for Brooklyn Center, Crystal, and Golden Valley. Robbinsdale pays $900 per month or $10,800 annually. Based on Golden Valley's already established decision to dis- continue leasing, we calculate the three other PSAPs will collectively save recurring costs of $35,592 annually if they discontinue leasing premise equipment and consolidate with Golden Valley. This assumes that premise equipment acquired by Golden Valley will be used and expanded in a consolidated location. Golden Valley intends to install their new 9 -1 -1 premises equipment as soon as delivery is received. This drives the question of how the new equipment can be used to service Golden Valley while being reinstalled at some other location for consolidated operations. Although W. M. Montgomery & Associates 17 Minnetonka, Minnesota specific action lans to accomplish this transition are beyond the scope of the current consulting project we confidently take the position that by careful coordination with the telephone company and neighboring PSAPs, E -9 -1 -1 calls can continue to be processed in the short term (several days) while equipment is disassembled, moved, and reinstalled. Connecting_ Lines Pursuant to Minnesota 9 -1 -1 regulations, each PSAP is required to have a 7 digit number for citizen access to the PSAP. These 7 digit lines typically deliver at least half of the dispatcher's incoming telephone workload. By tradition each community has had its own 7 digit number again leading to duplication but offering local "identity" when the call is answered. The following table illustrates the quantity of these additional lines which are used for dispatching purposes: 7 Digit Numbers Com� Lines Brooklyn Center 2 Crystal 4 Golden. Valley 4 Robbinsdale 4 Total 14 Business lines of the type used in the dispatch center cost approximately $50 /line /month. If a consolidated dispatch facility is established, the State requirement for a 7 digit number into the PSAP can be satisfied by having one common number for all participating cities served by the PSAP. By adopting a common 7 digit telephone number, the number of access lines for public use can be reduced by at least seven resulting in a savings of approximately $4,000 per year. The disadvantage to this approach is that without separate numbers for each city, answer- ing calls with the department name is not possible. On the other hand, some cities chose to answer their calls, "police and fire emergency" or similar generic response even though there is not doubt about which stand -alone PSAP has been called. Dedicated Lines & Alarm Monitorin Each of the cities now monitor various alarms, usually using leased wire line circuits. Some alarms are for municipal facilities (lift stations, etc.) and others are for businesses and /or schools. Brooklyn Center municipal alarms are communicated to the PSAP via radio link. If central alarm monit rin g is to be continued for o government facilities in a consolidated PSAP , g expanded use of radio should be considered. By careful choice of alarm equipment, private subscribers will find it unnecessary to incur additional telephone mileage charges for continued monitoring of alarms at a consolidated W. M. Montgomery & Associates 18 Minnetonka, Minnesota PSAP. Monitoring private alarms at a central communications center can provide a funding mechanism to help defray local costs of running the PSAP. Some jurisdictions charge an annual fee to private subscribers for the privilege of direct monitoring by police /fire dispatchers. Honeywell charges $25 /month to monitor a private residence in the Twin Cities. We know of two consolidated PSAPs which monitor private alarms in communities similar to yours where almost 1,000 alarms are connected to PSAP monitoring equipment. The question of where to locate a consolidated PSAP is best answered after the decision is made combine dispatch centers. Despite this, we have considered siting at each stage of our work on this project. None of the existing dispatch centers is physically large enough to accommodate the six work stations which we project will be required to serve the participating communities ten years into the future. No police chief has indicated to us that he prefers the consolidated PSAP to be at his location. Crystal is planning an addition to their municipal building. Expansion plans do not include adequate space for a combined PSAP. Robbinsdale is also planning a remodeling /addition project but plans for that effort are far enough along and space is at such a premium that this location is also not a candidate site for a consolidated facility. Golden Valley has been contemplating building expansion plans and may be a candidate site for a combined dispatching facility. We believe that cost for new space will be roughly comparable per square foot to the remodeling costs identified below for the changes needed to another. neutral site. We examined the currents vacant drive-'up bank facility at 42nd and Douglas in Crystal. This Y P Y g ry site is across the street from the Crystal municipal building. Our inspection of the facility coupled with our review of the Phase 1 environmental assessment for the building and site has established that both the ro rt and are suitable for use as a consolidated p pe y structure e s so communications center. Its location near the Crystal government complex also permits easy connection to existing radio equipment there. This location may also favor use of existing City of Crystal staff for custodial and maintenance needs of the facility. The 2,800 square foot bank building is triangularly shaped and includes a main level and basement. The building is located on a 27,843 square foot parcel of land which presently has 20 parking spaces. The building, built in 1978, is of brick construction, carries a "B -4" zoning classification and includes modern electrical and mechanical facilities including a two zone, forced air heating /air conditioning system. A pneumatic tube system is installed between the service island and drive -up teller window. The facility is equipped with modern fire detection, sprinkling, and security monitoring systems. A kitchen /eating area is located in the basement which will facilitate around- the -clock needs of dispatchers. The building also has handicapped accessible toilet facilities for both men and women. (Note, however, that the existing kitchen area is in the basement and the only means of accessing the basement is via stairs.) Our inspection of the building suggests that the existing telephone service entrance to the building is only marginally adequate for a PSAP. If this site is considered, we recommend that a low brick (or similar) masonry wall be installed to partially obstruct existing windows on the W. M. Montgomery & Associates 19 Minnetonka, Minnesota 4 2 ND ,q VC. N. CCO. STATE .410 NW.,, N4. 3} lilt `'` ^±� .;i elf .sc c•1r >e.,, ..__ . - -- "`_-- .__._._ fi }• � Z Vi �o Pa %�; •• �,;�• i3 .0 1e � o le O G ° O �' {' p ry � � I .�• cl yi Nenr1:G -M.n '"o°�c• �� ry s ,ajr 1 . m o o d`' i l e: 0 s I f. 1 °P 29.1 Rocks a 19.0 a t n. o % ,p Y i. Woii D�aino9e t J ^ — e0 SP.77enf V `Boc of Ce '— Bift/mii7r7u`s — — — — — — _ ot. Cn ` Wend F --- _........_ .. __... O N07 183.45 v I i t. .. Y.' -f• -• .l . ✓ .{. � � 3�� ?�� - .. .�. -v'f +r.:. -"� ...� ^ 'nA cur -�^ ` o�'� y ,.YS�.�+ r'�1► 1 _ �_ _ $ y f _ I B • j 1 t r i , - J z Figure 3 Basement lunch room j Figure 4 Low wall should be considered to block view from the street W. M. Montgomery & Associates 22 Minnetonka, Minnesota Figure 5 Exposed gas meter may be a security risk Figure 6 First t `r floor .. room, Montgomery & Associates Minnetonka, Minnesota a -7 ''?`?" •�`'_ a < x- ��l- ,'-mss ".�—S' , _z- rn north side of the building The objective here should is to prevent projectiles originating from the street to find dispatchers as their targets. We also believe additional exterior security work P g Y should be considered to protect the exposed natural gas service entrance on the west side of the building). The 1992 assessor's estimated market value of the lot and building is $421,100; advertised selling price as of June, 1992 was $175,000. We are informed by the agent of Towle Real Estate (the owner) that asking price has been reduced several times. The building has been vacant and available for purchase for many months. The Phase 1 environmental- survey done in May, 1989, showed that although the site had previously been occupied as a gasoline station, there was is evidence of hazardous waste contamination based on the scope of work conducted at that time. First floor of the old bank can be converted for use as a dispatch center, conference room, and office area without difficulty or major capital expense. Figures 5 and 6 show two views of the first floor area. Radio and telephone equipment, uninterruptible power supply, even a standby generator can be located in the basement. Even after installing all the "back room" equipment necessary for a PSAP, space will remain in the basement for storage, offices or other purposes as may be necessary to support the PSAP. Previous experience with projects of this sort suggest that budgetary remodeling costs of approximately $85 per square foot (of remodeled space) can be used to calculate needed changes to the building. Assuming 1400 square feet will be remodeled, cost to make ready will be about $119,000 plus standby generator, if desired. This cost estimate is based on our observations of the existing condition of the drive -up bank which is already well suited for use as a communica- tions facility. BENEFITS OF CONSOLIDATION Reduced Cost of Infrastructure We have already addressed lower operating cost through head count of PSAP personnel in a consolidated environment together with avoidance of duplicate telephone equipment. Other sig- nificant savings are available in support equipment to the dispatch function: computer aided dispatch (CAD), automatic vehicle location (AVL), and mobile data terminals (MDT) permitting access to both state databases and local CAD /records management systems. Any CAD program _ and mini computer with which we are familiar can handle the work of all five cities at the same cost as any of the cities taken individually. The same is true for a MDT system. Each of these services requires significant investment in central equipment which, in fleet sizes of interest here, costs the same whether serving 1 field unit or 50. Consolidation will make these value added services affordable by prorating common cost over a large fleet. A local MDT system can provide easy access to local data bases, something not available or forecast to be available from the Hennepin County MDT system. W. M. Montgomery & Associates 25 Minnetonka, Minnesota Improved Coordination One of the most important reasons for consolidating PSAPs is also the most difficult to measure and articulate. Consolidated communications centers permit information to be disseminated and response personnel coordinated in a fashion which is simply impractical in separate, stand- alone facilities. People in the PSAP are typically the only people in municipal government who have current and comprehensive general knowledge about an emerging situation involving police and fire. Acknowledging that a "command center" is the best place from which to coordinate deployment and make tactical decisions, most public safety agencies have the means to bring a command post directly to the scene of major incidents. In less significant situations, day to day deployment decisions concerning police and fire response personnel are delegated to the dispatchers. It is our observation that improved coordination of public safety field response units can be achieved when dispatchers, particularly dispatchers from contiguous communities, are located together. While some coordination efficiencies can be achieved through common radio frequen- cies, technology cannot replace coordination of effort among co- located dispatchers when working with information which often is less than complete. Alert dispatchers working as a team routinely piece together information and pass it field personnel more effectively than the same dispatchers can do working in isolation from each other. The following endorsements illustrate the position of many fire and police administrators: "The operation of a fire alarm dispatch system is costly. To overcome this cost and often to create a more effective system, two or more departments have often combined their operations into a fire alarm dispatching center. The cost of personnel can be shared; the radio equipment, computers, and maintenance costs are divided equally; and in many cases, a much more efficient and faster operation for those with first alarm contacts and mutual aid agreements. This system is particularly effective in areas with a 9 -1 -1 telephone ,system.." From report presented at August 1983 convention, International Association of 1~'ire Chiefs. and "There is substantial evidence that Central Police Dispatching has been cost beneficial, i.e. that the benefits derived from the project justify the expenditures of time, money and manpower that went into it. In general the best support for this statement is the position of the governmental administrators and police chiefs in the nine largest law enforcement agencies in the county. Eight of these nine jurisdictions are apparently satisfied that they are getting more service for less money by using Central Police Dispatching than they would if each attempted to handle its dispatching service individually." From Central Police Dispatch. Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, page 58 -59. W. M. Montgomery & Associates 26 Minnetonka, Minnesota ORGANIZATIONAL, STRUCTURAL & SITING ISSUES Examples of inter- governmental cooperative service delivery already exist amongst the participants. Golden Valley is providing dispatching now to New Hope. Discussion is underway concerning fire department consolidation in New Hope and Crystal. Some sharing of services already exists for animal control and the police chiefs have discussed the benefits and difficulties of operating joint temporary lockup facilities. Each of these initiatives contribute to perceptions about the viability of -consolidated PSAP operations. Consolidated dispatching often provides the foundation for even more aggressive cooperative efforts. The U.S. Justice Department has supported dispatching consolidation in its published literature and through past funding programs. Contract for Service Model In Minnesota when consolidation of PSAPs has occurred, they typically are configured utilizing one agency as a host offering services to other agencies on a subscription or- contractual basis. The contractual services model is one organizational approach which can be utilized here. This model is favored by the Golden Valley public safety staff. They have experience serving New Hope and appreciate the benefits and limitations of this approach based on their experience. By utilizing existing staff, purchasing mechanisms, financial procedures, and management structures the "overhead" involved in delivering the service is minimized. Stated simply, an existing bureaucracy is utilized in lieu of creating a new one. Joint Powers Model We are aware of other states where regional service delivery via "joint powers" arrangements is the preferred approach. Washington, Michigan, Illinois, and Texas all have multiple examples of consolidated PSAPs operating in a semi stand -alone mode. Some states (Tennessee) permit the establishment of emergency communications districts with their own taxing authority and elected boards. Typically, joint powers PSAPs exist where the financial and operational justi- fication of cooperative service delivery are in place but where consensus on management struc- ture, procedural issues, and dispute resolution cannot be achieved in a contract- for- service- environment. The issue that the "lead" agency providing the contract service will always deliver preferential treatment to "their" department is a commonly raised concern. It is exacerbated when the lead agency is providing dispatching service from the same campus where other public safety offices are centralized. Understandably, none of the department heads want to lose control of the deployment of their response fleet. Communications consolidation is perceived as an erosion of the ability to control police and fire response personnel and autonomy of the local agency. Arguments against consol- idation focus on the need to provide locally tailored service which citizens expect. Consolidated communications centers cannot succeed without the commitment and support of department heads who benefit from services provided. Police and fire chiefs who embrace the concept of consolidation receive the richest benefits from participation. Dispatch employees work hard to support their leaders who value the services they deliver. These leaders have confidence in the W. M. Montgomery & Associates 27 Minnetonka, Minnesota staff working on their behalf and share their power and delegate their authority. Our observation has been that the five candidate communities considered here have the same kinds of police and fire leaders at the helm of their departments. The following testimonial from a fire chief in the State of Washington eloquently summarizes this matter: "I fully endorse the centralized 9 -1 -1 center from a cost standpoint, as well as the p result of forcing all emergency agencies to coordinate their activities ... the payoffs for citizens are many.... The center has created a cooperative environment as opposed to some of the past parochial viewpoints. Its a great system." Typically in the joint powers arrangement, an inter - governmental agreement is negotiated among participating agencies which identifies issues of voting representation, management structure, and financing. We are familiar with joint powers PSAP agencies where employees are technically employed by one jurisdiction for purposes of payroll, benefits, and pension funding but are practically employed by the joint powers agency for purposes of establishing wage rates, personnel policies, etc. These same joint powers organizations utilize one of the member communities for matters of purchasing, financial accounting, and other administrative i purposes. Existing Staff During our discussions with the public safety representatives of the five candidate agencies, concerns of "principle" were expressed about what would happen to existing dispatchers in a consolidated environment. We were told that the dispatchers were loyal and essential members of the agencies that employed them and some consideration and allowance needs to be made concerning their future. Given that the combined pool of now separate dispatchers have decades of service and experience, layoffs or dismissal is not viewed as an appropriate reward for their past contributions. If police chiefs and municipal administrators decide to maintain an around - the -clock presence in their offices to handle walk in traffic, the number of personnel needed to staff both those facilities and a consolidated dispatching center will actually increase. In this scenario, dispatchers who cannot be placed in a consolidated facility can continue to work for their current employing agencies handling walk -in traffic and other duties requiring a physical presence at the station. Management Considerations Following is a partial list of issues tor be considered in determining the organizational structure of a consolidated PSAP facility: ■ Who will staff work for and how will they be supervised? ■.How will existing staff be utilized, if at all? • How will administrative details like payroll, purchasing, and finances be handled? • Who will own the common equipment needed to create the facility? • How will existing common equipment be absorbed into the inventory of a consolidated center for budget purposes? W. M. Montgomery & Associates 28 Minnetonka, Minnesota ■ What formulas can be used to determine cost sharing of a consolidated PSAP? ■ How will policy be established and enforced? Will there be a different mechanism for procedural concerns? ■ If there are disputes or disagreements, what forum will be used for their resolution? ■ What if an agency initially decides to participate in a consolidated PSAP but at a future date determines it no longer wishes to receive service in .this fashion. How will real property I and intangible assets (such as radio channels) be distributed? I Funding Any mechanism to fund a consolidated dispatching center must distribute costs to the subscrib- ing agencies based on some equitably determined formula. We are aware of a variety of formulas for funding these operations which are based on: even distribution of cost, volume of calls for service, number of sworn police officers, assessed property valuation, number of dispatching " transactions ", service population, number of radio transmissions, and various permutations of each of these approaches. Factors such as land use (i.e. commercial /residential mix) could advantage or disadvantage certain communities as could relative population density. Any decision to consolidate dispatch operations should: a) save money for the individual) Pe Y Y participating communities; b) offer an improved level of service; or c) permit access to expensive equipment and capabilities which a single community may be unable to afford such as computer aided dispatch, mobile data terminals, automatic vehicle location, etc. Ideally, consolidation will achieve all three objectives. Because certain capital expenditures will be needed to establish a consolidated facility, financial savings may not be realized for any individual community on "day one" of operations. Improved levels of service delivery may take time to achieve given that a learning curve will be needed to assimilate differences in procedures and operating protocols. In -Kind Eduipment/Resource Contributions i We believe that donation of in -kind contributions of equipment (e.g. logging recorders and fixed station radio equipment) and resources (e.g. frequencies for the venture) should be recognized. Department managers should receive broad support for a venture which will require that they commit additional time and energy to the success of the project. We believe that precedent is already in place with other inter -local cooperative ventures contemplated or in operation. Those projects may provide models for determining the formula to be used here for in -kind contri- butions. 0 RADIO COMMUNICATIONS Three. radio issues are fundamental to successful consolidation of dispatch facilities: 1) satisfactory coverage throughout the five cities; 2) common communications capability among all mobile and portable radios; and 3) complete command and control of the consolidated radio system from the new communications center. W. M. Montgomery & Associates 29 Minnetonka, Minnesota Coverage Combined jurisdictions of the five cities covers a rectangle approximately 8 miles long from north to south and 5.5 miles wide from west to east. Transmitters now installed in any of the cities provides mobile radio coverage throughout the combined area of all the cities. While one might chose antenna locations differently if the consolidated system were being planned from scratch, there appears to be no immediate need to relocate stations now. When current stations are replaced, you will want to revisit the location issue with a view towards minimizing lease cost of control lines between the dispatch center and stations. Existing in- building coverage and communication with personnel on foot is good in each of the cities because the service area of individual radio stations is so small. This intense coverage will be strained if users expect the same in- building coverage to extend across five cities without adding more receivers. It may turn out that remote receivers on the Golden Valley /New Hope frequencies are desirable in Brooklyn Center and a remote receiver on the Brooklyn Center police frequency is desirable at the New Hope water tower, 47th and Aquilla Streets. Each satellite receiver will cost about $4,000, including signal quality module in the home com- parator, if plugged into an existing antenna at the remote site. A comparator (one required for each channel with remote receivers) costs about $4,000 installed. Brooklyn Center already has a comparator on - their police repeater to serve receivers at the Municipal Building and *Brookdale. Notwithstanding, we believe investment in remote receivers to extend coverage of portable radios to every nook and cranny can be delayed until a need has been demonstrated in the expanded system. If /when detail work is done on implementation of consolidated dispatch, you will want to check radio locations known to be difficult with a view towards considering candidate locations for 'remote receivers to improve talk -back to the dispatcher from officers on foot. Four police radio channels and three fire radio channels are used by the five cities: Police Fire Note Brooklyn Center T- 155.535 Repeater T /R- 154.430 Note 1 R- 158.970 Crystal T /R- 155.685 T /R- 143.430 Note 2 Golden Valley/ T /R- 155.430 T/R- 154.250 Note 3 New Hope T/R- 154.725 Robbinsdale T/R- 153.860 T/R- 153.770 Note 4 Note 1: Fixed stations are Motorola MICOR. Repeater has digital encryption (DVP) capability as do most mobile and portable radios. Console is Motorola Centracom 1 installed 1980. Fire channel shared with Crystal. W. M. Montgomery & Associates 30 Minnetonka, Minnesota Note 2: Fixed stations are Motorola MSR2000. Console is Motorola Centracom II. Fixed stations and console new in 1985. Fire channel shared with Brooklyn Center. Note 3: Fixed stations are a mix of GE MASTR PRO (1960's) and MASTR II (1980's) Console manufactured by Console Systems, Inc. t # Note 4: Fixed stations Motorola MSR 2000. Console is Motorola Centracom II installed 1986. Police radio channel shared with Department of Public Works. Many police and fire mobile and portable radios are programmable. They can be modified to incorporate .all of the above frequencies. Radio Channel Assignments With three police channels and three fire channels assigned exclusively among the five cities, you are in the enviable position of deciding how to use a surfeit of resources in a consolidated dispatch environment. Brooklyn Center's repeater is a natural candidate for a general dispatch police channel. The two simplex police frequencies now assigned to Golden Valley and New Hope are candidates for "information" and tactical channels. There may be merit in considering a single fire dispatch /general operations channel for the five cities plus separate fire- ground channels. If desired, the Robbinsdale fire frequency (which appears in FCC Rules as a "mobile - only" frequency, can be paired with either 154.430 mHz used by Brooklyn Center FD or with 154.250 mHz now used by Golden Valley /New Hope FDs. A repeater requires two frequencies be combined to make a single channel with little operational advantage (it appears to us) in this instance, but it can be done. Doing so requires f a new station which will cost $8,000- 9,000, installed. Recently, the FCC removed the low power restriction on fire frequency 153.830 mHz so it can be used by mobile units for fire- ground communications. This frequency, now believed to be installed in most fire radios, is not available for exclusive use by any department. Similarly, 154.010 can be used on a shared basis for fire ground communications. This frequency is installed in some but not all fire department radios. Dispatch Center Radio Equipment A consolidated dispatch facility will need to have communications capability on all radio channels currently used by the five cities plus the common public safety channels used in Hennepin County. Since all of the cities now have this capability in aggregate, the least cost path to establish a consolidated dispatch facility will be to operate existing stations by remote control. Or at least as many of existing stations as required to generate a full service communications center. Console equipment for the consolidated facility itself must either be entirely new or relocated from existing dispatch centers. There is a strong argument for buying new radio consoles because: W. M. Montgomery & Associates 31 Minnetonka, Minnesota 1. Existing dispatch facilities must remain fully operational until the instant the consolidated facility goes on line. If dispatch console equipment is relocated from existing communication centers, dispatchers will find it difficult or impossible to maintain the expected level of service for a few weeks until the new facility is fully operational. 2. The consolidated facility must be fully installed for a period of time before it becomes operational. Time will be required to test and debug equipment before it is placed in service. Time will also be required to train dispatchers on the new equipment. 3. No city has console equipment in place which is capable of supporting the proposed con- solidated facility. Therefore, using existing equipment will be a process of borrowing from several cities to generate the complement of required console equipment. 4. Incompatibilities in audio muting schemes, amplifier controls, and other circuits between Centracom I and Centracom II consoles will tend to defeat successful integration of inter generational equipment in a common facility. Trying to marry the Golden Valley CSI con - sole with Motorola consoles or console parts borrowed from Brooklyn Center, Crystal and /or Robbinsdale in a common dispatch facility is a fool's errand. 5. Individual departments will always need radio communication with their home offices for miscellaneous traffic and will therefore require a modicum of local radio control into the indefinite future. While participating cities almost surely would not purchase console equipment now in place to serve in this secondary role, the fact is that it is cheaper to use existing equipment as -is where -is than to replace it now with lesser apparatus. Dispatch Center Consoles Earlier we suggested that six console work stations in the consolidated communications center will be enough to provide prompt and efficient dispatch service. Since population of the five cities is stable, radio traffic will increase only if calls for service increase significantly on a per capita basis. Cost to buy and install six console work stations can be estimated by extrapolating prices from the recent Hennepin County console bid. Using those prices, updated by the price escalator clause in the Hennepin contract and adding cost of work station furniture, you will be ably to buy and install six work stations for about $338,000, including dispatcher training conducted by the installing contractor. How much U.S. West will charge to install radio control circuits depends somewhat'on where the new dispatch facility is located. Consider radio control circuit work which will be required if the new facility is located in the old Norwest Bank building across the street from Crystal City Hail. The following radio circuits will be required: W. M. Montgomery & Associates 32 Minnetonka, Minnesota Monthly Police Installation Rental 1. Crystal, T155.685/RI55.685, main station (uses existing Crystal PD base station) $520 $21 2. Crystal, T155.685/R155.685, standby station (uses existing Crystal PD base station) $520 $21 3. Crystal, T155.370/R155.370, point -to -point (uses existing Crystal PD base station) $0 p/o #1 ckt $0 4. Crystal, T155.055/R155.055, Hennepin CD (uses existing Crystal PD base station) $0 p/o #2 ckt $0 5. Crystal, T45.660/R45.660, Hennepin Intersystem (uses existing Crystal PD base station) $520 $15 6. Crystal, T154.995/RI55.820, Hennepin Channel 3 (uses existing Crystal PD base station) $520 $15 7. Brooklyn Center, T155.535/R158.970, repeater (uses existing Brooklyn Center PD repeater) $580 $31 8. Brooklyn Center, T465.275/R460.275, Metro Emergency g Y (uses existing Brooklyn Center control station) $580 $31 9. Golden Valley, T155.430/R154.725, repeater (uses existing Golden Valley repeater) $580 $31 Fire Rental 10. Crystal, T154.430/R154.430, main station (uses existing Crystal FD base station) $520 $21 11. Crystal, T154.430/R154.430, standby station (uses existing Crystal FD base station) $520 $21 12. Crystal, T154.295/R154.295, mutual aid (uses existing Crystal FD base station $0 p/o #10 ckt $0 13. Crystal, R154.010, Fire Ground (Receiver only, uses existing Crystal Rx) $0 p/o #11 ckt $0 W. M. Montgomery & Associates 33 Minnetonka, Minnesota Monthly Police Installation Rental 1. Golden Valley, T154.250/R154.250, main station (uses existing Golden Valley FD base station - $580 $31 2. Robbinsdale, T153.770/R153.770, main station (uses existing Robbinsdale FD base station $580 $31 Public Works 3. Brooklyn Center, T453.650/R458.650, repeater (uses existing Brooklyn Center DPW repeater) $580 $31 4. Crystal, T37.920/R37.920, main station (uses existing, Crystal DPW base station) $520 $21 5. Golden Valley, T153.800/R153.800, main station (uses existing Golden Valley DPW base station) $580 $31 6. New Hope, T154.025/R154.025, main station (uses existing New Hope DPW main station) $580 $31 7. New Hope, T37.260/R37.260, main station (uses existing New Hope DPW main station) 580 31 Total $8,860 $399 Some of the radio stations assigned to Crystal in the above tabulation could just as well be assigned to any of the other cities. However, leased line cost is cheapest if both ends of the leased circuit are served from the same telephone company central office. Costs shown above are ical i f the typ old Norwest bank building at 42nd &Douglas is used for the consolidated PSAP. In fact, if the Norwest Bank building is used for the consolidated facility, it probably makes sense to install your own cable under the street between the radio consoles and City of Crystal radio room. Money paid to U.S. West for installation and monthly rental to furnish leased lines for two years between these sites will go a long way towards paying for installation of your own cable. Of course, your own cable will not have a monthly lease Mobile /Portable Radio Modification Modifications for existing mobile and portable radios to use all police and /or fire radio channels currently assigned to the five cities can be expected to fall under four determinants: 1. All radios should have the same channel pattern. That is, Channel 1, 2, 3, etc. should be the same in all radios so reference to a specific channel will have the same meaning in all five W. M. Montgomery & Associates 34 Minnetonka, Minnesota cities. Consistent channel number identifiers can accommodate unique frequencies for each city by using the same channel in all radios for the local option. It will be common knowledge that channel "x" is a local option frequency. 2. Can the radio accept the number of channels of interest? Most radios bought in recent .years can accommodate 8 or more channels. Radios which we have seen with up to 16 channels i seem to follow the dictum "nature abhors a vacuum ". That is, users seem to see it as a challenge not to have a vacant channel in the radio, even if the channel is seldom /never i used. Details of radio channel assignments don't need to be settled now. If the radio has 8 channel or more capability, it can be expected to be, viable in the consolidated system. 3. Does the radio transmitter have enough bandwidth to accommodate the Brooklyn Center repeater? All the police frequencies are centered around 155 mHz except the talk -in frequency used by Brooklyn Center (158.970). Transmitter for the Motorola MT500 radio, for example, is limited to 1 mHz between highest and lowest frequency. This radio can be used on Hennepin Channel 3, Crystal PD, Golden Valley /New Hope frequencies, MINSEF, and others but it can't accommodate any of these channels and the Brooklyn Center repeater. Neither can the Motorola =0 series or GE PE series accommodate all these channels. Can the other hand, Motorola MX300, MT1000, and Saber, plus Bendix King and GE M- PD, M -PA, MPS, and PIS all have enough transmitter bandwidth to accommodate the Brooklyn Center repeater. ` 4. Fire frequencies fall in a narrow range. Therefore,if the radio can accommodate the number of channels required, it can accommodate the bandwidth required provided only the fire frequencies are considered. If police frequencies are desired in fire radios, the same bandwidth considerations obtain as for police radios. Pager Modification Many and perhaps most police pagers use services of a radio common carrier such as MinnComm for wide area coverage. This practice may be continued with no impact on consolidation. For pagers now tuned to a local police or fire channel, there is no requirement that any pager be modified to work in the consolidated environment unless a fire repeater is implemented in which case the Robbinsdale frequency will lose its identity. In such an event, Robbinsdale pagers must be modified to monitor the output frequency of the new repeater or one of the remaining simplex fire channels. For paging on a local police or fire channel, we think you will be best served to carry all police paging on one PD channel and all fire paging on one fire channel just to off -load this activity from other police /fire channels. Since having a repeater means nothing to radio paging service, paging operations using local frequencies should be assigned to simplex channels. i Logging Recorder Crystal has the newest.logging recorder - a Dictaphone top -of -the -line 9000 series. We presume if the consolidation is implemented that Crystal (and all the other cities) will no longer have an W. M. Montgomery & Associates 35 Minnetonka, Minnesota application for their logging recorder except as they may be selected for a secondary . PSAP in case of catastrophe at the main site. We suggest the Crystal recorder be relocated to the consol- idated facility. Moving and hook -up at the new location shouldn't cost more than $1,000. If more than 20 channels are required on the logging recorder at the new facility, it probably is not economical to modify the Crystal recorder because the tape transports will have to be re- placed with drives which can accommodate 1" wide tape. EQUIPMENT CREDIT We have made suggestions about equipment contributions which several of the cities might make to launch a consolidated system at least cost. Each contributor benefits the remaining cities through avoided additional start-up cost. These contributions should be recognized in a material way through a formula which applies a credit against start-up cost otherwise shared by all participants. Budget estimates presented in this report make no adjustment for in -kind contributions except for Golden Valley's new 9 -1 -1 telephone equipment. Our estimate of $58,000 for E -9 -1 -1 premise equipment at a common location does not reflect cost of basic equipment bought by Golden Valley which must be paid before capacity of that equipment can be expanded. MAINTENANCE For planning purposes, we think you should not anticipate saving radio maintenance money in a consolidated environment. If you elect to use a go-slow approach to "getting to know you" in a consolidated environment, a single radio maintenance contract can wait for awhile. However, there may be a modest saving to be had initially by discontinuing contract mainte- nance on logging recorders no longer used and seeking reduced maintenance cost for existing dispatch consoles no longer used in 24 hour service. Later, you may wish to looks towards a single maintenance contract for the five cities as leverage to gain a better deal from the successful maintenance contractor as well as avoid finger pointing exercises between radio technicians of several organizations. BUDGET This report takes only a wide view of consolidation. New equipment costs are considered but the value of shared existing equipment is ignored. This larger view of start-up cost suggests these investments will be required: purchase old Norwest Bank Building in Crystal $175,000. remodel 1,400 square feet of bank space @ $851fe 119,000. office furniture and furnishings 10,000. E -9 -1 -1 telephone equipment 58,000. modification of existing mobile /portable radios 10,000. miscellaneous base station modifications 10,000. new dispatch console equipment 338,000. install new radio control circuits 8,000, W. M. Montgomery & Associates 36 Minnetonka, Minnesota 10 $729,000. contingency 73.000. j Estimated start-up investment $801,000. Annual recurring cost is estimated to be: j Payroll $608,000. Telephone service (including 9 -1 -1 and 7 digit leased lines) 12,000. Building maintenance, contractual services and utilities, insurance, staff training, operating supplies, etc. 36.112. Estimated total annual recurring cost n in t o including radio maintenance 656 112. t to g $ g f 1 i i W. M. Montgomery & Associates 37 Minnetonka, Minnesota • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 11/09/92 Agenda Item Number Oa, REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED, APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT, AND APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH BONDING COMPANY FOR WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 1990 -03 AND 1990 -03A, AND REPLACEMENT OF ENTRANCE DRIVE TO LIFT STATION #1, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -11, CONTRACT 1992 -H DEPT. APPROVAL: .,, Sy Knapp, irector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: =J No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attaid'ied SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Contract 1992 -H, Completion of Water Distribution System, Improvement Project No. 1990 -03A, and Replacement of Entrance Drive to Lift Station No. 1, Improvement Project No. 1992 -11, has been completed by Thomas and Sons, Inc. Improvement Project 1990 -03A was the completion of Project 1990 -03, originally awarded to Glendale Contracting, Inc. in June of 1991, and Improvement Project 1992 -11 was the restoration of a portion of the Lift Station No. 1 site affected by the sewer collapse in the summer of 1991. Improvement Project No. 1990 -03, Water Distribution System Improvement, was originally established in January of 1990, and plans and specifications were subsequently developed. Bids were taken in June of that year and Contract 1991 -C was awarded to Glendale Contracting, Inc. The heavy snowfall in October of that year curtailed the construction effort prior to project completion, and later in the winter it became apparent that Glendale was having financial difficulties. In April of 1992, the City was advised by both Glendale and their bonding company, USF &G, that the City should undertake the completion of the project. At that point, the City officially declared Glendale in default of Contract 1991 -C, and developed plans and specifications for re- bidding the portion of the work which Glendale could not complete. For administrative purposes, Improvement Project 1992 -11 was also bid, but as a separate schedule. Bids were received and on May 11, 1992, the City Council awarded Contract 1992 -H to Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc. Throughout this process, City Staff have worked with various representatives of the former Glendale Contracting, Inc. (now bankrupt), USF &G (the bonding company for Glendale), and Thomas and Sons, to 1) insure that the City's water supply was not compromised; and 2) keep any additional costs attributable to re- bidding and finishing the work at an absolute minimum. Because USF &G "guaranteed" the performance of Glendale, and the City still retained funds from Contract 1991 -C, a settlement agreement has been developed by USF &G and the City which addresses the financial liabilities of both parties, in light of the additional costs incurred by the City for the completion of the project. Staff recommends approval of this settlement agreement. A copy of this agreement is provided for reference. The construction contract expenditure for the Water Distribution System Improvement, Project Nos. 1990 -03 & 1990 -03A, totals $512,059.39, which includes a $7,446.12 expenditure for the City repair of a portion of defective work in 69th Ave. Upon release of Glendale's Contract 1991 -C retainage ($22,545.14) to USF &G, the City has negotiated a settlement amount of $34,294.51, which will leave the City with a total Water Distribution System Improvement cost of $500,310 The original contract value, plus approved change orders for Project 1990 -03 was $492,332.76 The difference between these amounts, $7,977.26, represents approved payment to Thomas & Sons for additional items of work which would have been incidental to the original contract with Glendale Contracting, Inc. (These unrecoverable City expenses were incurred due to Glendale's default of the original Contract 1991 -C). The actual value of the work performed for Improvement Project No. 1992 -11, Replacement of Entrance Drive to Lift Station No. 1, is $21,796.06, or $1,245.44 less than the original contract value, due to an overestimation of quantities. Staff • recommends acceptance of the work performed for Improvement Project No.s 1990 -03, 1990 -03A and 1992 -11, and authorization to make final payments and execution of the settlement agreement with USF &G. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution which accepts work performed, approves final payment and authorizes execution of a settlement agreement with USF &G is provided for consideration. l Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED, APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT, AND APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH BONDING COMPANY FOR WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 1990 -03 AND 1990 -03A, AND REPLACEMENT OF ENTRANCE DRIVE TO LIFT STATION #1, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -11, CONTRACT 1992 -H WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 90 -13 on January 8, 1990, which established Improvement Project No. 1990 -03, Water Distribution System Improvements; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91 -165 on June 24, 1991, which accepted the bid and awarded a contract to Glendale Contracting, Inc. for Improvement Project No. 1990 -03; and WHEREAS, in April of 1992, Glendale Contracting, Inc., as Principal, and USF &G as Surety, jointly advised that the City undertake the completion of Improvement Project No. 1990 -03, Contract 1991 -C; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer subsequently declared Glendale Contracting, Inc. in default of Contract 1991 -C; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 92 -89 on April 13, 1992 which established Contract 1992 -H, Completion of Water Distribution System, Improvement Project No. 1990 -03A and Replacement of Entrance Drive to Lift Station No. 1, Improvement Project No. 1992 -11; and WHEREAS, certain items of work not foreseen by the original plans and specifications for Improvement Project No. 1990 -03A were added to Contract 1992 -H upon recommendation by the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc., has satisfactorily completed the following improvements in accordance with said contract: COMPLETION OF WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -03A AND REPLACEMENT OF ENTRANCE DRIVE TO LIFT STATION NO. 1, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -11, CONTRACT 1992 -H; AND RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, USF &G, as Surety for the original contractor, Glendale Contracting, Inc., has proposed a monetary settlement to the City for costs incurred for Improvement Project Nos. 1990 -03 and 1990 -03A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under Contract 1991 -C, Water Distribution System Improvement, Improvement Project No. 1990 -03 is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: As Amended For Low Bid & Approved As Final Per As Established Change Orders Contract Termination Contract $409,017.00 $492,332.76 $450,902.88 Contingency 61.353.00 24.616.24 -0- Subtotal Construction $470,370.00 $516,949.00 $450,902.88 Professional Services 8,679.00 8,679.00 8,679.00 Staff Engineering (8%) 37,630.00 41,356.00 36,072.23 Legal & Admin. (2%) 9.408.00 10.339.00 9.018.06 Total Est. Project Cost $526,087.00 $577,323.00 $504,672.17 2. The work completed under Contract 1992 -H, is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: Improvement Project No. 1990 -03A, Completion of Water Distribution System As Amended As Established Per Per Approved Low Bid Change Orders As Final Contract $70,034.80 $71,666.59 $76,255.53 Contingency 3.501.74 -0- -0- Subtotal Construction $73,536.54 $71,666.59 $76,255.53 Staff Engineering (8%) 5,882.92 5,733.33 6,100.44 Admin. & Legal (2%) 1,470.73 1,433.33 1,525.11 Material Testing (1 %) 735.37 716.67 762.56 Total Estimated Cost Improvement Project 1990 -03A $81,625.56 $79,549.92 $84,643.64 RESOLUTION NO. Improvement Project No. 1992 -11, Replacement of Entrance Drive to Lift Station No. 1 As Established Per Low Bid As Final Contract $ 23,041.50 $ 21,796.06 Contingency 1,152.08 -0- Subtotal Construction $ 24,193.58 $ 21,796.06 Staff Engineering (8%) 1,935.49 1,743.68 Admin. & Legal (2%) 483.87 435.92 Material Testing (1 %) 241.94 217.96 Total Estimated Cost Improvement Project 1992 -11 $ 26,854.88 $ 24,193.62 Total Estimated Cost Contract 1992 -H $108,480.44 $108,837.26 3. The actual value of work for Improvement Project No. 1990 -03A, Completion of Water Distribution System is $4,588.74 more than the original contract plus approved change order due to an underestimation of quantities. 4. The actual value of work for Improvement Project No. 1992 -11, Replacement of Entrance Drive to Lift Station No. 1 is $1,245.44 less than the original contract due to an overestimation of quantities. 5. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contracts, taking the Contractors receipts in full. The total amount to be paid for Improvement Project No. 1990 -03 under Contract 1991 -C shall be $450,902.88. The total amounts to be paid for Improvement Project No. 1990 -03A and Improvement Project No. 1992 -11 under Contract 1992 -H shall be $76,255.53 and $21,796.06, respectively. 6. The settlement as proposed by USF &G, as Surety for Glendale Contracting, Inc., is hereby accepted and approved for reimbursement of costs in conjunction with Contracts 1991 -C and 1992 -H. The City Manager is hereby directed to execute said settlement agreement, as submitted and amended on October 13,1992. RESOLUTION NO. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. AGREEMENT" This Agreement is made this day of by and between United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company and the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. A. PREMISES 1. WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center (hereafter "City ") entered into a contract with Glendale Contracting, Inc. (hereafter "Glendale ") dated July 17, 1991 (hereafter the "Bonded Contract ") for the construction of Contract No. 1991 -C, 1990 Water Distribution System Improvement (hereafter the "Project "); and 2. WHEREAS, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (hereafter "USF &G ") as surety issued a Payment and Performance Bond (hereafter the "Bond ") dated July 17, 1991 for the Bonded Contract to the City as obligee in the amount of $499,799.75 and with Glendale as Principal (a copy of the Bond being attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference); and 3. WHEREAS, the City has asserted claims against USF &G on the Bond based upon Glendale's alleged defaults and failures to perform its obligations under the Bonded Contract; and 4. WHEREAS, USF &G and the City wish to resolve claims which the City has made against USF &G relating to the Bond, the Bonded Contract and the Project; B. AGREEMENTS NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the payment and mutual agreements provided for herein and of other good and valuable consideration, USF &G and the City agree as follows: 1. USF &G shall pay the City the sum of $34,294.51. The City's execution of this Agreement constitutes its acknowledgment of the receipt of this sum as of the date of this Agreement. 2. The City hereby acknowledges that the Bonded Contract has been completed and accepted and the City agrees that upon receipt of the payment provided for herein it shall complete all proceedings and documents required to effect its "acceptance" of the Bonded Contract within the meaning of Minn. Stat § 574.31. 3. The City acknowledges that USF &G's payment of $34,294.51 pursuant to this Agreement constitutes full and complete payment for USF &G's alleged liability under the Bond for completion costs incurred by the City in completing the Bonded Contract and in correcting an alleged defect in Glendale's 12" watermain installed by Glendale under the Bonded Contract as described in the City's Closed Work Order and Invoice attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. The City hereby releases and discharges USF &G from all liability, claims, causes of action and demands for said contract completion costs, and said repair costs, and for any known or reasonably discoverable defects in Glendale's work existing on the date of this Agreement. A defect is considered to be reasonably discoverable if it would be discovered by a person who is knowledgeable in the type of construction which is the subject of the Bonded Contract. 4. The payment by USF &G to the City pursuant to this Agreement and all payments by USF &G of claims by other persons or firms entitled to assert claims against the Bond shall serve to reduce the amount of the Bond and discharge USF &G's liability thereunder to the extent of such payments. Nothing in this Agreement shall waive the amount of the Bond or - 2 - the Bond's other terms and provisions or shall expand or modify USF &G's liability under the Bond. 5. The City shall assist USF &G in prosecuting its claims against Glendale and Glendale's officers and /or indemnitors by making available to USF &G project documents and City staff and employees who possess knowledge concerning the Bonded Contract and Project. USF &G shall reimburse the City for its reasonable costs and expenses incurred in supplying such documents and in making its staff and employees available to assist USF &G. 6. As of the date of this Agreement USF &G has not been able to obtain and review Glendale's complete accounting records for the Project but other potential Bond claims may exist. In the event that future claims are made against the Bond which would exceed the Bond amount USF &G intends to defend such claims on the rounds among others, g r that its g � prior P payments to the City and other Bond claimants would constitute a complete discharge of USF &G's Bond obligations. However, and notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, in the event that a final judgment or decree by a court of competent jurisdiction determines that other subsequent valid Bond claims do exist and that such other claimants would be entitled to pro -rata shares of the portion of the Bond amount now received by the City under this Agreement, then the City agrees to reimburse USF &G for the amount of said pro -rata share so determined to be owing to such other Bond claimants. 7. To the extent of any payments received from USF &G under this Agreement (and not reimbursed to USF &G pursuant to paragraph 6) the City hereby assigns, conveys and transfers to USF &G its claims and causes of action which it may possess against Glendale arising from Glendale's alleged breaches and defaults under the Bonded Contract and the Bond. -3- 8. This Agreement shall bind and shall benefit USF &G and its directors, officers, shareholders, employees, agents, attorneys, representatives, affiliated corporations, successors in interest or assigns, and the City and its mayor, administrators, council, employees, agents, attorneys, representatives and successors in interest or assigns. This Agreement shall not be enforceable by Glendale or by any other persons not parties hereto or described in this paragraph. 9. This agreement is made to resolve disputed claims, and except as expressly provided in paragraphs B 2, B 3, and B 4, shall not constitute an admission of fact or law by the parties hereto, and shall not be offered or admissible in any action or proceeding. Provided, however, that USF &G may offer this Agreement and have it admitted into evidence in any action or proceeding commenced or prosecuted by it to assert its claims or defenses against Glendale and Glendale's officers and /or indemnitors, or against other Bond claimants which are not parties hereto. 10. The above — stated Premises are part of this Agreement. 11. This Agreement constitutes the parties' full and complete understandings and agreements with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any prior or contemporaneous negotiations or communications relating thereto. 12. This Agreement may be executed in duplicate originals, and either of these executed duplicates shall constitute the original Agreement for all purposes. _ 4 _ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date above written. UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY By: Its CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA By: Its: —5— �.,.... ,.n, ra.,n_n...•.. rn... a rem uvnu nv q / V1[V- 11 /C / — it -L lira.. u,.[. C. w ...... I, - KNOW AU. IP i13Si; PI1rSr',NT.9, T1,.( �, M XIMAL . t RACT11IG, iNC. JOJU Ilarhor Lane North, Plym -101, Minnenotn 55447 nn I ntid U11ITED STATES fIUELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY tom sttrclicn, hereby ncknuwlnlgc find rector nize nurwelven held and firmly bound to City of Brooklyn Center, NLtniesota Slnlr. n( Minncmnln, oblirce, in the sum n( �oair Ilun.lred ttir.cty -Nine Thousand Seven Ihn.dred tl lnelY -Nine and 75 - - 797 751 Uollnrn, In%vfa) niortey nhtlie Llntted Stnlrn to be pnid to sniff obligee fur its line mid the uRe of nil permonm find enrporntinnn doing %work fir (tirninhinR skill, tools, mnchinerv, ninlerinin, itintirnnee, equipment or nupplirm far not• romp mninlnine,f (fir 'lie kerpil1R of pernonw Mild nnitt,nin r++gngrd 'Stotler, fir (or lhepmrponeo(, tale tito hereinniter referred to Simi deneriberl, lieirn, legal repreeentnliveR. Ruccennnrn nnri nwnignn, for which pny"ient %veil find truly to he n+ntle %vn bind ourneives, our respective heirs find fegnl represenlntives, jointly nti(l Rcvernily, firmly by theme prenctils: TIM C UNI)I TIONS 01' TIIIS 011TAUAIION ARM SUCII; llinl wherean sniff principOl_ fin_ etiterell into n contract will% sniff oblirec for Contract No. 1991 -C 1990 Water Distribution System Impcovemetit NOW l'1lK.111 v utI;, if nnid principnl Som lllp tod erformncumipletennidcunlrnctn rn cearditigtoitslern; nlinil tiny, nn they hearrvie tlme. nil itint cinimw for mteh work, loolSo, mwehinery, okill, mnlerinim, iton,+rnnee prr,niumn, rgniprmrit, tnxrw incurred 'Sndrr Sectinn 211t1.112 or Clinpler 297A, find 'Supplies, for the cninpirEfon of nnid rnnlrfiet in nernrifrinre %with Ulf trrmn, ineludinr rquipment Simi nuppiien fnr Sony ennip s tov e ni sni f nhli for (retfitor find keeirinr Of pernnnn nnid nnininls for Elie per(nrinnnce of nnid cunlrnct; nhnil save rre_ hnrnilraa from nil cnntn mid chnrgen that cony nc"tteon ficcounto( the doing e(nnid %work slirriliril in sniff cnntrnrt nml for rrifnrcinr lite lcrt"n of this band in nil nctio+im which inny he hronrf+f lhrrrrin niid mtrrrenAdl,y nininlninrrl, fnri'Sifinr retinnnnble nittnneyd fern; wirrtll cmnply with nil Inns npperinininr in •Mid cnntrnrt mot nnid work; nlinil, in clone lhe conlrnet pricenpecifirrl fn nnid cunlrnct AtnR for ally rrnanit for increnwrif, furninh nn nilditfonnl hand fn the wnin ill lennt of such increnne within Ica days nflrr drennnti therefor in wrilinl. frnnt nnid obligee_; mill ehnll tiny fill cants mid disburscmcnlm, including rrrnwnnnitle nlforneys' Ices, in nay find nil nctionm which Rlinil be nnccenmfully innitilnineri for the enforcinr of the lennR of this Iwind• then thisobligntioti mhnll become void• otherwise it nlinll be find remnin n( fill force end effect. IN WPiNF.SS W111;111301 We hove hercutiLn set our hmide thin l7th tiny n( July Ig 9 1 . - in prrsrncc Of. GUNUALE COMRA CTING INC. Dale delo Secretary 111Tf I) 1 STATE F F,1. Y AND G UARANTY COMP ANY Uonnid R. Oison Attorney in Fact EXHIBIT A INUIVIOUAl„ ,KNOWU"TIGNIIENI' SLnLc tIG nncsoLa, l (: ... mill. ,r( - -- Ooo Iloin day n( pr•ranrinliv nirpt•nri -d - 1 !!- ....._, lorfare role lu mr lulm.•n L. br lllr prrnan_dcnrril,rd in ToniI Lhnrxr•raled (lie (urrynrinl• _ Irnnd,and nrlunnwlctlrtrd lhTot hr_ rxrcalrtl the nrnnr nn free Tort and dce+l. ruTiii�i�-l�nir nn iTxCiru 'u�il"Lir?i,l: "Tow ham.-, �. Subocrihrd find Rovnrll lu before Tile thin .JU3'111' ;ATION FOR ITI(SONALSURI•:ME..13 SL.Ac of MilillesoLa, CmIlIty Tor J I Irrinl; duly nlvnrn, nn nnlh ench for ^ cl(nnyn; (fool _Joe in of remittent flood freeimider 11f the Slut" of Milo notootn: thn( J+c junlifira nn the (nrernioon burrd in the Rant Itcl "w net 1111 +rinile lo—ttmnr• (It tit lirin tvnrlh nnid moon nlrnve lo_ticbto m+"' "nbililicn nrld cxclnniveoff h_prttperlyexen+tit fr11ootexeculiu+o lu• twit: Snid in the nut" of I)n11nrR Snid in (fie Rum of _. IJullnrn Sn6ticribrti n+td Rworn to before ate tit;@ —tiny of �31iiAZT1oR1ii1' ,SI"1, ZaPFt r r i'. ,r r•�' TTT(af1TZT7IT(�,#3FJl.ul a II'ltTtTi3`ri> , ACKNOWIXI)OMi N'1' O (;Ultl'UiiA'i r SUitl•;i'y Sinlc n( Mnncsota It. Un thin 171:1, tiny of July t'nrinly "( 1jr1Um ) before me nppenred Dona R. Olson in ntr liernmtnlly known, who. brim( Ity me duly Rwnrn, did tiny lllnt Joe is lire__ oo( S(A3F - 5 FtUE1.l7Y AN1I Cll r:UflI'At1Y of cnrtmrnlimo, lion( the torn) nffixeti I" the foreuai"rt innlrutiornl in the C "rpnrnte ncni u( Rnid corpnrnli "n, mtrl (font nnid inntrumcnt tvnn exectotctl in bchnl( n((gqn1'd cn +nrnlion by mtlh fln nrity of iln nni of Ulcectors ; and tlint nnid Uunn1U 1 l. Ulson neknotvirdtletl nnid inelr"tttc "t to be (lie free nct and deed of nnid c"rpornlino. «., zrizrzri�:rz..,r nl i'rtll•f .^rn >. - � , • ' �•� ' ' S"hticribrtl "fill etvorn to before fire thin 17th tiny n( July t ..+ :.a�.: ^ t l 1. 1! ^ . --- ,;rl��t; `�� rn • r 1+1 . III / I A . � O I ld C a, a s of 7 .. v O u o O lu ce O v tc � ' o c o c .� .r a• � g „ m � o t 1 ,� •� �.1 J +� L n u � v EXHIBIT A CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY Of B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE: 569 -3300 C ENTER FAX: 569 -3494 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTEE CO 7300 METRO BLVD SUITE 645 INVOICE P 009232 EDINA, MN 55439 INVOICE DATE 09/15/92 DIV NAME WATR PEID 04358 ACCT NO 7231 1201 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 09/15/92 WATER MAIN LEAK ON 69TH 7,446.12 AVE INSTALLED BY GLENDALE CONTRACTING TOTAL 7,446.12 DUE UPON RECEIPT PLEASE MAKE REMITTANCE PAYABLE TO "CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER" �z EXHIBIT Q -- - --- � -�� J.�I iry Qv,) r V4 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER �., CLOSED WORK ORDER DATE __19 ! Q ; L WORK ORDER NL�IGfiER Check On Check OneOne General Maintenance (Ghl) Capital Outlay (C0) WORK To Be Charged To: Oats'.de Charge (OC_') Outside Charge (OC2CO, Capital Out'.ay (CO) Special A.isessmcnt Xf" Special Accescmer.t (SA) _ _ Preject (SA 190) Of En er Primary Work Crder Prep= WORK DESIRED 0 D s c ri ti a and d Location P ) 6 97' , �! 1 - r' Fpm CA '^V Work Requested Date � ".fi � Approvod by Date Inepeoted by Date Work Order Closed by D=tQ _ PERSONAL SERVICES Employee Number Hours Rate Amount ram- A /0. �' - 222 ,2 5 Q k s a iyyU r a .r - 0 Totals XX SEC v „e EXHIBIT O CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date November 9, 1992 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH EVERGREEN DEVELOPMENT GROUP DEPT. APPROVAL: Brad Hoffman, EDA oordinator MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: .� No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • Any questions on this item will be discussed in the Council meeting. lt hh f Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH EVERGREEN DEVELOPMENT GROUP WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for h City of Brooklyn Center ( HRA) is the owner of certain real property Y of Brooklyn Center legally described as Tract B, registered land survey 1603, Hennepin County, Minnesota ( the "Development Property ") ; and WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center ( "EDA") has undertaken a program to promote the development of housing within the City pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.108, and in connection therewith is engaged in carrying out a housing development project (the "Project ") in an area (the "Project Area ") in the City; and WHEREAS, there has been prepared and approved by the EDA and the City Council a plan for the Project; and WHEREAS, in connection with the Project, the EDA and City have created a tax increment district within the Project Area pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179; and WHEREAS, Evergreen Development Group, a North Dakota partnership (the "Developer ") has offered to purchase the Development Property and construct thereon 90 units of multi- family housing to be rented to elderly persons, all pursuant to a proposed Development Agreement by and between the Developer, the City, the EDA and the HRA (the "Development Agreement ") ; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Development Agreement and determined that the sale of the Development Property and the development thereof In accordance with the Development Agreement is in the best interests of the City and its citizens; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement and authorizes and directs that the Mayor and Manager execute the Development Agreement and take such other and additional steps as may be necessary to carry out the terms thereof. 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 11/09/92 Agenda Item Number lU C REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATE AID DIVISION PROVIDING FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS INCURRED FOR CERTIFICATION OF CITY PERSONNEL DEPT. APPROVAL: 1 i Sy • app, D' ctor of Public Works HIM t "ltd t' ±rc & ✓ MANAGER'S S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION. ,.. „_e: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attYched SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes A number of the streets in Brooklyn Center which are under City jurisdiction are designated as part of the Municipal State Aid System. Construction and maintenance costs on these designated streets are partially reimbursable by the State, in a program typically referred to as "State Aid ". The Minnesota Department of Transportation State Aid Division has required that personnel performing construction inspection and material testing on these State Aid projects be certified. This certification requires training and testing at MnDOT approved classes which are being offered until July of 1995. The State Aid Division has recently offered to enter into agreements with cities affected by this new requirement, for the provision of reimbursement to the cities for the costs incurred with training their full -time personnel. The agreement will allow the City to receive up to $5,000 toward the cost of classes, books, etc. A proposed agreement has been forwarded to the City Engineer, a copy of which is attached for reference. Staff recommends the approval of and authorization to execute the proposed agreement. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution which approves the proposed agreement with MnDOT is provided for consideration. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATE AID DIVISION PROVIDING FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS INCURRED FOR CERTIFICATION OF CITY PERSONNEL WHEREAS, beginning January 1, 1994 the Minnesota Department of Transportation State Aid Division will require that certified technicians be utilized on improvement projects using State Aid funding; and WHEREAS, said requirement necessitates the training of existing City personnel; and WHEREAS, the State Aid Division has developed an agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center which provides for a total reimbursement to the City not to exceed $5,000, to be applied toward the costs of training, books, etc. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The proposed agreement between Minnesota Department of Transportation State Aid Division and the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby approved. 2. The City Engineer and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute said agreement. 3. All costs and revenues associated with the Certification Training shall be accounted for in the MSA Fund No. 2900. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT #ACC) J/ . y. Req. 4 venaor Sou 680439 yOcri �.. SZ �Z � GU IC os o or ien o e Amount surrix Un3ec 01 I SEND TYPE OF TRANSACTION Entered by , Z /: , ? Entered by Vendor name BROOKLYN CENTER Address 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the State of Minnesota, acting by and through the Commissioner of the Minnesota Deppartment of Transportation (hereinafter referred to as "MN /DOT") and BROOKLYN CENTER (hereinafter referr and "Recipient "). WHEREAS the State is authorized to administer the State Aid Administrative Account pursuant to MN Statute 162.06, Subd. 2; WHEREAS the Division of State Aid requires all personnel working on State Aid work be certified; WHEREAS the certification of technicians will ensure consistent inspection land high quality roads and bridges; 'SNOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements as hereinafter set forth, the parties to this Agreement mutually agree as follows: I. Term of Agreement This agreement shall be effective upon such date as it is executed as to encumbrance by the Commissioner of Finance, and shall remain in effect until all obliggations set forth in this areement have been satisfactorily fulfilled or December 31, 1995, wRichever occurs first, S which time all requests for reimbursement must be received in the ate Aid Office. II. Conditions of Agreement All ersonnel working on State Aid work, including but not limited to construction inspectors, and field testers, must be certified through the Technical Certification Program on all work beginning on or after January 1, 1994. III. Reimbursement by MN /DOT MN /DOT agrees to reimburse the Recipient an amount not to exceed more than $5,000.00 total tuition costs incurred for personnel workin on State Aid work for the successful completion of classes taken between November 1, 1992, and July 31, 1995. Recipient agrees to pay all costs not included in, or which exceed, said amount. A: Recipient must submit a resolution from the County Board /City Council approving the agreement. B: Request for reimbursement must be submitted on Recipient's letterhead indicating each participant's name, title of each course taken, and amount to be reimbursed for each course. C: Recipient must submit a copy of payment voucher or a copy of the canceled check as proof of payment for each course. D: Request must be submitted to: Assistant State Aid Engineer De t. of Transportation, Room 420 3N John Ireland Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155 Audits IV. All records, books, documents, and accountingq rocedures and practices relevant to this agreement are subject to audi and examiniation by MN /DOT and either he Legislative Auditor or State Auditor as appropriate. Termination of this Agreement V. MN /DOT may withhold payment or terminate this Agreement at any time if the Recipient does not comply with the provisions of this Agreement. General Provisions VI. The Recipient agrees to indemnify and save and hold the State, its agents and employees harmless from an and all claims or causes of action arising from the performance oY this agreement by Recipient's participants or employees. This clause shall not be construed to bar any legal remedies Recipient or its participant's have for the State's failure to fulfill it's pursuant to this agreement. VII. Any amendments to this agreement shall be in writing and shall be approved by MN /DOT and the Recipient. APPROVED: RECIPIENT: COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION: BY: BY: City /County Engineer DATE: DATE: BY: ATTORNEY GENERAL: City Clerk /County Auditor DATE: BY: DATE: DEPT. OF ADMINISTRATION DEPT. OF FINANCE BY: BY: DATE: DATE: CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date / 11/9/92 Agenda Item Number / REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AMENDING BROOKLYN CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION BYLAWS DEPT. APPROVAL: J i�t� v Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONMIENDATION: 1. No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUIVEVIARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • The resolution before the City Council amends the Brooklyn Center Advisory Commission Bylaws to include the Drug Awareness and Financial Commissions. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Pass A Resolution Amending Brooklyn Center Advisory Commission Bylaws. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER COMMSSION BYLAWS Adopted: June 22, 1987 Amended: November 9, 1992 Pursuant to the following resolutions relating to and providing for the establishment, appointment, organization, and responsibilities of the Brooklyn Center Drug Awareness, Financial, Housing, Human Rights and Resources, Park and Recreation, and Planning Commissions, the City Council does hereby adopt these bylaws and rules for the conduct of their affairs. COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS Drug Awareness 90 -121, 92 -138 Financial 91 -115, 92 -99, 92 -168 Housing 73 -140, 75 -97, 77 -22 87 -131, 92 -136 Human Rights and Resources 68 -44, 69 -35, 71 -211, 74 -68, 87 -132, 92 -135 Park and Recreation 73 -25, 77 -52, 87 -133, 92 -137 Planning 87 -87, 87 -134, 92 -134, and Ordinance 35 -201 Article I. Officers Section 1. Personnel The officers shall consist of a Chairperson and Vice - Chairperson. Section 2. Duties The Chairperson shall preside at all meetings and shall appoint Ad Hoc Committee members and Ad Hoc Committee Chairpersons. The Vice - Chairperson shall be appointed annually by the Chairperson and shall perform such duties as may be assigned by the Chairperson, and shall assume the Chair in the absence of the Chairperson. Article II. Meetings The Commission shall hold regular meetings. Special meetings may be called at any time by the Chairperson upon sufficient notification to all Commission members. Article III. Quorum A quorum shall consist of a majority of the members of the Commission. Article IV. Attendance Three consecutive unexcused absences from duly called Commission meetings or unexcused absences from a majority of duly called Commission meetings within one calendar year shall constitute automatic resignation from office. Article V. Minutes Minutes of each regular meeting, in writing, shall be provided to each Commission member prior to the commencement of the succeeding regular meeting. Article VI. Ad Hoc Committees Section 1. Structure The Commission may create Ad Hoc Committees to investigate those areas where problems relative to the Commission's purpose are recognized. Section 2. Membership Each Ad Hoc Committee shall have a Chairperson, who shall provide regular interim reports on the progress of the Ad Hoc Committee. A final report to the Commission must be submitted. . Article VII. General Provisions No member of the Commission or its Committees shall be authorized to speak on behalf of the Commission publicly, unless the Commission has first considered and approved such statements. Article VIII. Parliamentary Authority Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall be the governing authority for all meetings of the Commission and for its committees. Article IX. Amendments These bylaws may be amended by a four - fifths vote of the City Council. I Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING BROOKLYN CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION BYLAWS WHEREAS, on June 22, 1987, the City Council did adopt bylaws for the Brooklyn Center Housing, Human Rights and Resources, Park and Recreation, and Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 1990, the City Council did adopt Resolution No. 90 -121 Creating the Brooklyn Center Drug Awareness Commission and Defining its Duties and Responsibilities; and WHEREAS, on July 13, 1992, the City Council did adopt Resolution No. 92 -168 Amending Resolution Nos. 91 -115 and 92 -99 Transforming the Brooklyn Center Ad Hoc City Financial Task Force into a City Advisory Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the Advisory Commission Bylaws be amended to include the Brooklyn Center Drug Awareness and Financial Commissions. 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 11/9/92 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES DEPT. APPROVAL: Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOABMNDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUNIlV7[ARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) Attached is the list of licenses to be approved by the city council. • RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Approve licenses. i l J 9 Licenses to be approved by the City Council on November 9, 1992: CHRISTMAS TREE SALES LOT P.Q.T. Company 5616 - 101st Ave. N. 5040 Brooklyn Blvd. Jerry's NewMarket 5801 Xerxes Ave. N. City Clerk 4k- GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE a. K & S Sanitation 24 Crossway Drive - t' Sanitarian Ak MECHANICAL SYSTEMS D J's Heating and Air Cond. 6060 Lebeaux Ave S.B.S. Mechanical, Inc. 7160 Madison Ave. W. • Q • . G�� Building Official Qje_ RENTAL DWELLINGS Renewal: Gar -Nan Management Co. Humboldt Courts Walt Halberg 1326 - 67th Lane N. _ Marlyn and Gayle Kruse 2101 - 71st Ave. N. __! �a Director of Planning and Inspections GENERAL APPROVAL: P. Page, Dojuty Clerk