Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 08-24 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AUGUST 24, 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. August 10, 1992 - Regular Session 8. Planning Commission Items: (7:15 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 92011 submitted by Metropolitan State University is a request for special use permit approval to allow an extension campus in a C1A zoning district in the office building at 6300 Shingle Creek Parkway. -This application was considered by the Planning Commission at its August 13, 1992 meeting and approval was recommended. 9. Ordinances: (7:15 p.m.) a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances Relating to Real Estate Signs -This ordinance was offered for a first reading on July 27, 1992, published in the City's official newspaper on August 5, 1992, and is offered this evening for a second reading. b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Relating to Administrative Land Use Permits -This ordinance was offered for a first reading on July 27, 1992, published in the City's official newspaper on August 5, 1992, and is offered this evening for a second reading. 10. Discussion Items: a. Part -time Communications Coordinator Position - Request for reconsideration by Communications Task Force and discussion of possible funding alternatives. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- August 24, 1992 b. Consideration of a Neighborhood Street Improvement Program 1. Resolution Authorizing Preliminary Consideration of a Possible Neighborhood Street Improvement Program C. Selection Committee Report Regarding Proposals Received for Development of a Pavement Management Program 1. Resolution Accepting Proposal for Development of a Pavement Management Program, Improvement Project No. 1992 -17, and Allocating Funds Therefore d. Staff Report Regarding Development of an Area Emergency Response Traffic Management System 1. Resolution Relating to a Joint and Cooperative Agreement for the Installation of an Area Wide Emergency Response Management System by the North Suburban Regional Emergency Response Network, and Establishing Improvement Project No. 1992 -23 for Implementation of an Emergency Response Traffic Management System e. Program Allowing High School Seniors to Serve as Nonvoting Members on City Advisory Commissions and City Council f. Safety Committee Recommendations 1. Resolution Amending the 1992 General Fund Budget to Transfer Funds to Provide Training and Personal Protective Equipment for Employees at Risk of Exposure to Bloodborne Pathogens 2. Resolution Amending the 1992 General Fund Budget to Transfer Funds to Provide Training on Defensive Driving g. 1993 Preliminary Proposed Budget 1. To Adopt the 1993 Preliminary Proposed Budget 2. To Authorize a Preliminary Proposed Tax Levy for 1993 Budget Appropriations 3. Approving a Proposed Tax Capacity Levy for the Purpose of Defraying the Cost of Operation, Providing Informational Service, and Relocation Assistance Pursuant to the Provisions of MSA 469.001 through 469.047 of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center for the Year 1993 h. Placement of 1% Food and Liquor Tax Question on November 3, 1992, General Election Ballot CITY COUNCIL AGENDA' -3- August 24, 1992 11. Resolutions: *a. Resolution Establishing Improvement Project No. 1992 -21, Television Inspection of Sanitary Sewers, Accepting Proposal, and Appropriating Funds Therefore *b. Resolution Approving Agreement No. 69791 with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, Authorizing Execution of Said Agreement, and Appropriating Funds Therefore -The proposed agreement from MNDOT would provide for installation of a new "permanent" traffic control signal system at the T.H. 100 /Indiana Avenue intersection, and for modifications to the T.H. 100 /France Avenue intersection. It is recommended that funds to cover Brooklyn Center's share of the costs (estimated at ($8056.00) be appropriated from the local municipal state aid street fund. *c. Resolution Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Diseased Trees (Order No. Dst 08/24/92) *d. Amending Schedules B and I of the 1992 Pay Plan *e. Authorizing Issuance of a Lawful Gambling License to the Brooklyn Center Lions Club to Operate a Pull -Tab at the Lynbrook Bowl *f. Expressing Recognition of and Appreciation for the Dedicated Public Service of the Brooklyn Center Lions Club *g. Declaring Heritage Festival as a Civic Event from October 19 through October 24, 1992 *h. Authorizing Execution of Agreement with the State of Minnesota for the Purpose of Conducting the First Stage of a Four -City Business Retention and Local Market Expansion Pilot Project i. Resolution Calling Special Election for Submission of Proposed Amendments to City Charter and Fixing Form of Ballots, November 3, 1992 *j. Amending the 1992 General Fund Budget and Authorizing Transfer of Funds from Drug Forfeiture Monies *k. Expressing Recognition of and Appreciation for the Dedicated Public Service of James P. Lindsay *12. Licenses 13. Adjournment CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 :BROOKLYN TELEPHONE: 569 -3300 C ENTER FAX: 569 -3494 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 MEMORANDUM Date: August 21, 1992 To: G. G. Splinter City Council From: Sy Knapp Subject: Removal of Diseased Boulevard Tree 4113 61st Avenue North • On August 20, 1992, Ole Nelson, the City's Tree Inspector marked a diseased elm tree for removal at 4113 61st Avenue North. Tree #245 is a boulevard tree and the City shares in half the cost of removal (in this case, $152.00). On August 21, Kenneth Hirte, the resident at the above referenced property called our office expressing dissatisfaction that he should have to pay for a tree that is not on his property. After a lengthy conversation he requested information to take further steps to appeal to the City - Council. He was advised of the next Council Meeting on August 24 and he may be at the Open Forum to appeal his costs for this removal. i .�C, MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council Members City of Brooklyn Center FROM: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager DATE: August 24, 1992 SUBJECT: Financial Task Force Recommendation Regarding City Council Salaries Attached please find a copy of your August 10, 1992, Council meeting minutes in which the City Council tabled consideration of City Council salaries until the August 24, 1992, meeting. Your staff inadvertently left this subject off the Council meeting agenda for August 24, 1992. Because the Council gave specific instructions for its inclusion on the August 24, 1992, meeting, I am providing copies of the draft minutes of the Financial Commission containing their recommendation regarding City Council salaries. The Financial Task Force recommendation is described in the attached draft of the minutes of their August 17, 1992, meeting on pages one and two. When the Council approves the agenda and consent agenda, it would be appropriate to add this as a last item to be considered on the August 24, 1992, official Council agenda. We have also enclosed copies of agenda materials from the first Council meeting where this item was tabled and referred to the Financial Commission. 8 //O /9Z DISCUSSION ITEMS-(CONTINUED) ITY COUNCIL SALAR The City Manager recommended this item be tabled until the Financial Commission recommendation is received. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to table cons of City Counc s a laries to the first Council meeting after receiving the Financial Commission recommendation, Councilmember Rosene expressed concern the recommendation could be delayed if an exact date is not set. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to amend the first motion to table consideration of City Council Salaries to the August 24, 1992, meeting of the City Council. The motion to amend passed unanimously, The motion as amended passed unanimously. SETTING DATE OF PRELIMINARY BUDGET WORK SESSION The City Manager stated he had contacted all members of the City Council regarding scheduling date for p reliminary budget d i work se ssion n ap pears Thursday, g P � on a t appe y, 20, 1992, is open for all Council members. 1 There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to set a special meeting on August 20, 1992, for a Preliminary 13udgct Work Session. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) STATE RETIREMENT INQNTIVE PROGRAM The City ana er resented a Resolution Authorizing a Tempo Earl tirement Incentiv tY S F m'Y y Re S P e Program. RESOLUTION NO. Mctnber Dave Ros= introduced the fpllpwing resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A TEMPORARY EARLY RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. 8/10/92 -10- (EEEMFC) MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER FINANCIAL COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 1992 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL --------------------------------- CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center Financial Commission met for its organizational session and was called to order by Acting Commission Chairperson Denis Kelly at 7:07 p.m. ROLL CALL Acting Chairperson Denis Kelly, Commissioners Donn Escher, Ulyssess Boyd, Vi Kanatz,' Pat Boran, and Ron Christensen. Also present was Director of Finance Paul Holmlund. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was a motion by Commissioner Escher and seconded by Commissioner Kanatz to approve the minutes of the June 9, 1992 meeting of the Financial Task Force. The motion passed unanimously. ELECTION OF COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON Acting Chairperson Kelly announced that the resolution establishing the Brooklyn Center Financial Commission directed that a Chairperson erson shall be elected e b P Y a majority vote of the Commission membership and that the Chairperson select a Vice Chairperson. There was a motion by Commissioner Kanatz and seconded by Commissioner Boran to nominate Commissioner Escher as Chairperson. There were no other nomina- tions and Commissioner Escher was elected by unanimous vote. F COMMENDATION ON MAYOR AND COUNCIL'S SALARIES -------------------------------------------- airperson Escher asked Commissioner Kelly to lead the discussion on recommendations r Mayor and Council salaries. Commissioner Kelly agreed to do so, but announced, because he is a candidate for City Council, he would only chair the discussion and not enter into the discussion or vote on the matter. Commissioner Peppin arrived at 7:15 p.m. Commissioner Kelly explained that the City Council had refered the Mayor and Council salary compensation issue back to the Financial Commission for its review. He further explained that it appears that the Commission was asked to comment on (1) whether the Commission believes a lesser increase in compensation to the Mayor and Council is justifiable than that which is scheduled to be effective January 1, 1993 and (2) would the Commission have any recommendations or comments to the City Council regarding any process the Council should consider in setting any future changes in - compensation for the Mayor and City Council. A lengthy discussion of the compensation issue followed. There was a motion by' Commissioner Boran and seconded by Commissioner Kanatz to communicate to the City Council that nothing had occurred to change the original findings of the Commission on the compensation issue and that the Commission again recommends that the salary compensation for the Mayor and City Council remain at the 1992 level. A roll call vote followed. The following voted for the motion: Commissioners Escher, Kanatz, Boran, Peppin, and Christensen. Commissioners Kelly and Boyd abstained. The motion passed by majority vote. -1- After further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Boran and seconded by Commissioner Peppin to respond to the Council's request for recommendations regardinc any process the Council should consider in setting any future compensation for the Mayor and Council as follows: (1) The Commission believes that any compensation should be based on the philosophy of public service rather than employment. (2) The Commission requests City Staff to research whether other cities or other municipalities have developed a plan of just compensation for elected officials. (3) The Commission requests the City Council to provide its imput on what criteria should be considered in setting elected officials compensation. The motion passed unanimously. --- J 1993 PRELIMINARY PROPOSED BUDGET PRESENTATION --------------------------------------------- The Director of Finance explained to the Commission that the City Council had directed that the 1993 City Manager's Preliminary Proposed- Budget be forwarded to the Commissic at the same time that it was forwarded to-the Council. He further explained that the Budget will be formally presented to the City Council on August 20 and that the Counci wishes the Commission to review the budget at the same time that it is being reviewed by the Council. The Director of Finance then presented an overview of the Preliminary Proposed Budget. He explained to the Commission that the primary,. purpose of the Preliminary Proposed Budget is to set a tax rate which the County can use to notify taxpayers of what their approximate property taxes might be if each taxing jurisdiction adopts its proposed levies. He emphasized that the proposed levy certified to the County by the Council may be lowered but not raised prior to the final adoption of the tax levy. He went on to explain.that there were significant problems which made balancing the 1993 budget difficult. Among these were that a transfer from fund balance would not be available for 1993; the 6 1/2% sales tax which now applies to cities; the gradual elimination of borrowing to fund equipment purchases; and a first time levy for the Economic Development Authority. He also pointed out that positive factors included the fact that the 1980 park improvement bonds would be paid in 1993 so no 1993 levy would be required and the Commission's prioritization process had assisted the City's depart- ments in the preparation of their budget requests. He concluded his presentation by stating that the Preliminary Proposed Budget would result in a total budget increase of less than 1% and a tax levy increase of approximately 8 %. Of the 8% tax levy increase, approximately 5% resulted from General Fund and Debt Retirement levies and approximately 3% from the new Economic Development Authority levy. APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSION VICE CHAIRPERSON ---------------------------------------- Chairperson Escher announced that he is appointing Commissioner Boran as Vice Chair- person of the Commission. SETTING OF FUTURE MEETING DATES The Commission set the following meeting dates: September 21, October 5, October 19, November 2, and November 16. The meetings were set for 7:00 p.m. and the Commission requested that they be held in the Council Chambers of City Hall. -2- ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Kelly and seconded by Commissioner Christensen to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center Financial Commission adjourned at 9:27 p.m. -3- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date July 13, 1992 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIMON: DISCUSSION OF COUNCII. S .ARIE DEPT. APPR : erald ter, City Manager MANAGER'S RE W/RECOMIMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUM MLARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) At the City Council meeting of June 22, 1992, the following otion was passed unanimously: : P Y "There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to place discussion of Council salaries on the July 13, 1992, agenda to consider revoking upcoming January 1, 1993, increases." As per Council request, the staff has prepared draft ordinance amendments which address reconsideration of the salary and per diem issue. Attached please find three draft resolutions: Draft A is an ordinance amendment which leaves blank the amount of monthly salary for Mayor and Council to be affective on January 1, 1993; Draft B is an amendment which will rescind the adopted salary increases scheduled to take affect on January 1, 1993, and provides for continuance of the current salaries for Mayor and Council; Draft C is an amendment which rescinds the per diem compensation ordinance scheduled to become affective January 1, 1993. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Discuss the draft ordinance amendments and the Financial Task Force recommendation and modify /reject /adopt ordinance amendments as per Council wishes. OR F r � CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 1992, at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 91 -16 Regarding Council Salaries. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 91 -16 REGARDING COUNCIL SALARIES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. City of Brooklyn Center Ordinance No. 91- 16, which amended the amount of the monthly salaries to be paid to the mayor and council members to become effective January 1, 1993, is hereby amended. Section 2. Effective January 1, 1993, and thereafter until legally amended, the monthly salary for Council members shall be $ and the monthly salary for Mayor shall be $ Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 1992. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) DR/�FT 8 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of 1992, at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider An Ordinance Rescinding Ordinance No. 91 -16 Regarding Council Salaries. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE.NO. AN ORDINANCE RESCINDING ORDINANCE NO. 91 -16 REGARDING COUNCIL SALARIES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. City of Brooklyn Center Ordinance No. 91 16, which amended the amount of the monthly salaries to be paid to the mayor and council members to become effective January 1, 1993, is hereby rescinded. The salaries to be paid will remain as set forth in City of Brooklyn Center Ordinance No. 77 -5. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 1992. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) DA A FT c CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the - day f Y 1992, at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider An Ordinance Rescinding Ordinance No. 91 -14 Regarding Certain Compensation to be Paid to the Elected Officials of the City of Brooklyn Center. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RESCINDING ORDINANCE NO. 91 -14 REGARDING CERTAIN COMPENSATION TO BE PAID TO THE ELECTED OFFICIALS OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. City of Brooklyn Center Ordinance No. 91- 14, which established additional compensation to be paid to the mayor or council members for certain activities on a per diem basis to become effective January 1, 1993, is hereby rescinded. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 1992. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) / 4 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRgUK,L,YN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION AUGUST 10, 1992 CITY HALL CAr r TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Todd Paulson at 7 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Todd Paulson, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Jerry Pedlar, Dave Rosene, and Philip Cohen. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Ron Batty, Personnel Coordinator Ugralyn Barone, and Council Secretary Nancy Berg. OPENING CEREMQ IFS A intimgrit of silence was observed. PEN FORUM ORS Mayor Paulson noted the Council had received no requests to use the open forum session this evening. He inquired if there Was anyone present who wished to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular agenda items. -COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Paulson announced the winners of the July recycling awards. lie congratulated Eileen Gurny, Cliff Wendt, Elmer Noyd, Wayne Finley and Jeffery Brewer. Councilmember Rosene reported on Saturday he and several members of City staff participated in the Metro Paintathon. He complimented City staff for their F e anti suggested participation and su gg d the Council approve a resolution of commendation for all who participated in this effort. Councilmember Rosene stated it has come to his attention that there were also groups from Marquette Bank, Telco Credit Union, and Norwest Bank participating in the Metro Paintathon, Councilmember Rosene suggested a resolution commending all participants in the Metro Paintathon in Brooklyn Center. 8/10/92 - I i RESOLUTIQN CIO 92 -188 Member Davc Roscnc introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE 1992 FAINT- A -THON VOLUNTEERS FROM THE EARLE BROWN NEICiHBORHO011 HUUSINC7 ADVISORY COMMITTEE, MARQUETTE BANK BROOKDALE, BROOKLYN CENTER R HOUSIN G CC7MMISSION, AND CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. E QLUTIO)N NO, 92 -189 Member Have Rosenc introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTIONS EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE 1992 PAINT- A -THON VOLUNTEERS FROM NORTHWEST BANK IN BROOKLYN CENTER The motion for the adoption of the foreg oing resolution was n u duly seconded d b P co a g g Y Y member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. APPRQVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Paulson inquired if any Couneilmembers requested any items be removed from the consent agenda. Councilmember Pedlar requested items 7a and 12f be removed from the Consent Agenda. APPRQVAL OF -MINUTES JULY 30. 1992 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconds d by Councilmember Scott to approve the minutes of July 30, 1992, regular session as printed. The motion passed unanimously. APPOINTMENT QF ELECTION JUDGES: There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Scutt to approve the Appointment of Election Judges for September 15, 1992, Primary Election and November 3, 1992, General Election as recommended by staff. The motion passed unanimously, us , Y 8/20/92 2 RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO, 92 -1 Member Dave Rosene introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1992 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO TRANSFER WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE PREMIUMS FROM THE UNALLOCATED DEPARTMENT TO THE OPERATING DEPARTMENTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO, 92 -191 Member Dave Rosene introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF A TRANSCRIPTION MACHINE AND MICRO- CASSETTE RECORDER AND TRANSFERRING AN APPROPRIATION WITHIN THE 1992 ASSESSING DEPARTMENT BUDGET The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously, RESOLUTION NO. 92 -192 Member Dave Roscne introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF THREE LOCKING FILE CABINETS AND TRANSFERRING AN APPROPRIA 11ON WITHIN THE 1992 ASSESSING DEPARTMENT BUDGET The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION-NO. 92 -193 Mumbor Dave Rosenc introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR WEST RIVER ROAD LANDSCAPING, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -25, CONTRACT 1991 -A The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously, 0 8/10/92 -3- RESOLUTION NO 92 -194 Member Dave Rosenc introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES (ORDER NO, DST 08 /10/92) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. RE50Li,7TION NO, 92 -195 Member Dave Rosenc introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF RICHARD J, SCHWAS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Council - member Rosene and seconded by Couneilmember Scott to approve the following list of licenses: AMIUSEMENT DEVICE - OPERATOR Brookdale East Cinema 5801 John Martin Drive Days Inn 1501 Freeway Boulevard Ground Round 2545 Country Road 10 K -Mart 5930 John Martin Drive Kids R Us 5717 Xerxes Avenue North AMUSEMENT DEVICE - VENDOR Theisen Vending Company 3804 Nimllet Avenue N. GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLES Borg Securing, Inc. 16463 Round Lake Boulevard Gallagher's Service, Inc. 1691 91st Avenue NE Hilger Transfer, Inc, 8550 Z,achery Lane Midwest Grease Buyers, Inc. P.O. Box 26, Redwood Falls Nitti Disposal, Inc, 3291 Terminal Drive Randy's Sanitation, Inc. Route 342, Delano Super Cycle, Inc. 775 Rice Street Walz Bros. Sanitation, Inc. Y.O. Box 627, Maple Grove Waste Control 95 West Ivy Avenue 8/10/92 -4- P05 ' ITINERA NT FOOD E TA LISHMENT Erookdale Unocal 76 5710 Xerxes Ave, N. MECHANICAL SYSnI da Northw"t sheet Metal 2136 Wabash Avenue R_AL DWELLINGS INITIAL: James E. Shoultz, Gary F. Schultz 4214 Lakeside Ave. N. Brett Hildreth, Gerald Moss 5519 Lyrndale Ave. N. Dan app: Karen Barton 5127 E. Twin Lake Blvd. RENEWAL: Lloyd J. Waldusky Georgetown Park Townhouses Michael V. Nelson 4200 Brooklyn Boulevard Ron and Ruth Shod= 544$ Dupont Ave. N. Roland Scherber 5243 Ewing Ave, N. James and Dawn Lundquist. 5740 -44 Logan Ave, N. James and Dorothy Nelson 7110 Riverdale Road SIGN HANGER Signart P. 4. Box 19669, St. Paul I&N LQW Blue & White Taxi 3307 6th St. N. Cab #585, #590 The motion passed unanimously, Y APP— ROYAL OF MIhn TTES Councilmember Pedlar requested clarification of the restructuring of police department management which was provided by the City Manager. Mayor. Paulson asked the minutes reflect he was not present at the July 27, 1992 meeting, JULY 27, 1992 - REGULAR SESSION There Was a motion by Councilmember & and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the minutes of July 27, 1992, regular session as printed. The motion passed unanimously, 8/10/92 -5 - PRESENTATION ENT ALAR T � . U Y REPORT FRQM LA13QR RELATI N,5 ASSOCIATES The City Manager presented the management salary study report stating the City Council has imposed a freeze on 1991 salary ranges for nine management positions in the City and has given the affected employees a 2.9% incentive pay increase that has not been added to the base pay over 1991. He further stated the purpose of this action is to await the results of a comprehensive management salary study report. He introduced Mr. Cy Smythe of Labor Relations Associates. Mr. Smythe explained the Pay Equity Act quoting , every political subdivision of this state shall establish equitable compensation relationships between female- dominated, male - dominated, and balanced classes of employees in order to eliminate sex -based wage disparities in public employment in this state. A primary consideration in negotiating, establishing, recommending and approving compensation is comparable work vahle in relationship to other employee positions within the political subdivision Mr. Smythe stated that Brooklyn Center is in compliance with Legislation. The Personnel Coordinator provided graphs for each of the nine positions showing a comparlson between the actual wage earned by the Brooklyn (;enter employees and what subordinates in surrounding cities receive. Councilmember Pedlar expressed concern in some employment cases subordinates may earn more than their supervisors when the subordinate is paid for overtime. He further stated 0 that based on this study there is an exception by increasing the maximum salary base by 10 for the supervisor. Councilmember Rosene stated it is possible in our City for a supervisor and a person being supervised, if they work enough hours, they could conceivably work the same number of hours and have the subordinate earn more than the supervisor. Mr. Smythe explained the Department of Employee Relations is not looking at the overtime right now, but probably will in the near future. He further explained the City of Brooklyn Center is in compliance with the Pay Equity Act. Mr, Smythe also discussed the rights of management employees to join a union and the possible impacts if this occurs, Councilmember Pedlar expressed concern about expenditures including salaries. He stated the City hus a wonderful staff that does a very good job He further stated he is concerned that the City is moving from comparable worth to discussion regarding a union and he is very sensitive to the comparable worth issue. The Council needs to move ahead and make a decision on the 2, 9% increase as the City needs to have staff comfortable with their salaries, 8/10/92 -6- 0 Mr. Smythe reiterated. the City of Brooklyn Center has been doing a good job with concern to their c decisions. The City is in compliance with the law and is doing the bind of analysis that is found in major corporate offices. The City has developed a comprehensive system which meets the standard of the law and is in reasonable relationship with other jurisdictions. Councilmember Pedlar asked why there is a different number of cities surveyed for various positions. The Personnel Coordinator explained that some cities do not have the same positions Brooklyn Center has such as a full time Fire Chief with a volunteer department, Councilmember Scott stated she found the supplementary information sheets very helpful. Councilmember Rosene asked if the Council does go ahead with the 2.9 % increase in the salary range, would this adversely affect comparable worth figures? Mr. Smythe answered no, it would not. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to direct staff to re arc a resolution P F o amending the 1992 Pay Plan, Executive Plan, Schedule B to include a 29% increase to the salary ranges and a 2,9% pay increase to the base salary for the nine management positions in the City of Brooklyn Center, Councilmember Rosene stated there are three members of our City staff whose jobs are valued at 85 points and of these three only one is below the recommended number of points. He asked the City Manager to provide an analysis of why this position is rated lower, Councilmember Pedlar stated he is very comfortable with Mr. Smythe's presentation. He thanked the staff members and particularly the nine department Reads for their patience. Councilmember Cohen stated the residents viewing the meeting on cable television or reading the minutes in the newspaper will now be assured City staff is being compensated fairly and taxpayers dollars' are not being treated lightly, He further stated that it has troubled him in some instances hourly employees are sometimes paid more than their supervisors. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS METR P LIT MM NITY DI C S I N F TING AN FF- O O AN cU U CO T FCF S U S O O LOCA O CAMP _ US SITE I CENTEg The City Manager presented a report requesting prior concept approval for a special use permit for Metropolitan Community College. He stated the unusual request is necessary if the required improvements q p ments are to be in place for the fall quarter. He explained the problem 8/10/92 .7- 7 is educational uses are not listed as permitted in C -1A zones and using the normal process through the Planning Commission might not accommodate a fall quarter opening. The Director of Planning and Inspection reported that one of the main issues will be parking at the 63UU Shingle Creek Parkway building. He further reported that the property on which the building is located is zoned C-1A. This zoning district does not include educational uses as permitted uses and ultimately the City Council will have to make a determination that an educational use is similar to other permitted special uses in the C -1A zoning district. He noted that the Planning Commission would also be reviewing the details of this proposal at its Thursday, August 13, 1992, meeting. Councilmember Rosene stated he does not intend to establish a precedence by allowing prior approval, however this would clearly be good for Brooklyn Center. He further stated he did not believe that parking will be a problem. Councilmember Pedlar asked the Director of Planning and Inspection if, based on his expertise, he believed there was a problem with allowing Metropolitan Community College to locate an off - campus site in Brooklyn Center. The Director of Planning and Inspection replied he did not believe there was a particular problem, however, there are some details to be resolved which would be addressed with the Planning Commission's review and public hearing. Councilmember Pedlar stated this is a classic example of putting the cart before the horse. However, he did not want to encumber the Planning Commission. Councilmember Rosene pointed out that even though the people from Metropolitan Community College say they will make sure classes will not unnecessarily encumber purkii,g, the Council should put it in the Special Use Permit, He further stated it seems like this is such a good match for this location. 'T'he City Manager assured Council they would only be giving a concept approval for the location of Metropolitan Community College tonight. Councilmember Cohen indicated he does not have a problem with the concept and the Council should go on record as supporting it. He felt the building owner would like to runt his property and the Council should move forward. Councilmember Scott pointed out zoning amendments are going to have to be made. She stated concern that the Planning Commission's approval should very strictly limit the number of students during the day, There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the concept of a Special Use Permit for Metropolitan Community College. 8/10/92 -8- Mayor Paulson stated he had talked with Mr, Kirk and Mr. Hoffman of Metropolitan Community College and agreed it sounds like a really good match. He stated this is a positive step that helps us create an educational aspect in Brooklyn Center. He further stated he does not believe parking will be much of a problem. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to amend the motion to include all considerations set forth by the Planning Commission be met by the applicant and both day and evening parking requirements be met. The motion to amend passed unanimously. The motion as amended passed unanimously. Mr, Daniel Kirk, Associate Vice President of Metropolitan State University, expressed his gratitude for the Council's consideration in this matter. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9:09 p.m, ORDINANCE The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Rescinding Ordinance No. 91 -14 Regarding Certain Compensation to be Paid to the Elected Officials of the City of Brooklyn Center. He indicated this ordinance was first read on July 13, 1992, published in the City's official newspaper on July 29, 1992, and is offered this evening for second reading. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on an Ordinance Rescinding Ordinance No, 91 -'14 Regarding Certain Compensation to be Paid to the El"tcd Officials of the City of Brooklyn Center at 9:10 p.m. He inquired it 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. r Pedlar There was a motion b Councilmember Rosene and seconded b Councilmember to Y Y Close the public hearing at 9:10 p,m, The motion passed unanimously, - ORDINANCE NO. 92 -12 Member Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE RESCINDING ORDINANCE NO. 91 -14 REGARDING CERTAIN COMPENSATION TO BE PAID TO THE ELECTED OFFICIALS OF *t'HE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. and the motion passed unanimously, 8/10/92 -9- DISCUSSION ITEMS (CANT NQBD) CITY COUNCIL $ IES The City Mwiaber recommended this item be tabled until the Financial Commission recommendation is received. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to table consideration of City Council Salaries to the first Council meeting after receiving the Financial Commission recommendation. Councilmember Rosene expressed concern the recommendation could be delayed if an exact date is not set. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to amend the first motion to table consideration of City Council Salaries to the August 24, 1992, meeting of the City Council. The motion to amend passed unanimously, The motion as amended passed unanimously. SETTING DATE OF PRELIMINARY BUDGET WQRK SESSION The City Manager stated he had contacted all members of the City Council regarding scheduling a date for a preliminary budget work session and it appears Thursday, August 20, 1992, is open for all Council members. There was a motion b Councilmember Pedlar d d b Councilmember Rosene to y c ran seconded y C set a special meeting on August 20, 1992, for a Preliminary I3udgct Work Session. The motion passed unanimously. RE$O TIONS (CONTINUED) UAJ' E RETIREMENT INC.ENTIVE PROGRAM The City Manager presented -a Resolution Authorizing a Temporary Early Retirement Incentive Program. RESOLUTION NO, 92 -196 Mcniber Dave Roscnc introduced the fellpwing resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A TEMPORARY EARLY RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. 8/10/92 - 10 - Councilmember Pedlar asked staff for clarification on why Ms. Quarve- Peterson is requesting $850 more to provide consulting services related to surveying the City's pruperties to determine compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Councilmember Pedlar also asked if Ms. Quarve- Peterson will be developing a work plan. The Personnel Coordinator answered she is confident that Ms. Quarve- Peterson will be available to provide the work plan, She also explained Ms. Quarve- Peterson mistakenly thought the City leased office space at the Earle Brown Heritage Center and this was the reason her estimate was $850 lower than it should have been, RESOLUTION NQ, 92 -197 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1992 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND AE,JTHORIZING ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR CONSULA ING SERVICES RELATED TO THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Cohen asked staff to include on a City Council agenda, as a discussion item, the Emergency Operation Flan sometime in the future, ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar, and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to adjourn the meeting, The motion passed unanimously. The rirooklyn tenter City Council adjourned at 9,25 p.m, Deputy City Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Nancy Berg Northern Counties Secretarial Services 8/10/92 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8 92 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 92011 - Metropolitan State University DEPT. APP L: 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. 92011 is a request for special use permit approval to allow an extension campus of Metropolitan State University in a C1A zoning district in the office building at 6300 Shingle Creek Parkway. Attached for the Council's review are minutes and information sheet from the August 13, 1992 Planning Commission meeting, letters from the applicant and property manager, information on classes offered, ordinance sections pertaining to the use and a map of the area. Recommendation This application was considered by the Planning Commission on August 13 and approval was recommended subject to the four conditions listed on page four of the minutes from that meeting. MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION AUGUST 13, 1992 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular 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, Mark Holmes and Barbara Kalligher. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 16, 1992 Motion by Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the July 16, 1992 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Bernards, Commissioners Mann, Sander, Johnson, Holmes and Kalligher. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 92011 (United Properties /Metropolitan State University) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for a determination that a university campus is an allowable special use in the C1A zoning district and concurrently a request for special use permit approval to allow an extension campus of Metropolitan State University in the office building at 6300 Shingle Creek Parkway. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 92011, attached). The Secretary noted that the Metropolitan State University proposal was on as a discussion item on the City Council's agenda the previous Monday night and that the Council had indicated that it went along with the idea of the campus use in concept in the C1A zone. He stated that staff would look into developing ordinance language for both the use and parking requirements relative to such an adult education use if directed by the Commission. The Secretary also noted that the university "campus" would not be a conventional college campus inasmuchas it would have no student union or on -site housing, etc. The Secretary concluded the report by noting that the Building Official has raised the issue of the level of occupancy within the building relative to the exiting provided. He stated that staff would work on resolving this issue as soon as possible in keeping with the requirements of the State Building Code. 8 -13 -92 1 Commissioner Holmes asked whether space was available within the building for this tenant's use. The Secretary answered that for the most part the space is vacant, but one tenant will be displaced. In response to a question from Commissioner Holmes regarding the use of this space, the Secretary explained that there would be offices primarily on the first floor and classrooms on the second and third floors. Chairperson Bernards asked if the building was handicapped accessible. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Chairperson Bernards asked if food vending would be allowed. The Secretary answered that accessory food services or restaurant use is allowable in an office building of this size in the C1A zoning district. Commissioner Kalligher asked if Mr. John Kelly of Ryan Properties had given his agreement to allow the students to park at 6200 Shingle Creek Parkway. The Secretary answered that both 6200 and 6300 Shingle Creek Parkway were built by Ryan Construction in the 1980's with common access and cross parking from the beginning. He stated that staff are not concerned with the heavy level of occupancy from a parking standpoint as long as it takes place in the evening hours. The Secretary added that the City has not acknowledged off peak parking in the past, that parking requirements have simply been added up without regard to when the parking demand occurred. He stated that this sort of arrangement is somewhat special though not a variance from the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that it should fall under the category of a special use. Commissioner Sander asked if there was any way to contain the use to a couple of floors rather than spreading it throughout the building. The Secretary answered that that would be something the tenant would have to work out with the building owner. Chairperson Bernards noted that during the Dudley tournament and possibly during the Christmas rush there is parking demand from other sites in the area. The Secretary answered that those kinds of arrangements would have to be worked out in lieu of the university occupancy in the building. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 92011) Chairperson Bernards then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mr. Dan Kirk of Metro State University rose to speak in support of the application. He stated that Metro State is a university without walls, that it is located in several buildings in Minneapolis and St. Paul, many of which are leased. He stated that because classes are offered for the most part in the evening, the university complements other daytime uses. Mr. Mike Ohmes, of United Properties, reconfirmed that the parking available on the site will fit the use proposed. He stated that it was necessary to satisfy both existing and proposed tenants. He added that United Properties had done surveys of their parking demand and have talked with U. S. West, the major tenant in the building. He noted that U. S. West is in favor of the university 8-13-92 2 tenancy in the building. He stated that the occupancy of Metro State would bring the building to full occupancy and that future classrooms will displace existing tenants next year. Mr. Dan Kirk added that the school would have a security guard present and also, that a power door would be installed for handicapped students. Chairperson Bernards asked what role public transit would play in transporting students to the school. Mr. Kirk responded that they have worked with MTC and that they encourage transit ridership for their students. He noted that in discussions with MTC it may be that a route will be changed to go past the 6300 Shingle Creek Parkway building. Commissioner Johnson asked where most of the students will come from. Mr. Kirk stated that he expected more students to come from the northwest suburbs. He stated this area is under served by upper division colleges and universities at present. He added, however, that students coming to this campus will probably come from all over the Twin Cities Metropolitan area. Commissioner Johnson asked how Metro State would compare with St. Thomas in Minneapolis. Mr. Kirk responded that while they appeal to a similar kind of student, their tuition is much lower than St. Thomas and, therefore, more affordable. Chairperson Bernards asked whether they would work with the community colleges in the Twin Cities area. Mr. Kirk responded that he has talked to Dr. Capshaw at Northwest Hennepin Community College about coordinating some of their programs. He stated that his university would compliment community colleges. Commissioner Holmes asked for clarification of what "rentable" and "usable" space referred to. He asked whether the tenant space would take up to 30,000 square feet. The Secretary answered in the negative. He explained that rentable and usable space are different terms. Mr. Mike Ohmes explained that rentable space includes hallways, bathrooms, etc. The Secretary stated that this was essentially the same as gross floor area. In response to another question from Commissioner Holmes regarding security, Mr. Ohmes stated that part of the proposal would be that an on -site guard would be available. Chairperson Bernards asked whether there was any time limit on the cross parking arrangement. Mr. Ohmes stated that he understood it continues in effect. The Secretary clarified that there is a covenant that runs with the land and that there is enough parking on each site to meet its own parking requirements independently, but the cross parking arrangement allows parking on each other's property as a matter of convenience. Mr. Kirk stated that their planning only involved the 6300 building, not the 6200 building. In response to a question from Commissioner Holmes regarding signage, Mr. Kirk stated he understood that a sign could not be put g p on the building, but that space would be available on a pedestal sign Chairperson Bernards asked whether a directional sign might 8-13-92 3 be appropriate. The Secretary noted that an off -site directional sign might require a variance. Chairperson Bernards asked whether anyone else wished to comment regarding the application. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Kalligher seconded by Commissioner Sander to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Johnson stated that the Commission sees the university proposal as a very positive thing for the community. Chairperson Bernards asked whether the building in question is located in the tax increment district. The Secretary answered that he was not sure although he was fairly positive that the building to the south was in the tax increment district. Commissioner Mann agreed that this was a very appropriate use in this area. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 92011 (UNITED PROPERTIES /METROPOLITAN STATE UNIVERSITY) Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Johnson to recommend approval of Application No. 92011 subject to the following conditions: 1. Special use permit approval acknowledges a university campus with up to 18 classrooms, occupying up to 16,605 sq. ft. of rentable space at 6300 Shingle Creek Parkway as contained in the applicant's plans and letter dated August 4, 1992. Any expansion or alteration of the proposed use beyond that contained in the aforementioned submittal shall require an amendment to this special use permit. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations. Any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. 3. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Students attending weekday daytime classes shall not exceed 60 at any given time. Voting in favor: Chairperson Bernards, Commissioners Mann, Sander, Johnson, Holmes and Kalligher. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Chairperson Bernards stated the Commission was very pleased with the proposal and added that he hoped the City could accommodate the university within its ordinances. Mr. Kirk stated that he appreciated the support of the staff and the Planning Commission. 8 -13 -92 4 Chairperson Bernards asked how to proceed with an ordinance amendment. The Secretary answered that the Commission had essentially made a finding tonight that the proposed educational use was similar to a use that was already allowed by special use permit in the C1A zone. He stated that educational uses vary from the small dance studio to a full blown university campus. He stated that the proposal by Metro State falls somewhere in between. The Secretary stated that parking is an issue and that staff wanted to come up with a parking formula, if possible, to govern such a use. In response to Commissioner Mann, the Secretary stated that the staff could prepare a draft if so directed, but that he did not feel the proposal by Metro State needed to be held up for that ordinance to be enacted. Commissioner Johnson asked how Schmitt Music was looked at in the ordinance. The Secretary answered that Schmitt is principally a wholesale distribution use allowable in the industrial park zone. The educational aspect, he stated, was a special use permit in that zone as is the retail sale of products that are wholesaled on the use site. The Secretary informed the Commission of the Vision Workshop to be held on August 29, 1992 in Constitution Hall of the Community Center. The Secretary also informed the Commission that the staff were still working with Phillips 66 on redesigning its site plan. He stated that the Planning Consultant hired for the Brooklyn Boulevard Study had recommended keeping the 50' setback at least at this stage of the study. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief review of upcoming business items, there was a motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Chairperson 8 -13 -92 5 PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No.92011 Applicant: United Properties /Metropolitan State University Location: 6300 Shingle Creek Parkway Request: Determination /Special Use Permit Determination The applicant requests a determination that an educational use is an allowable use in the C -1A zoning district and for a special use permit, assuming that it can be so construed, for a university campus in the office building at 6300 Shingle Creek Parkway. The property in question is zoned C -1A and is bounded on the north by Interstate 94, on the east by Earle Brown Drive (west leg), on the south by an identical six story office building, and on the west by Shingle Creek Parkway. Educational uses are a permitted use in the C2 zone, but are not listed as a permitted use in the C -1 zone. (C -1A uses are the same as C -1 uses.) In 1987, the City Council adopted an ordinance amendment allowing "instructional uses for art, music, photography, decorating, dancing and the like and studios for like activity" as a special use in the C -1 zoning district. While this does not comprehend something of the scale of a university campus, it is at least a use where adult classes may be conducted. It, therefore provides some basis for considering a university campus as a use that may be comprehended in the C -1A zoning district. Under the Building Code, an adult educational use is classified as a B2 type occupancy, the same as office occupancy. Staff have taken the position that the use, if allowed at all in the C -1 and C -1A districts, should be classified as a special use because of the treatment of "instructional uses" under the existing ordinance. It may be appropriate to amend the ordinance to clarify that educational uses generally are comprehended as a special use in the C -1 and C -1A districts, but we do not believe it is necessary to accomplish that ordinance amendment prior to consideration of a special use permit for Metro State University. It should also be pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance contains no explicit parking formula for educational uses. In the case of the recent additions to Earle Brown Elementary School and the Brooklyn Center Junior - Senior High School, parking requirements were related to staff levels and assembly use within the building. In the case of a university campus serving primarily adults, something related to the expected enrollment or even to potential seating may be appropriate. We recommend consideration of an explicit ordinance provision relating to educational uses to give guidance in the future. Such a provision might require, for adult educational uses, one space for each two potential seats or one space per enrollee on the maximum day or evening of classes, whichever is greater. There will also be parking demand for staff and faculty, but there should be at least some carpooling or transit ridership August 13 g 1992 1 i to offset this. Special Use Permit The proposed special use permit would comprehend a university campus with office space, conference room and classrooms totaling 14,826 sq. ft. of "usable" space and 16,605 sq. ft. of rentable space. There would be a total of 13 classrooms used this fall with five more to be added next fall. Total seating, including the conference room would come to 645 seats next fall. Offices and conference room will be located on the first floor and classrooms will be located on the second and third floors of the office building at 6300 Shingle Creek Parkway. The applicant's representative, Mr. Daniel Kirk, has submitted a letter describing the proposed university use and a class schedule for the fall quarter (attached). Mr. Kirk explains that Metropolitan State University is a member of the Minnesota State University System. It is an upper division university which offers bachelor's and master's level degrees for working adults. The typical student is 35 years old, works full time and attends classes in the evening or weekends. Most classes are in the evening, Monday through Thursday, 6 to 9 p.m. and on Saturdays between 8 and 4 p.m. Mr. Kirk states that the university as well as the building owner does not want to have a parking problem. They have made numerous parking surveys over the past six months and have concluded that available parking will be adequate for the limited daytime use and the more extensive evening use of the property. Metro State plans to have three to four staff members on a regular basis at the site and will have rotating offices for administrative and academic purposes for staff who would travel to and from permanent locations in Minneapolis or St. Paul. Mr. Kirk states that Metro State serves approximately 8500 students in the metro area. The northwest suburban facility would house approximately 10 to 15% of their total enrollment spread throughout the year. Classes are offered quarterly including summer. Mr. Kirk states that Metro State's average class size is 22. The class schedule indicates that a maximum of 13 classes will be offered at one time on Wednesday evenings. He therefore expects approximately 260 students to be the maximum present at the site in the evening. Mr. Kirk concludes his letter by noting that Metro State University successfully leases space in office buildings throughout the metro area. He lists buildings in both Minneapolis (City Place) and St. Paul (Metro Square) as examples. Regarding the special use standards contained in section 35 -220 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached) , we believe they can be met in this case. The proposed educational use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. The proposed August 13, 1992 2 special use will not be injurious to the use of other property in the immediate vicinity nor will it impair property values. It should be noted at this juncture that there is a cross parking agreement with the property to the south which is owned by Ryan Properties. Mr. John Kelly of Ryan Properties has called to say he has no objection to the proposed use and, in fact is looking forward to the beneficial spinoffs from the university being here. The establishment of the proposed university will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property. In fact, it should be a stimulus to further development and improvement of the area. Regarding he adequacy of parking, feel that the schedule g q Y p 9. of classes is of utmost importance. The class schedule for the fall quarter (attached) indicates that there will be no more than one class offered during the day on any given day of the week. Almost all classes will be offered between 5:30 and 9:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday and between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on Saturday. The parking available for the space taken up by Metro State, based on the parking formula for the office building, is approximately 67 stalls. The maximum enrollment for any of the daytime classes is 30 students. We believe two such classes could comfortably be accommodated on the site. At this time, we would recommend that daytime enrollment be limited to no more than 60 until such time as the university occupies more space within the building. As to evening parking demand, a total of 18 classrooms may be in use at one time when all planned improvements are complete. The applicant has indicated that average class size is 22. Although total seating may reach 621, actual enrollees present at one time probably will not exceed about 400. The site in question contains 435 parking stalls. Coincidentally, the number of workers from U.S. West Direct (the major tenant in the building) that work at night is approximately 35. It, therefore, appears that, even if every student drives, the existing site can accommodate the proposed number of classrooms. Beyond this level, it may be necessary to use parking on adjacent properties. No such arrangement is acknowledged in the approval of this application, though the cross parking arrangement with 6200 Shingle Creek Parkway will allow students to park on either property as a matter of convenience. Additional classroom space will, we believe, require an off -site parking agreement since it likely will expand parking demand beyond the capacity of this site. Recommendation Altogether, we believe the proposed use should be considered a special use in the C -1A zoning district and that the standards for a special use permit are met in this case. Approval is, therefore, recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Special use permit approval acknowledges a university campus with up to 18 classrooms, occupying up to 16,605 August 13, 1992 3 sq. ft. of rentable space at 6300 Shingle Creek Parkway as contained in the applicant's plans and letter dated August 4, 1992. Any expansion or alteration of the proposed use beyond that contained in the aforementioned submittal shall require an amendment to this special use permit. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations. Any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. 3. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Students attending weekday daytime classes shall not exceed 60 at any given time. Submitted by, n Gary Shallcross Planner Approved by, Ronald A Warren Director of Planning and Inspections August 13, 1992 4 b-1 z! r . J Post -tt"" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 (f of pages ► � za Metropolitans f� Proton State University Co. e Dept Phone Suite 121, Metro Square _ ?7 121 Seventh Place E. Fax - Fax u� , b St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 - 2180 612/296 -3875 August 4, 1992 Mr. Gars* Shall.crose Planner City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shinglia Crank Pkwy. Brooklyn Center, MIS 55430 Dear Gary: As you requested, here is more information upon Metropolitan State University's plans for the northwest suburbs • Metropolitan State University is a member of the Minnesota State Univorsity System. It is an uppar divioion university, which offoirs bachelor's and master's level degrees for working adults. The typical Metropolitan State University student is 35 years old, works full time and attonds classes in the evening or weekends.:. • Metro State offers nearly all of its classes in the evening, Monday through Thursday, 6 to 9 PM and on Saturdays between 8 and 4 PM. 0 We anticipate using approximately 14 rooms beginning September 28, 1992 in the 8rook4ale Corporate Center. Future expansion plane include the addition of up to about 5 more classrooms by 1995• e A parking problem is something we all desire to avoid and we would not be considering this facility if we felt that this was going to be a problem. Because of our intense evening usage, we have made numerous surveys of daytime and evening parking during the lest six months. As a result, we're convinced that evening parking usage will not be a problem. Our daytime usage is extremely limited and we would restrict our scheduling to be surer we are wi.thin•tho proportionate number of stalls available for tenant=s in the building. (4.5 stalls per thousand usable square feet, or approximately 60 stalls during the day.) • We plan to house approximately three to four staff members on a regular basis at the site. In addition, two rotating offices would be available for admini3trative and academic purpocos for staff who would travel to and from permanent locations in either Minneapolis or St. Paul to provide rotating student support services. • Metropolitan State serves approximately 8,500 students in the metropolitan area. The northwest suburban facility would be a satellite facility that would house approximately 10 to 15% of our total enrollment spread throughout the year. An equal opportunity educator wJ printed on rec , tcoed paper b • Metropolitan State's average class size is 22. The 1992 fall quarter schedule indicates that the maximum number of classes offered at any one tim4 in the evening, would be 13 classes on Wednesday cvoningo. Therefore, approximately 260 students would be the maximum number of students on site in the evening when usage is most intense. + Metropolitan State offers programs quarterly throughout the year including summer. The typical student will take one evening class per quarter (11 weeks in duration). • We successfully lease space in office buildings throughout the metropolitan area and have done so since we were founded twenty ycura ago. Major office building sites we currently use are located in Minneapolis (City Place, 8th & Hennepin and Business Technology Center 7th and 10th Ave.), and St. Paul (Metro Square, 7th & Robert). Please let me know if 1 can provide you with additional information. Sincerely, r Daniel Kirk Associate Vase President DK:lp f METRO STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHWEST CENTER METROPOLITAN STATE UNIVERSITY Brookdale Corporate Center FALL QUARTER, 1992 6300 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center Contact: Carol Olson 772 -7606 HOLIDAYS: Thur -Sun, Nov 26 -29 - Thanksgiving Thur -Sun, Dec 24 -27 - Winter Holiday MONDAYS NO. COURSE INSTRUCTOR DAY HOUR DATES MAX RM 2225A Adver Copywriting Zauhar M . 6 -9pm 9/28 -12/7 16 31000 Gen Wrtg IO Waterman M ( 6 -9pm 9/28 -12/7 22 I 6250A i"iymt Info Syst Bouchard M i 6 -9pm 9/28 -12/7 20 21728 Mgrl Prob Solv Thiede M -ti' 5:4 -9pm 9/28 -12/7 25 1C, 0003A Perspective 1C fleyers,M M 6 -9pm 9/28- 11/16 22 2230A Price Determin Stanly M 6 -9pm 9/28 -12/7 25 6120A Price Determin Stanly M ( 6 -9pm 9/28 -12/7 20 4362A Train /Design Johansen M 5:3 -8:3p 9/28 -12/7 16 25 43 NW Center (continued) TUESDAYS NO. COURSE )INSTRUCTOR DAY HOUR DATES MAX RM 0037A Perspective 3E ��ru�� -L T * 9am -12 10/27 -12/15 22 2016A Adv Acct Stoller T 6 -9pm 9/29 -12/8 25 1301A Citizenship Thoreson T 6:3 -9:3p 9/29 -12/8 30 20560 Comp /Info Proc Heath T 6 -9pm 9/29 -12/8 35 I 1278A Explore /Universe Englar T 6:3 - 9:3p 9/29 - 12/8 30 2005C Fin Acct IIC Lee T 6 -9pm 9/29 -12/8 35 i 43013 Hum Rel /Multicult Rudnitski T ' 6 -9pm 9/29 -12/8 28 22416 Hum Resourse Mgmt ujetson T I6 -9pm 9/29 -12/8 25 3207A Interp Comm Hixson T �6 -9pm 9/29 -12/8 22 2162D Mgmt: Org Behav Holman T `w 6 -9pm 9/29 -12/8 20 22616 Mgmt: Prin Hess T ' 6 -9pm 9/29 -12/8 30 2093C Microeconomics - Pritchard T 6 9pm 9/29 -12/8 30 3110B Wrty /Work IIB Hughes T 6 -9pm 9/29 -12/8 18 5512N App] CommHealth Staff moved to M /Edina Narayan 5/8 47 NW Center (continued) WEDNESDAYS NO. COARSE INSTRUCTOR DAY HOUR DATES MAX Rim 3200B Pub Spk /Prof Pers Kyweri ga W *� 1 -4pm 9/30 -12/9 22 1162A Am Idea /Free Graham W 6 -9pm 9/30 -12/9 20 1321A Anth /Aging Cox,M W 6:3 -9:3p 9/30 -12/9 25 8300A Basic Writing Hall W 5:3 -9pm 9/30 -12/9 22 1132A Classical Wrld Swenson W ',6 -9pm 9/30 -12/9 25 2056D Comp /Info Proc May W 6 -9pm 9/30 -12/9 32 20206 Cost Acct =t'n f zj W 6 -9pm 9/30 -12/9 25 4250C Gen Psych Staff W 6 -9pm 9/30 -12/9 21 4203A Holistic Health Anderson,L W y 6 -9pm 9/30 - 12/9 25 A 2064A Info Syst Anal Firtko W 6 -9pm 9/30 -12/9 24 2015A Interm Fin Acct Featherstone W 6 -9pm 9/30 -12/9 40 4303A Interp /Soc Power Bute W 6 -9pm 9/30 -12/9 22 220OG f -, iktg Prin &t-af-f 1&az W �6 -9pm 9/30 -12/9 30 0026A Perspective 2I Anderson,M W �6 -9pm 10/14 -12/2 22 48 f NW Center (continued) THURSDAYS NO. COURSE INSTRUCTOR DAY HOUR DATES MAX RM 0016A Perspective 1P Britts Th T v1l - 4pm 10 /1 - 11/19 22 3006E Begin Span I Ochoa Th 1 6 - 9pm 10 /1 - 12/17 22 i 3100C Gen Wrtg Plomondaon Th / 6 -9pm 10 /1 -12/17 22 2145A Labor Law Madden Th 6 -9pm 10 /1 -12/17 35 2090A Macroeconomcis Kleinbaum Th 6 -9pm 10/1 -12/17 30 y '. 2010B Mgrl Acct Rapp Th 6 -9pm 10 /-1 -12/17 25 ti 6300D Mgrl Comm Arnott Th 6 -9pm 10 /1 -12/17 20 2030A Operational Audit Pedretti Th 6 -9pn 10/1 -12/17 25 2252B Recruit /Intery Fieldman Th 6 -9pm 10/1 -12/17 30 1249C Stat /Hum Sery Scamehorn Th 6 -9pm 10 /1 -12/17 30 tjbill M (.ar 49 } NW Center (continued) FRIDAYS NO. COURSE INSTRUCTOR DAY HOUR BATES MAX RM 2111D Mgrl Finance F* t�{ $am -12 10/2 -12/18 30 3218A Storytellin g 0 /- 94lg-; �� c -- 124 ---- -- ) S _ _ "gam` -5 :3 10/10;11/7; �)'—� m 7 ? SATURDAYS NO. COURSE INSTRUCTOR DAY HOUR DATES MAX RM 2168B C aseSt /Strat Mgmt Weber S 10a -2p 10/3 -12/19 25 6366A Fundraising Mgmt Flessner S 9am -12 10/3 -12/19 20 30646 Mass Comm Roy S 9am -12 10/3 -12/19 22 0506W Perspective IS Johansen S 8:3a -12:3 1117 25 MMA Info Mtgs S 10 -12 10/24;11/28 20 50 W 'NITED PkOPERTIES yv l j , „kerage cN Management Company O� E August 6, 1992 �V� ' o Mr. Gary Shallcross City Planner `_. City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shinglecreek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 RE: 6300 Shinglecreek Parkway Dear Mr. Shallcross: Mr. Michael Ohmes, of United Properties, asked that I summarize my conversation with Linea Campion of U.S. West Direct regarding the proposed tenancy of Metropolitan State University at the above referenced location. Ms. Campion's reaction could best be described as favorable. She went so far as to comment on how convenient it would be for many of the U.S. West Direct employees to take classes after work in the same building. When asked about after hours parking requirements for U.S. West Direct, she indicated that the "department" on second floor was contemplating a move to "flex hours" which would place up to thirty-five employees in the building after 5:00 p.m. Ms. Campion's only concern revolved around security issues and those fears were dispelled when she learned an on -site guard would be provided at Metropolitan State University's cost during their hours of operation. If you wish to contact Ms. Campion directly, she can be reached at 585 -2252. Should any other questions arise please feel free to give me a call at 893 -8885. Sincerely, Fred C. Koehler Property Manager cc: Michael Ohmes 0806a.doc H)([ `�ui(r; 11O I� (6;i2) 831 -1000 35 -320 3. Special Uses a. Accessory off -site parking not located on the same property with the principal use, subject to the provisions of Section 35 -701. b. Group day care facilities provided they are not located on the same property as or adjacent to a use which is not permitted to abut Rl, R2, R3 zoned land and provided that such developments, in each specific case, are demonstrated to be: I. Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as with those uses permitted in the Cl district generally. 2. Complementary to existing adjacent land uses as well as to those uses permitted in the Cl district generally. 3. Of comparable intensity to permitted Cl district land uses with respect to activity levels. 4 . Planned and designed to assure that generated traffic will be within the capacity of available public facilities and will not have an adverse impact upon those facilities, the immediate neighborhood, or the community. 5. Traffic generated by other uses on the site will not pose a danger to children served by the day care use. and further provided that the special requirements set forth in Section 35 -411 are adhered to. Instructional uses for and the like and studios r for m like , activityaphy, decorating, dancing Section 35 -321. CIA SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses (No height limitation) a. All of the permitted uses set forth in Section 35 -320 shall be permitted in a building or establishment in the CIA district. 2. Special Requirements a. See Section 35 -411 of these ordinances. 3. Special Uses a. Accessory off -site parking not located on the same property with the principal use, subject to the provisions of Section 35 -701. l/d• All of the special uses set forth in Section allowed by special use permit in the CIA district 35 -320 shall be Section 35 -220. SPECIAL USE PERMITS 2. Standards for Special Use Permits A special use permit may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met: (a) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. (b) The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. (c) The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. (d) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. (e) The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may impose such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location, construction, maintenance and operation of the special use as deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest and to secure compliance with requirements specified in this ord- inance. In all cases in which special use permits are granted, the City Council may require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary as part of the conditions stipulated in connec- tion therewith. 4. Resubmission No application for a special use permit which has been denied by the City Council shall be resubmitted for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of the final determination by the City Council; except that the applicant may set forth in writing newly discovered evidence f o change g of condition upon which he relies to gain the consent of the City Council for resubmission at an earlier time. 5. Revocation and Extension of Special Use Permits When a special use permit has been issued pursuant to the pro- visions of this ordinance, such permit shall expire without further action by the Planning Commission or the City Council unless the applicant or his assignee or successor commences work upon the sub- . ject property within one year of the date the special use permit is granted, or unless before the expiration of the one year period the applicant shall apply for an extension thereof by filling out and submitting to the Secretary of the Planning Commission a "Special Use Permit" application requesting such extension and paying an additional fee of $15.00. Special use permits granted pursuant to the provisions of a prior ordinance of Brooklyn Center shall expire within one year of the effective date of this ordinance if construction upon the sub- ject property pursuant to such special use permit has not commenced within that time. I-n any instance where an existing and established special use is abandoned for a period of one year, the special use permit re- lated thereto shall expire one year following the date of abandon- ment. • IN I ■ _`�_�'■ � ♦�♦ = .. ♦�♦ '111 � 1 1111 � 1111 ��,.��� it . �, -� � ■ ►�������� �� 1.� �� 111 1■ 11 ■ oil I 11111111 1 1111 i 11 1 N 11 111 111111� 11 0 MOM IgLw • 1 . _ �C �� �.� �•� �� � L� 11 11111111 11 ` _ � Ali � ■� ■ ■■ �� I�� il���� � ti i ♦ ♦ 1� �� �'©� �� � �► milli _1 o;� ���'' ♦ i� �" 1 ♦� � � - •• �1� •�■ 1111' 1111 1111 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 8/24/ Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances Relating to Real Estate Sign Ordinance DEPT. APPROVAL: Q'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 attached x ) • The City Council on July 27, 1992 had a first reading on an ordinance amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances relating to real estate signs. Attached are copies of all information previously submitted to the City Council relating to this subject matter. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council, following the public hearing on this matter, adopt the proposed ordinance amendment. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 24th day of August 1992, at 7:15 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Sign Ordinance relating to real estate signs. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATING TO REAL ESTATE SIGNS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 34 -140. PERMITTED SIGNS 2. Permitted Signs Not Requiring a Permit 1. Real Estate signs as follows: 3. [Temporary] Signs for the purpose of leasing or selling portions of commercial or industrial buildings, such as offices or individual tenant areas are permitted only when [vacancies exist] buildings are less than 95% occupied and are limited to one freestanding or wall sign per street frontage. The size of signs shall be no greater than 32 sq. ft. and freestanding signs shall be no higher than 10' above ground level. [All signs permitted by this section of the ordinance shall be marked with the date on which the sign was erected to be located in the lower right hand corner of the sign. Said sign must be removed no later than one year from said date and may be re- erected only if vacancies exist and the sign is completely rejuvenated or replaced. Any sign not containing the date it was erected is unlawful.] ORDINANCE NO. 4. Signs for the purpose of leasing or selling dwelling units within a multiple family dwelling are permitted only when vacancies exist and are limited to one freestanding or wall sign per street frontage. The size of signs shall be no greater than six sq. ft unless the complex contains more than 36 units and is adjacent to a major thoroughfare in which case the sign may be up to 32 sq.ft. in area. The maximum height of freestanding signs shall be 10 ft. above ground level. 5. All signs permitted by this section of the ordinance shall be maintained in an appropriate manner so that the message is clearly legible. Sign structures must be maintained in accordance with Section 34- 140.1.c of this ordinance. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 1992 Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) a 5. 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. 6. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 7. Plan approval acknowledges the combined use of a coated chain link fence and 53 Arborvitae shrubs at least 3' in height as a substitute scrccning treatment for the outsidc play area. The passed unanimously. RECESS Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8 :41 p.n1 and r=onvened at 8 :54 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEMS (cantina R E L TATS IGN :)DIN ANC The City Manager presented the issue of the real estate sign ordinance to the Council. The Director of Planning and Inspection further explained there are two ordinance amendments being recommended by the Planning Commission. One ordinance amends Chapter 34 (Sign Ordinance) relating to real estate signs and establishes various il arameters for signs used for the purpose of Ieasing or selling commercial or industrial buildings that are less than 957o occupied and also for multi - family dwellings. The second ordinance amends Chapter 35 (Zoning Ordinance) and made certain apartment complexes (with over 36 units and which are located adjacent to major thoroughfares) eligible for administrative permits to display banners, pennants, balloons and other attention attracting devices for the purpose of advertising dwelling units for sale or lease, Mr. Kent Warden, of the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA), stated that SOMA. has worked with staff and strongly urged the Council to act can these ordinance amendments, Councilmember Scott thanked Mr. Warden for the time he spent working with staff. Councilmember Cohen expressed concern for the maintenance and upkeep of the signs. He stated it is very important for the signs to be of a high quality and well maintained. Councilmember Scott asked Mr. Kent to educate the members of his organization on the importance of uali si gna h f q e S e r state tY b d that people b p p looking for apartments judge the quality of the building and management by the quality of the signs. 7/27/92 /2/9 2 -11- s There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances Relating to Real Estate Signs and setting a public hearing for August 24, 1992, at 7.15 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott to have the Plwuling Commission review the Real Estate Sign Ordinance amending Chapters e nd 35 in 12 months. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Relating to Administrative Land Use Permits and setting a public hearing for August 24, 1992, at 7:15 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. R CT 12IN OF POLI E TMENT MAN EMENT The City Manager presented the restructuring of Police Department management along with the proposed resolution amending the 1992 budget and authorizing the restructuring of the Police Department management. Mayor Pro tem Pedlar suggested the reorganization be reconsidered when the new Police Chief comes on board. He added the new chief should be given the opportunity to approve the concept of the reorganization. Captain Kline explained the reorganization of the police department and answered questions from Council. Councilmember Scott stated the reorganization will make the department function much better. She further stated the new Police Chief should be very impressed but should be given the opportunity to approve the reorganization. There was a motion by Mayor Pro tem Pedlar and seconded by CouncInember Cohen to allow the new Police Chief to veto the concept. The motion passed unanimwsly, RESOLUTION 0.92-18 Mcmber Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING 1992 PAY PLAN TO IMPLEMENT CHANGES IN THE ORGANIZATION OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. 7/27/92 -12- r CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7 27 9; Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION DESCRIPTION: ITEM Discussion Item - Real Estate Sign Ordinance ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPR 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 ) Attached annin are two ordinance amendments which were recommended by the Planning Commission at its July 16, 1992 meeting. One ordinance amends Chapter 34 (Sign Ordinance) relating to real estate signs and establishes various parameters for signs used for the purpose of leasing or selling commercial or industrial . buildings that are less than 95% occupied and also, for multi family dwellings. The other ordinance amends Chapter 35 (Zoning Ordinance) and makes certain apartment complexes (ones with over 36 units and which are located adjacent to major thoroughfares) eligible for administrative permits to display banners, pennants, balloons and other attention attracting devices for the purpose of advertising dwelling units for sale or lease during limited periods of time. These recommendations are the culmination of a three meeting review of the Sign Ordinance during May, June and July of this year which was directed by the City Council after the Council amended the Sign Ordinance regarding real estate signs in August, 1991. That particular ordinance amendment is set to be automatically repealed on September 20, 1992 unless reenacted or other provisions adopted. The City Council and Planning Commission met in a joint meeting during the fall of 1991 and, among other things, discussed these ordinance provisions. The Plannin g recommendation Commission's re atio i a nd n s basically to continue with most of the provisions adopted in August of 1991. The size of the signs would be a maximum of 32 sq, ft, and 10 ft, in height. The recommendation would allow for one wall or freestanding sign per street frontage. Signs would only be permitted if the commercial or industrial building is less than 95% occupied, A provision would be added to require maintenance of the sign so that the message is clearly legible and removal or repair of the sign if it is rotted, unsafe or unsightly, The Planning Commission after much review and discussion did not, at this time, recommend a system of permits for such signs. They believe if the industry does a poor ,job controlling the maintenance and appearance of these real estate signs, then a permitting provision should be considered. r Summary Explanation Page 2 July 27, 1992 The Planning Commission also recommended signs be allowed for multi family residential buildings. This had been dropped from the ordinance in the August 1991 amendment. If a multi family dwelling has at least 36 dwelling units and is located on a major thoroughfare, the Commission would recommend that such a property be eligible for a 32 sq. ft. freestanding or wall sign for real estate purposes. Otherwise, a multi family dwelling would be eligible for a 6 sq. ft. sign which is the size permitted in the single family residential zoning district. The Commission also believed it was appropriate to allow owners of larger complexes on major thoroughfares to promote the leasing of their units by allowing banners, pennants, balloons and other attention attracting devices on a limited basis such as commercial properties are entitled to do through the issuance of administrative permits. Currently residential properties are not eligible for such permits. The recommended ordinance amendment, if adopted, would limit multiple residential to two 10 day permits per year, which is the same as commercial property. Attached for the Council's review are excerpts from the Planning Commission's May 28, June 11 and July 16, 1992 minutes relating to this matter and various background and informational material. Mr. Kent Warden of the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) and John Kelly with Ryan Properties were interested parties that attended and offered comments during the Planning Commission's review. The two ordinances presented are in a form that can, if the City Council desires, be adopted for first reading and set on for publication and public hearing. - Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council discuss the recommended ordinance amendments and give direction on how they wish to proceed with these proposals. f' C DRAFT - RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION 7 -16 -92 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 1992, at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Sign Ordinance relating to real estate signs. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATING TO REAL ESTATE SIGNS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 34 -140. PERMITTED SIGNS 2. Permitted Signs Not Requiring a Permit 1. Real Estate signs as follows: 3. [Temporary] S igns for the purpose of leasing or selling portions of commercial or industrial buildings, such as offices or individual tenant areas, are permitted only when [vacancies exist] buildings are less than 95% occupied and are limited to one freestanding or wall sign per street frontage. The size of signs shall be no greater than 32 sq. ft. and freestanding signs shall be no higher than 10' above ground level. [All signs permitted by this section of the ordinance shall be marked with the date on which the sign was erected to be located in the lower right hand corner of the sign. Said sign must be removed no later than one year from said date and may be re- erected only if vacancies exist and the sign is completely rejuvenated or replaced. Any sign not containing the date it was erected is unlawful.] ORDINANCE NO. 4. Signs for the purpose of leasing or selling dwelling units within a multiple family dwelling are permitted only when vacancies exist and are limited to one freestanding or wall sign per street frontage. The size of signs shall be no greater than six sq. ft. unless the complex contains more than 36 units and is adjacent to a major thoroughfare in which case the sign may be up to 32 sq.ft. in area. The maximum height of freestanding signs shall be 10 ft. above ground level. 5. All signs permitted by this section of the ordinance shall be maintained in an appropriate manner so that the message is clearly legible. Sign structures must be maintained in accordance with Section 34- 140.1.c of this ordinance. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of p Y 1992 , Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) w DRAFT - RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION 7 -16 -92 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 1992 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to administrative land use permits. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATING TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE PERMITS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -800. ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS. No person shall use his property or /and assist, countenance or allow the use of his or of another's property located within the municipality for any of the following purposes or uses without first having obtained a permit from the City zoning official. The use shall not for the duration of the permit, considering the time of year, the parking layout of the principal use, the nature of the proposed use and other pertinent factors, substantially impair the parking capacity of the principal use or impair the safe and efficient movement of pedestrian and vehicular traffic either on or off the premises. A waiver from certain provisions of this ordinance is implied by the granting of an administrative permit, but only for the duration of the permit and to the extent authorized by said permit. 3. Banners, pennants balloons and other attention attracting devices for the purpose of advertising dwelling units for sale or lease in multiple family complexes with at least 36 dwelling units and located adjacent to a major thoroughfare may be permitted by administrative permit for periods not to exceed 10 days twice a year. ORDINANCE NO. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1992. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted; underline indicates new matter.) DISCUSSION ITEM a. Real e 1 Estate Sign Ordinance The Secretary then introduced the next item of discussion, two alternate drafts of a real estate sign ordinance relating to space for lease signs for both multi family buildings and commercial and industrial buildings. He stated that one option would require a permit and the other option would not. He stated that the provisions are otherwise fairly similar and reviewed those basic provisions. He stated that the Planning Commission had had some discussion about Administrative Land Use Permits for apartments to allow banners. He recommended that the Commission also recommend an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow such permits for large apartment complexes, but not for smaller apartment p ent buildings. Commissioner Johnson asked about the 95% P rovision relative to apartments. The Planner explained that the ordinance as drafted would allow real estate signs whenever a vacancy exists. Commissioner Johnson inquired as to some of the large temporary signs that he sees around the community promoting various businesses. The Secretary explained that such signs are allowed by Administrative Land Use Permit for up to 10 days and that each business in the community is allowed two such permits per year. Commissioner Johnson noted that some buildings have a lot of glass and asked whether they would be entitled to use all of that glass for interior signs. The Secretary stated that as long as the signs are placed inside the window, there is no limit on the size of such signs. Mr. Kent Warden, of the Building Owners and Managers Association of Minneapolis, briefly addressed the Commission. He stated that he felt that the ordinance is a workable ordinance and that his organization would cooperate with its enforcement. He stated that it did not provide all that they would like, but that it was a reasonable compromise. He stated that he would concur with the staff recommendation that the permit process is a costly option both for the City and for real estate brokers and preferred to avoid such a procedure. He recommended that the City try the ordinance without a permit and that if there is a problem, a permit provision can be adopted later. He then introduced Mr. John Kelly of Ryan Properties. Mr. Kelly briefly stated that the ordinance does restrict the size of signs and that it would be preferable to have larger signs, but that the size allowed for in the ordinance is at least adequate. He agreed with Mr. Warden that the permit would be a costly addition to such advertising. chairperson Bernards asked whether this ordinance would put the City in the same ball park relative to other suburbs. Mr. Kelly stated that some other communities are more restrictive and some are more lenient. He stated that he believed that Brooklyn Center would begin to set the standard. Chairperson Bernards stated that 7 -1b -92 7 he wanted Brooklyn Center to be competitive in marketing its properties, but that they did not want to give away the ship. The Secretary noted that a survey of other communities was included in last meeting's agenda packet. The Secretary also stated that he would recommend no permit be required for such signs, noting that other real estate signs are not treated that way. Chairperson Bernards asked whether a change to require a permit could be made fairly simply. The Secretary stated that the process would be similar to what the Planning Commission and Council are going through at this ordinance amendment. Mr. Kelly stated that allowing Administrative Land Use Permits for apartments to have banners occasionally would be very useful. He stated that when these banners are up, more tenants apply and that it is easier to screen and get better tenants in the process. In response to a question from Commissioner Sander, the Secretary stated that the Planning Commission could direct staff to prepare such an ordinance and that staff would work out the wording and forward it on to the City Council. Otherwise, it could be brought back for Planning Commission consideration. ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO REAL ESTATE SIGNS Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend adoption of an ordinance amendment relating to real estate signs not requiring a permit. Voting in favor: Chairperson Bernards, Commissioners Mann, Sander, Johnson, Holmes and Kalligher. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Commissioner Kalligher asked who enforced the 10 day permits. The Secretary answered that the code enforcement officers from the Police Department do the enforcement on those permits. ACTION DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE PERMITS FOR MULTI FAMILY APARTMENTS Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Holmes to direct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment to allow Administrative Land Use Permits for large multi family apartments and forward it on to the City Council with a favorable recommendation from the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Chairperson Bernards, Commissioners Mann, Sander, Johnson, Holmes and Kalligher. Voting against: none. The motion passed. INFORMATIONAL ITEM a. Improvements at Brookdale Unocal The Secretary briefly reviewed the proposed improvements at Brookdale Unocal, including closing an access and new canopies. He explained that the.City has not required a formal application for 7 -16 -92 8 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Sign Ordinance Amendment DATE: July 13, 1992 Enclosed are two alternate drafts of amendments to the Sign Ordinance relating to real estate signs advertising space for lease. One draft would establish a permit for such signs; the other would not. Both drafts would allow for such signs for multiple family developments. Apartment complexes would be allowed one six sq. ft. sign per street frontage, unless the complex contained more than 36 units or was adjacent to a major thoroughfare, in which case the maximum size sign would be 32 sq. ft. Both drafts would require that such signs be maintained in an appropriate manner so that the message is legible. Sign structures would have to be maintained in accordance with Section 34- 140.1.c of the Sign Ordinance which is a general maintenance provision prohibiting dilapidated signs. Both the permit draft and the nonpermit draft stipulate that commercial or industrial space for lease signs can only be u when P g Y P a building is less than 95% occupied. Both drafts limit the size of the signs to 32 sq. ft. and 10' in height. One freestanding or wall sign would be allowed per street frontage. The permit draft creates new subsections in the section of the Sign Ordinance relating to signs requiring a permit. The permits would be g ood for one year. After one year, the building owner could renew the permit upon providing evidence to the Building Official that the building is less than 95% occupied. All such signs allowed by permit would have to be marked with the date on which the sign permit was issued. It should also be noted that the permit draft would require a permit for commercial real estate signs advertising a property for sale as well as those advertising space for lease. We would tend to recommend the nonpermit draft of the ordinance because it would be simpler to understand and enforce. We do not know whether space for lease signs and commercial real estate signs are such a high priority for the residents of the community as to require a permit process. We cannot recall receiving a complaint regarding such a sign from a resident. In either case, however, we will do our best to fully enforce the provisions adopted. Both drafts are more workable 1 than the provisions currently or formerly in place. a i CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 1992, at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Sign Ordinance relating to real estate signs. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATING TO REAL ESTATE SIGNS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 34 -140. PERMITTED SIGNS 2. Permitted Signs Not Requiring a Permit 1. Real Estate signs as follows: 3. [Temporary] S igns for the purpose of leasing or selling portions of commercial or industrial buildings, such as offices or individual tenant areas are permitted only when [vacancies exist] buildings are less than 950 occupied and are limited to one freestanding or wall sign per street frontage. The size of signs shall be no greater than 32 sq. ft. and freestanding signs shall be no higher than 10' above ground level. [All signs permitted by this section of the ordinance shall be marked with the date on which the sign was erected to be located in the lower right hand corner of the sign. Said sign must be g removed no later than one Y ear from said date and may be re- erected only if vacancies exist and the sign is completely rejuvenated or replaced. Any sign not containing the date it was erected is unlawful.] 4. Signs for the purpose of leasing or selling dwelling units within a multiple family dwelling are permitted only when vacancies exist and are limited to one freestanding or wall sign per street frontage The size of signs shall be no greater than six sq ft unless the complex contains more than 36 units or is adjacent to a major thoroughfare in which case the sign may be up to 32 sq ft in area. The maximum height of freestanding signs shall be 10 ft above ground level 5. All signs permitted by this section of the ordinance shall be maintained in an appropriate manner so that the message is clearly legible. Sign structures must be maintained in accordance with Section 34- 140.1.c of this ordinance. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1992 Mayor ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk Date of Publication Effective e ive Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a y g public hearing will be held on the day of , 1992, at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Sign Ordinance relating to real estate signs. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATING TO REAL ESTATE SIGNS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 34 -140. PERMITTED SIGNS 2. Permitted Signs Not Requiring a Permit 1. Real Estate signs as follows: 1. Temporary freestanding or wall signs for the purpose of selling or leasing individual residences or residential lots [or entire buildings] provided that such signs shall not exceed six (6) square feet in area [for residential property and thirty -two (32) square feet for other property] and that there shall be only one freestanding or wall sign permitted for each property. The sign must be removed within ten (10) days following the lease or sale. 3. [Temporary signs for the purpose of leasing or selling portions of commercial or industrial buildings, such as offices or individual tenant areas are permitted only when vacancies exist and are limited to one freestanding or wall sign per street frontage. The size of signs shall be no greater than 32 sq.ft. and freestanding signs shall be no higher than 10' above ground level. All signs permitted by this section of the ordinance shall be marked with the date on which the sign was erected to be located in the lower right hand corner of the sign. Said IL sign must be removed no later than one year from said date and may be re- erected only if vacancies exist and the sign is completely rejuvenated or replaced. Any sign not containing the date it was erected is unlawful.] Signs for the purpose of leasing or selling dwelling units within a multiple family dwelling are permitted only when vacancies exist and are limited to one freestanding or wall sign per street frontage. The size of signs shall be no greater than six sq. ft. unless the complex contains more than 36 units or is adjacent to a major thoroughfare in _which case the sign may be up to 32 sq. ft. in area. The maximum height of freestanding signs shall be 10 feet above ground level. 4. All signs permitted by this section of the ordinance shall be maintained in an appropriate manner so that the message is clearly legible. Sign structures must be maintained in accordance with Section 34- 140.1.c of this ordinance. 3. Permitted Signs Requiring a Permit A. Commercial (C2) and Industrial (I -1 and I -2) Districts 4. Real Estate Signs Commercial or industrial properties shall be entitled to one freestanding or wall sign per street frontage to sell or lease an entire building or portion of a building or a lot. The size of the sign shall not exceed 32 sq_ ft. in area. The maximum height of a freestanding real estate sign shall be 10 feet. Space for lease signs shall only be permitted when occupancy of the building is less than 950. Permits for real estate signs shall authorize the erection and /or maintenance of such a sign for a period not to exceed one year. After one year, the building owner may renew the permit upon providing to the Building Official evidence that the building is less than 95° occupied. All signs permitted by this section of the ordinance shall be marked with the date on which the sign permit was issued Said date shall be located in the lower right hand corner of the sign. All signs permitted by this section of the ordinance shall be maintained in an appropriate manner so that the message is clearly legible. Sign structures must be maintained in accordance with Section 34- 140.1.c of this ordinance. B. Commercial (Cl and CiA) Districts 4. Real Estate Signs Commercial properties shall be entitled to one freestanding or wall sign per street frontage to sell or lease an entire building or portion of a building or a lot. The size of the sign shall not exceed 32 sq.ft. in area. The maximum height of a freestanding real estate sign shall be 10 feet. Space for lease signs _shall only be permitted when occupancy of the building is less than 950. Permits for real estate signs shall authorize the erection and /or maintenance of such a sign for a period not to exceed one year. After one year, the building owner may renew the permit upon providing to the Building Official evidence that the building is less than 950 occupied. All signs permitted by this section of the ordinance shall be marked with the date on which the sign permit was issued. Said date shall be located in the lower right hand corner of the sign. All signs permitted by this section of the ordinance shall be maintained in an appropriate manner so that the message is clearly legible. Sign structures must be maintained in accordance with Section 34- 140.1.c of this ordinance. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1992 Mayor ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) S r nomination. Commissioner Kalligher nominated Commissioner Sander to be Planning Commission Chairperson Pro tem. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mann. Commissioner Kalligher asked whether there were any other nominations. Hearing none, she called for a motion to close nominations. CLOSE NOMINATIONS Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Holmes to close nominations. The motion passed unanimously. ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON PRO TEM Voting in favor of Commissioner Sander as Planning Commission Chairperson Pro tem: Commissioners Sander, Kalligher, Holmes and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Chairperson Pro tem Sander then assumed the Chair for the remainder of the meeting. IS CUSSION ITEMS a. Real Estate Sign Ordinance Following the Chairperson Pro tem's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first discussion item, the Real Estate Sign Ordinance regarding commercial and industrial space for lease signs and also multi family space for lease signs. The Secretary stated that Mr. Kent Warden was at the meeting to discuss the matter and offer his recommendations. He stated that staff do not have a specific recommendation to make. He stated that some of the concerns regarding this ordinance related to appearance and the duration the sign was up. The Secretary recommended that a permit process be adopted if a more complex ordinance is put in place. He stated, however, that he preferred that the ordinance be simple, but accomplish the objectives of the City Council. Mr. Kent Warden of the Building Owners and Managers Association of Minneapolis (BOMA) stated that his organization has some of the same objectives regarding the appearance of signs. He stated that it would be preferable certainly if they did not need these signs, but that with the market for commercial space of the past few years they are a necessary marketing element. He stated that if these signs were taken away, it would put Brooklyn Center Real Estate at a disadvantage relative to other properties in the Metro area. He stated that a compromise had been worked out with the City Council last year and that the appearance of the signs had improved. Commissioner Mann asked Mr. Warden whether he had read the current ordinance. Mr. Warden responded in the affirmative, stating that he had worked on its provisions last year. Commissioner Mann asked whether he was comfortable with the ordinance as is. Mr. Warden responded that he would prefer some other requirement than to take the sign down and put the date on every year. He stated that this 6 -11 -92 2 Itl would be a cumbersome - process both for the building owners and managers and for the City. Mr. John Kelly of Ryan Properties spoke briefly to the Commission. He stated that the MECC tenant, which is a large tenant in 6160 Summit Drive did not come through signage, but that most tenants are small and do come from signery. He stated that the sign size in the ordinance of 32 sq. ft. is adequate. He stated he has some concern about taking the sign down every year. He stated that in today's market these signs will be up for awhile. Commissioner Kalligher asked whether these signs would be used to get business for other locations. Mr. Kelly admitted that there is some carry over from one location to another, but that the signs are always for that building. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the signs would be taken down when buildings are full. Mr. Kelly responded that the buildings he manages are not full. He stated that he would be willing to take the signs down when the buildings are close to full. He stated that the signs have to look good to do a good job. The Secretary then asked Mr. Kelly a number of questions. The Secretary asked what is the practice of Ryan Properties regarding maintenance of these signs. Mr. Kelly responded that he was in charge of property maintenance and that property maintenance gives a first impression of the property. He stated that signs have.to be kept up the same as the landscaping. The Secretary asked if the majority of tenant spaces are small. Mr. Kelly responded in the affirmative. The Secretary asked if small tenants come from signs and whether there was any documentation of that. Mr. Kelly stated that they do try to track where their tenants come from. He stated that the last six tenants have come from signs. The Secretary noted that signs draw smaller tenants in office buildings.. He asked whether the same applied to retail or industrial tenants as well as office tenants. Mr. Kelly answered that retail tenants tend to come from brokers and that the sign is somewhat less important. For industrial tenants, he stated that the sign is important if the tenants are small. For apartments, Mr. Kelly stated that a lot of tenants don't see the signs unless they are looking for them. He stated that large banners attract a lot of traffic and that smaller signs are not as effective. The Secretary asked Mr. Kelly if he thought a 32 sq. ft. sign is adequate. Mr. Kelly responded that if a 32 sq. ft. sign is on the building, it is not very visible. He added that he did not like to put such signs on the building. As a freestanding sign, however, it is adequate in most cases. The Secretary added that the current ordinance does not permit signs for multi family buildings. He stated that there was a concern about such signs, especially in residential neighborhoods. He stated that he assumed banners are for larger projects. Mr. Kelly stated that they are used primarily to appeal to freeway traffic. He stated that in residential neighborhoods traffic is moving slower and that a smaller sign is 6 -11 -92 3 easier to read there. The Secretary asked whether moving the sign around helps. Mr. Kelly responded that people don't pay attention to signs unless they are ready to move. The Secretary asked whether using the existing freestanding identification sign would be useful or whether a separate sign is better. Mr. Kelly answered that a monument sign identifying a building is a much quieter message. He stated real estate signs don't have the same kind of impact. He stated that he did not want to give the same sense of permanence to a vacancy as to tenants in the building by putting such a message on the freestanding identification sign. The Secretary asked about these signs being temporary. He noted that one city requires the removal of such real estate signs after a building is 80% occupied. He asked Mr. Kelly whether 80% is a reasonable occupancy for removal. Mr. Kelly answered that a building that is 800 occupied is still not profitable. He stated he couldn't remember when he had a building that was 100% occupied. He stated that 950 occupancy would be a reasonable cutoff to take down a sign. The Secretary stated that the concern of the City with such signs being up at a high rate of occupancy is that they will wind up directing traffic to other buildings and thus, become a billboard. Mr. Kelly stated that a 95% cutoff is a workable number. Chairperson Pro tem Sander asked about the large tenant at 6160 Summit Drive and whether it came from a sign. Mr. Kelly responded in the negative. He stated that he did not know if a large tenant would often come from a sign and he described some of the search process that such tenants go through to choose a location. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the ordinance does not allow banners. The Secretary stated that banners are prohibited signs and that they are only allowed by Administrative Land Use Permits for commercial and industrial properties. Commissioner Holmes asked whether one could get a permit for a banner. The Secretary answered that a residential property could not get an Administrative Land Use Permit. He stated that there is no provision in the ordinance right now for multi family real estate signs at all. He reviewed the ordinance for single family real estate signs and stated that it was necessary to address the need for such signs for multi family properties. Commissioner Holmes stated that apparently these signs are not inspected. He asked whether a new ordinance would require City staff to start inspecting such signs. The Secretary answered that he was not aware of a lot of deteriorated signs. He stated that the ordinance in effect would require that signs be taken down every year. He stated that there is a general provision in the Sign Ordinance that requires any deteriorated signs to be taken down. He stated that one of the staff concerns is that signs not be up when there is no vacancy and that perhaps a cutoff of 950 occupancy would be a workable threshold to require such signs to come down. He stated that an annual permit could be used to monitor such signs and stated that the renewal of such a permit would require owners to verify that there is still space available. The Secretary stated, 6 -11 -92 4 however, that he would prefer to avoid a permit process and simply go after deteriorated signs and check the occupancy of buildings. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the Planning Commission should be concerned about the administrative costs of a given ordinance. The Secretary stated that whatever the ordinance in place, the staff would have to put that work into its priorities of other things to do. Mr. Clem Springer of Weis Asset Management, then briefly addressed the Commission. He stated that signs are important to realtors as well as tenants. He stated that repainting signs that don't need it is unproductive . He stated that he disagreed with a provision that tied such signs to having a percent of the building vacant. He stated that shopping centers have to be full and that tenants are always moving out. He stated that the real estate market is difficult right now and that more restrictions are not needed. He recommended simply going after deteriorated signs. The Secretary stated that the most restrictive case would be if the current ordinance sunsets without a new ordinance being adopted and the old ordinance is put back into effect. He noted that the old ordinance only allowed wall signs. Mr. Springer stated that a freestanding sign is more attractive as well as more effective. Commissioner Holmes asked whether there had been any complaints regarding space for lease signs. The Secretary answered that he was not aware of any. He stated that this ordinance is basically an aesthetic concern that sets a community standard. He stated that most complaints come from those who use the signs. Chairperson Pro tem Sander stated that it was a very complex matter. The Secretary answered in the affirmative. He stated that zoning and sign ordinances have to do with aesthetic controls and. that any sign has to have an impact. He added that there is a concern regarding the effectiveness of such signs and the need to lease up space. He stated that it may be desirable to control the message somewhat and perhaps not allow the agency's name as part of the sign. Mr. John Kelly stated that he believed state regulations require that the broker's name be on the sign. Chairperson Pro tem Sander asked what the time frame was for developing a new ordinance. The Secretary answered that the existing ordinance expires by September 20 and that a new ordinance should be recommended by the Planning Commission by early August. He asked for direction from the Commission. Commissioner Mann suggested that the language refer to maintenance and upkeep rather than to taking the sign down once a year. She asked the Secretary why he opposed a permit provision. The Secretary answered that it was basically a matter of cost. He stated that such a provision would be more cumbersome and that it is easiest to administer and understand if the ordinance is simple. He stated that he did not recommend the previous ordinance which was more complex. He stated that, if the Planning Commission recommends a permit, then such signs could be checked every year. Commissioner Mann stated that 6 -11 -92 5 she preferred that the date of erection and the name of the signhanger be visible on the sign. The Secretary stated that the signhanger may change. Commissioner Holmes asked if staff would look into adding multi family to the real estate sign provisions. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Holmes stated that he did not think it was necessary to take the sign down, but that he liked a yearly permit. Chairperson Pro tem Sander asked whether all signs were checked yearly. The Secretary answered that normally signs with a permit are permanent signs. He stated that a temporary sign might require a new permit. Commissioner Kalligher asked if a permit was necessary if an occupancy threshold was in the ordinance. The Secretary answered that a permit would not necessarily be required, that the occupancy could be checked on occasionally without a permit. Chairperson Pro tem Sander stated that she was concerned about there being signs with no vacancy. She stated that she would recommend that signs come down when a building is 95% leased. The Secretary asked if the Commission had a preference regarding freestanding or wall signs. Commissioner Mann stated that she would prefer to leave the option of either type of sign. Commissioner Mann also recommended L that the word "temporary" be removed from the ordinance language. b. Day Care Centers in Commercial Zones The Secretary then introduced the next discussion item, a draft ordinance relating to day care centers in commercial zones that would do away with the abutment restrictions and the prohibition on day cares in shopping centers. The Secretary added that he had a discussion with Mr. Clem Springer regarding the proposal for a day care center in Humboldt Square Shopping Center. He stated that the proposal is for a New Horizon Day Care Center which is a licensed day care operation. He stated that the draft ordinance does not alter Sections 35 -411 and 412 relating to the play areas. He reviewed some of the provisions of those sections. He stated that day care would still be subject to the special use permit process. The Secretary stated that New Horizon would have to come back as a special use permit application if the ordinance were amended. He showed the Planning Commission a drawing of the proposed play area and showed how the play area would meet the ordinance standards. He added that Humboldt Square has a surplus of parking and can afford to lose some spaces for the play area. He noted that there is a 6' wide walk and 4' high fence along the west side of the play area. He expressed concern regarding a new access onto 69th Avenue North. He stated that he had brought the drawing to the attention of the Director of Public Works who had suggested that it might be possible to work out shared access with the gas station to the west. The Secretary explained that the Zoning Ordinance requires accesses on the same site to be at least 50' apart and that the proposed access would be very close to the easterly access of the service station leading to possible conflicts. The Secretary stated that he would like the Planning Commission to make some kind of recommendation on the draft ordinance at this evening's meeting 6 -11 -92 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff DATE: June 8, 1992 SUBJECT: Real Estate Sign Ordinance Review We have contacted Mr. Kent Warden of the Building Owners and Managers Association about the current review of the Real Estate Sign Ordinance. He has agreed to attend the June 11, 1992 Planning Commission meeting to discuss that ordinance with the Commission. We will discuss size, location, maintenance and duration of such signs with Mr. Warden. We will also discuss whether a permit process would be appropriate or not. Please bring the material distributed for our last meeting and your thoughts for discussion on Thursday night. Commissioner Mann suggested that it might be appropriate to have a field trip and stated that she still had concerns regarding day care in shopping centers. Commissioner Holmes stated that it was probably necessary to make some changes to the ordinance, but he was not sure what changes to make yet. Commissioner Sander stated that she liked the existing restrictions on the play area. Y-'' Real Estate Sign Ordinance The Secretary then introduced a brief discussion of the real estate sign ordinance that was adopted by the City Council last year. He stated that the ordinance presently in effect sunsets this summer unless it is readopted. He stated that the City can leave that ordinance as is, go back to the old ordinance, or develop a new ordinance. Commissioner Mann expressed some concern about such signs being temporary rather than continuing indefinitely. The Planner stated that a simple ordinance would be easier to enforce. He stated that an ordinance that required signs to be taken down every six months to a year would perhaps need a code enforcement officer to enforce. He stated that it would probably be necessary to have a permit for such signs if the ordinance is more complex. The Secretary stated that the City could certainly have whatever regulations it wants regarding such signs. He stated that a permit would help the staff enforce more complex ordinances. He stated that real estate signs n are temporary o g p racy because at some point they must come down. He also stated that Brooklyn Center has traditionally enforced its sign ordinance more than many communities. The Secretary added that the City Council had also had a concern about such signs being temporary and had debated whether it was more appropriate to have such signs be freestanding or all signs. d. Moratorium on Home Occupations on Brooklyn Boulevard The Secretary reviewed with.the Planning Commission the action on the home occupation at 6136 Brooklyn Boulevard submitted by Nhia Thao. He stated that the City Council had suggested it might be appropriate to have a moratorium on such home occupations until the Brooklyn Boulevard Study was completed. He stated that the staff can draft an ordinance regarding such a moratorium and bring it back for the next meeting. The Planning Commission by consensus agreed that such an ordinance would be appropriate. Commissioner Bernards stated that he would not be at the June 11 meeting. The Secretary briefly referred the Commission to a letter from the Chamber of Commerce. Commissioner Mann noted that a group home was being looked at for a site south of the Joslyn property. The Secretary pointed out that the group home might be located on vacant land owned by Bruce Plumbing. He stated it was his understanding that they are looking 5 -28 -92 5 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7/8/91 Agenda Rem Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 91008 - Welsh Companies, Inc. ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Ronal 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. 91008 submitted by Welsh Companies, Inc. is a request for sign variance approval for three freestanding real estate signs at 2700 Freeway Boulevard, 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway and 5951 Earle Brown Drive. These signs are. all 4' x 8- (32 sq. ft.) space for lease signs which exceed the limits allowed for real estate signs under Section 34 -140, Subdivision 2.1, 3 and 4. This application was considered by the Planning Commission at its May 16, 1991 meeting at which time the Planning Commission recommended denial of the variance request on he standards for a sign the grounds that t n ordinance variance were g not met. The Commission, however, recommended approval of an ordinance amendment which would modify the current sign regulations for space for lease signs. The current Sign Ordinance provisions relating to temporary real estate signs for the purpose of leasing or selling portions of commercial or industrial buildings contains a somewhat complex formula for determining the size of signs based on the size of a building wall and its distance from the public right -of -way. Enforcement of the provisions is difficult due to the nature of the regulations and the fact that no permits are required for these types of signs. Another problem experienced is that many would like to have freestanding for lease or sale signs, but the ordinance limits such signs to walls. The recommended ordinance establishes 32 sq. ft. as the maximum size for these signs and allows either a wall sign or a freestanding sign per street frontage. We believe this to be a reasonable size and should be easier to enforce as well. SUMMARY E %PLANATION CONTINUED PAGE 2 Although not related to real estate signs, the proposed ordinance also addresses a sign problem we recently had, that being a truck used as an advertising sign parked in a parking lot along Brooklyn Boulevard. The language offered is based on language from a model sign ordinance and prohibits signs on commercial vehicles which are parked at a commercial premises in such a manner as to constitute a static display a advertising business, P Y g mess, product or service to the traveling public. Attached are copies of the minutes and information sheet from the May 16, 1991 Planning Commission meeting, ordinance amendment, ordinance sections, several letters, sign survey and a map of the area for the Council's review. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council deny Planning Commission Application No. 91008 (sign ordinance variance) on the grounds that the Standards for a Sign Ordinance Variance are not met and approve the recommended ordinance amendment for first reading. . g CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 1991 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Sign Ordinance regarding real estate signs. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ALLOWABLE SIZE OF SPACE FOR LEASE REAL ESTATE SIGNS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 34 -130. PROHIBITED SIGNS 14. Signs painted on a commercial vehicle which is parked at a commercial premises in such a manner as to constitute a static display advertising a _business, product or service to the traveling public and which is not making a pickup or delivery or being appropriately stored on the premises. Section 34 -140. PERMITTED SIGNS 2. Permitted Signs Not Requiring a Permit 1. Real Estate signs as follows: 3. Temporary signs for the purpose of leasing or selling dwelling units in buildings containing two (2) or more units and temporary signs for the purpose of leasing or selling portions of commercial or industrial buildings, such as offices or individual tenant areas are permitted only when vacancies exist and are limited to (walls facing public streets] one freestanding or wall sign per street frontage. The size of signs shall be (determined on the basis of wall area and distance from public right -of- way in the following manner:] no greater than 32 sq. ft. ORDINANCE NO. [a. For buildings with a wall area of 1,000 sq. ft. or less facing a public street, the maximum size sign shall be 10 sq. ft. For buildings with over 1,000 sq. ft. of wall area facing a public street, the maximum size sign shall be 16 sq. ft. b. Buildings eligible for temporary real estate signs under Subsection (a) above shall be entitled to a sign 50% greater in area if the building is over 100 feet from the right -of -way line and 100% greater if the building is over 300 feet from the right -of -way line. 4. Buildings entitled to temporary wall signs as specified in Subsection 34 -140- :2.1 (3) above may utilize up to 10 sq. ft. or 500 of the area (whichever is less) of an existing freestanding identification sign in lieu of all other real estate signs.) Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 1991. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) 40 IV REAL ESTATE SIGNS (FOR LEASE) Bloomington Will fax Brooklyn Park 20 sq. ft. freestanding s' q g ign of commercial 6 ht. No permit required. Coon Rapids Will mail Eden Prairie 32 sq. ft. freestanding sign for leasing. Also allow 32 sq. ft. sign to announce a project (to be removed when 80% leased). No permit required. Edina Sign must be removed once 80% occupied. Mainly allowed for new construction. Signs can't exceed 100 sq. ft., one per street frontage. No closer than 100' to pre- existing res. No permit required. Fridley One sign per street frontage 50 sq. ft. total signery. No closer than 100' to building. Removed when leased. Minimum distance of 10 from property line or driveway. No permit. Maple Grove 4 sq. ft in res. in one and t...o family district, 32 sq. ft. in multiple family, commercial and industrial districts. Heavy industrial = 50 sq. ft. Minnetonka s' (Temporary igns) Allow on permanent basis as part of freestanding identification sign. Separate freestanding sign 12 sq. ft., 16 sQ. ft. or 18 sq. ft. depending on size of building. Along 55 mph road, may have 32 sa. ft. sign. Permit required. Plymouth Project sign for 3 yrs. 96 sq. ft. 8 sq. ft. in res. districts. Banners prohibited. Allow 96 sq. ft. sign for commercial/ industrial for lease signs. Require permit for signs over 8 sq. ft. St. Louis Park 6 sq. ft. in R1, in R2 if under 15,000 sq. ft. of land, 6 sq. ft. In multiple family, commercial, and industrial 80 sq. ft. , require permit. 25 ht. limit in all districts for freestanding. Allow on wall, but not roof. If above 6th floor, allow 200 sq. ft. Burnsville Leasing banners allowed on temporary basis. Maximum size sign is 40 sq. ft., 64 sq. ft. if no higher than 12' and setback if for each if of ht. Permit is $45 for 3 months for banners. / CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7/22, Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Allowable Size of Space for Lease Real Estate Signs DEPT. APPROVAL: el 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 g The City council, at its July 8, 1991 meeting, denied Planning Commission Application No. 91008 which was a request for a sign ordinance variance by Welsh Companies, Inc. involving various. real estate signs announcing space for lease. The Council did consider, and tabled, an ordinance amendment which would modify the sign ordinance to allow both freestanding and wall for lease signs with an area of 32 sq. ft. The Council requested various modifications to the ordinance for their future consideration. Modifications have been made and a new proposal is being offered for the Council's consideration. As it relates to residential property, the new ordinance would only allow this category of real estate sign to be utilized by buildings containing five or more dwelling units. Single family, two family and multiple family buildings, up to four plexes, could only have 6 sq. ft. real estate signs rather than the 32 sq. ft. sign under the proposed ordinance. We have also modified the proposal to put a 15' height limit on the freestanding signs. Also, we have attempted to establish some "sunset" provisions on these signs to help assure that they are indeed temporary signs and to also require either elimination or maintenance and rejuvenation of the signs periodically. This is proposed by requiring that the signs be marked with the date they were put up and that they be removed and rejuvenated or replaced every two years. These signs are only allowed to be displayed when vacancies in a building exist. Summary Explanation J Page 2 July 22, 1991 We looked at the possibility of requiring a certain percentage of vacancy, such as 10 %, in order for a property to be eligible for a sign. That has not, however, been included in the proposal mainly because we would like to keep the enforcement of the ordinance simple and we believe the proposed "sunset" provisions address the issue of the temporary nature of the signs. A percentage qualifier can be added if the City Council desires. The question of requiring a setback for freestanding signs was also considered. The greenstrip requirements were noted at the last Council meeting and it was pointed out that this would cause some difficulty in placement of freestanding signs. Therefore, no setback requirements are suggested. If the City Council is concerned that the new provisions will cause an undesirable proliferation of freestanding real estate signs, we would suggest that freestanding signs then just be prohibited for this type of real estate sign as is now the case. We, however, do believe the request for freestanding signs is reasonable. It is important to note that leasing building space is a very tight and competitive market at the present time and to have leased up space is a positive economic impact to the community. Balancing 0 4 this with aesthetic concerns is what the Council should be concerned with. We have kept Welsh Companies, Inc. and the representatives of the Building Owners and Managers Association (B.O.M.A.) apprised of the proposed changes and I would expect that they would be at the 7/22/91 Council meeting. Recommendation If this ordinance, or some modification of it, meets with the City Council's approval, we would recommend that it have a first reading and be published for public hearing at a subsequent City Council meeting. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/12/S Agenda hem Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Allowable Size of Space for Lease Real Estate Signs ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROV : 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 This item was first considered by the City Council at its July 8, 1991 meeting as part of the consideration of Planning Commission Application No. 91008 submitted by Welsh Companies, Inc. requesting a sign variance for various real estate signs. The City Council tabled consideration of the first reading on an ordinance amendment and directed the staff to prepare various modifications. Modifications* were made and presented to the City Council for consideration on July 22, 1991. The Council decided on some additional changes at that meeting that: 1) did not extend the provisions for these types of real estate signs to multiple residential buildings; g 2) limited freestanding eal estate signs ns g to a height no greater than 10 feet above ground level (15 feet had been considered previously); and 3) required these real estate signs be removed within one year of the date appearing on the sign as to when it was erected in order that the sign be rejuvenated or replaced and be allowed to be re- erected only if vacancies still exist (two years had been previously considered). A first reading on the ordinance with the modifications was held on July 22 establishing August 12, 1991 at 7:15 p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing. Recommendation The ordinance is offered for a second reading and public hearing at the August 12, 1991 meeting. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 9th day of Sectember , 1991 at 7:15 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Sign Ordinance regarding real estate signs. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. 91 -13 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ALLOWABLE SIZE OF SPACE FOR LEASE REAL ESTATE SIGNS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 34 -130 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended by adding new paragraph 14 as follows: Section 34 -130. PROHIBITED SIGNS 14. Signs painted on a commercial vehicle which is Parked at a commercial premises in such a manner as to constitute a static display advertising a business, product or service to the traveling Public and which is not making a pickup or delivery or being appropriately stored on the premises Section 2. Section 34 -140 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is amended as follows: Section 34 -140. PERMITTED SIGNS 2. Permitted Signs Not Requiring a Permit 1. Real Estate signs as follows: 3. Temporary signs for the purpose of leasing or selling (dwelling units in buildings containing two (2) or more units and temporary signs for the purpose of leasing or selling] portions of commercial or industrial buildings, such as offices or individual tenant areas are permitted only when vacancies exist and are limited to (walls facing public streets) one freestanding or wall sign per street frontage. The size of signs shall be [determined on the basis of wall area and distance from public right -of- ORDINANCE NO. 91 -13 way in the following manner:] no greater than 32 sq ft and freestanding signs shall be no higher than 10' above around level. All signs permitted by this section of the ordinance shall be marked with the date on which the sign was erected to be located in the lower right hand corner of the sian. Said sign must be removed no later than one year from said date and may be re- erected only if vacancies exist and the sign is completely reuvenated or replaced. Any sign not containing the date it was erected is unlawful [a. For buildings with a wall area of 1,000 sq. ft. or less facing a public street, the maximum size sign shall be 10 sq. ft. For buildings with over 1,000 sa. ft. of wall area facing a public street, the maximum size sign shall be 16 sq. ft.- b. Buildings eligible for temporary real estate wall signs under Subsection (a) above shall be entitled to a sign 50 greater in area if the building is over 100 feet from the right -of -way line and 100% greater if the building is over 300 feet from the right -of -way line. 4. Buildings entitled to temporary wall signs as specified in Subsection 34- 140:2.1 (3) above may utilize up to 10 sq. ft. or 50% of the area (whichever is less) of an existing freestanding identification sign in lieu of all other real estate signs.] Section 3. Section 2 of this ordinance shall automatically be repealed one year from the effective date of this ordinance unless earlier reenacted by the Council. Upon such automatic repeal, the terms of Section 34 -140 of the City Code of Ordinances shall automatically revert to those in effect at the time of adoption of this ordinance. Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Effective date of this ordinance is September 20, 1991. ORDINANCE NO. 91 -13 Adopted this 12th day of AuQ'ust 1991. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: j Deputy Clerk 2 t - Date of Publication Auzust21, 1991 Effective Date Seot ember 20, 1991 (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 8/24/ Agenda Item Number 216 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Relating to Administrative Land Use Permits DEPT. APPRO L: 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 ) . The City Council on July 27, 1992 had a first reading on an ordinance amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances relating to administrative land use permits. This ordinance makes certain apartment complexes (ones with over 36 units and which are located adjacent to major thoroughfares) eligible for administrative land use permits to display banners, pennants, balloons and other attention attracting devices for the purpose of advertising dwelling units for sale or lease during limited periods of time. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council, following the public hearing on this matter, adopt the proposed ordinance amendment. i CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a P ublic hearing will be held on the 24th day of August 1992 at 7:15 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to administrative land use permits. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATING TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE PERMITS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -800. ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS. No person shall use his property or /and assist, countenance or allow the use of his or of another's property located within the municipality for any of the following purposes or uses without first having obtained a permit from the City zoning official. The use shall not for the duration of the permit, considering the time of year, the parking layout of the principal use, the nature of the proposed use and other pertinent factors, substantially impair the parking capacity of the principal use or impair the safe and efficient movement of pedestrian and vehicular traffic either on or off the premises. A waiver from certain provisions of this ordinance is implied by the granting of an administrative permit, but only for the duration of the permit and to the extent authorized by said permit. 3. Banners, pennants, balloons and other attention attracting devices for the purpose of advertising dwelling units for sale or lease in multiple family complexes with at least 36 dwelling units and located adjacent to a major thoroughfare, may be permitted by administrative permit for periods not to exceed 10 consecutive days. Two such 10 day permits may be allowed per premises per calendar year. ORDINANCE NO. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 1992. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted; underline indicates new matter.) There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and Bonded by Councilmember Cohen to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances Relating to Real Estate Signs and setting a public hearing for August 24, 1992, at 7;15 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott to have the Planning Commission review the Real Estate Sign Ordinance amending Chapters 34 and 35 in 12 months. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve for fi reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the Qity Ordinances Relating to Administrative Land Use Permits and setting a public hearing for August 24, 1992, at 7:15 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. $ESTRUCTURING OF POLICE DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT The City Manager presented the restructuring of Police Department management along with the proposed resolution amending the 1992 budget and authorizing the restructuring of the Police Department e partment management. Mayor Pro tem Pedlar suggested the reorganization be reconsidered when the new Police Chief comes on board. He added the new chief should be given the opportunity to approve the concept of the reorganization. i Captain Kline explained the reorganization of the police department and answered questions from Cijuiicil. Councilmember Scott stated the reorganization will make the department function much better. She further stated the new Police Chief should be very impressed but should be given the opportunity to approve the reorganization. There was a motion by Mayor Pro tam Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to allow the new Police Chief to veto the concept. The motion passed unanimously, RESOLUTION.-NO. 92 -18 Member Pedlar introduced the fullowing resc,lutiun and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING 1992 PAY PLAN TO IMPLEMENT CHANGES IN THE ORUANIZATION OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing oin resolution p g g eso ution was duly seconded by member Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. 7/27/92 - 12- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date / 8 // 24/92 Agenda Item Number /Z � REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: DISCUSSION ITEM: PART -TIME COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR POSITION DEPT. APPROVAL• Geral R. Barone, Personnel Coordinator MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONaIENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) In June of this year, the communications task force recommended to the city council that a part - time communications coordinator be hired by the City of Brooklyn Center. The council referred this request to the financial task force, which recommended against funding the position in 1992 and suggested approval of it in 1993 only if there is an equivalent reduction in other General Fund operating expenses. The communications task force is asking the council to reconsider funding the position in 1992, and the city manager has been asked to look at possible methods of covering the costs for the remainder of this year. The city manager has indicated that his 1993 budget proposal will include the part -time communications coordinator, and he intends to meet the financial task force's recommendation of reducing elsewhere to do so. The annual expenses of this position for labor and supplies is around $21,000. Start up costs related to the position (for office furniture, office equipment, and computer equipment) are about $8,200. If the position is authorized for 1992, realistically a person would not be on board until around November 1 due to the time it takes to recruit and hire someone. Therefore, labor costs for 1992 would be about $3,200. It would be possible to cover the labor expenses from a combination of resources, including professional services in the city manager's budget; utilities enterprise fund (for its share of costs related to the City newsletter); and printing in the unallocated departmental expenses budget ($1,100 is allocated for newsletter expenses related to the December City newsletter which is paid to Walker Enterprises for consulting services). With regard to covering the capital outlay expenses of $8,200, this could also come from the unallocated departmental expenses budget. $28,000 was allocated in 1992 for the purchase of a new copy machine. The City has acquired one at a cost of $17,881. The remaining dollars have not been designated for any other expenditures and can only be used for capital outlay items because the funds are generated by certificates of indebtedness. Because there is a difference of opinion between the communications task force and the financial commission regarding the timing of funding the part -time communications position, the city council is being asked to step in and reconcile this situation. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Discuss the request from the communications task force to fund a part -time communications coordinator position in 1992, and, if desired, appropriate the funding to do so. • DRAFT 5/92 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER POSITION DESCRIPTION POSITION IDENTIFICATION TITLE: Part -time Communications Coordinator DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office STATUS: Nonexempt SALARY SCHEDULE: DATE WRITTEN /REVISED: May 1992 POSITION OBJECTIVE The primary objective of this position is to coordinate the City's communication activities both externally and internally. This position will provide information to the residents and workforce of the City and contribute to the development of an increased sense of identity of the City through marketing efforts. This position works under the general administrative direction of the city manager and performs skilled, professional, and technical tasks. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Coordinate communication with citizens. a. Brooklyn Center City Newsletter. 1. Coordinate content, production, and distribution of the City's newsletter. 2. Ensure the creation and maintenance of a historical file with copies of every issue of the City newsletter. b. Cable television government access channel. 1. Coordinate the programming of the government access cable television channel. 2. Oversee the cable casting of city council meetings. 3. Develop and assist others in the development of cable television presentations regarding specific City programs or activities and current City issues of interest to the general citizenry. 4. Ensure the creation and maintenance of a video library of city council meetings, other City meetings, City - sponsored activities, and television programs/ segments regarding the City. 5. Provide for the video taping of City meetings, City - sponsored events, daily work activities and television broadcasts regarding the City, as required or requested. c. News media. 1. Regularly provide articles about specific City programs or activities of general interest to newspapers, radio stations, and television studios which provide service to the City. Assist other departments in preparation of articles for publication or broadcast. 2. Coordinate all information provided by the City to the news media. 3. Coordinate and monitor all City- related press releases. 4. Ensure the creation and maintenance of a "clipping" file for reference and historical purposes of published articles regarding important City issues. d. Citizen inquiry and response process. 1. Respond to citizen inquiries as directed, answering correspondence, phone inquiries, and How Are We Doing forms. 2. Work with City employees as directed to insure that accurate information is disseminated in response to public and media inquiries. 2. Coordinate communication between staff and the public. a. Act as an advisor to the city manager and department heads on internal and external communication issues. b. Assist City personnel in the development of presentations. c. Train, or provide for training of, employees in effective communication techniques. d. Produce and update a guide to standardize the style and format of City written materials. f. Provide support for departments in writing, designing, and publishing in -house publications such as brochures, books, and articles. 3. Coordinate employee communication. a. Coordinate the content, production, and distribution of the monthly internal employee newsletter. b. Assist staff in the development of communication and recognition programs for City employees. 4. Coordinate marketing of the City. a. In cooperation with the various school districts and the business community, maintain a detailed community information packet for new residents and /or businesses. b. Assist in the development of an increased sense of identity of the City by enhancing the City logo and other images of the City. C. Serve as liaison for marketing Brooklyn Center to the North Metro Tourism Bureau, Brooklyn Center Chamber of Commerce, and Earle Brown Heritage Center. KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES 1. Knowledge of journalism and media techniques which provide a basis for reaching specific targeted audiences. 2. Knowledge of public relations, marketing, and community affairs field. 3. Skill in the use of computer equipment and software including word processing (WordPerfect 5.1 for Windows) and desk top publishing. 4. Skill in the use of video production equipment and production techniques. 5. Excellent ability to effectively communicate both orally and in writing using various formats and in a variety of situations. 6. Ability to work independently, providing self - direction. 7. Ability to develop, organize, and administer various organizational procedures. 8. Ability to deal tactfully and effectively with all City elected officials, personnel, outside agencies, and the general public. 9. Ability to assess and resolve problems with the tools available to do so. REQUIREMENTS 1. Training, experience, and education substantially equivalent to a bachelor's degree in Public Administration, Business Administration, Communications, Public Relations, or related field required. 2. Three to five years experience in promotions, public relations, community affairs, or related field required. 3. Working experience in local government or covering local government as a journalist preferred. POSITION DESCRIPTION APPROVED By City Manager Date Approved CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 08/24/92 Agenda Itan Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: CONSIDERATION OF A NEIGHBORHOOD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: ham. Sy Knapp, /recto of Public Works ************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** * ** * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOAEIl IENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached In accordance with discussion at the City Council's work session on August 17, the attached resolution is submitted for consideration. As noted at that time, it will not be possible to implement a pilot project for street improvements in 1993 unless field survey and television inspection of sewers are conducted this fall. Accordingly, staff suggests that the matter of considering such improvements be referred to the Earle Brown Neighborhood Advisory Committee. If, after considerations, that committee identifies a specific area for consideration as a pilot project, staff would then initiate field surveys, television inspection of sewers, and other investigations to develop a feasibility report. Staff would then also conduct public information meetings in the area to assure maximum opportunities for public input before any formal consideration of a project by the City Council. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Review - Discuss - Consider adoption of a resolution. /0 6 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION OF A POSSIBLE NEIGHBORHOOD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the average age of residential streets in the City of Brooklyn Center is in excess of 30 years, and the Director of Public Works has advised the City Council that, because of normal deterioration, the annual costs for maintaining these streets are rising rapidly; and WHEREAS, development of a comprehensive plan for street improvements must be based on reliable needs evaluation and cost estimates, citizen participation to assure citizen understanding and support, evaluation of alternative design concepts, consideration of costs vs. benefits for property owners and for the City, and an overall feasibility evaluation; and WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Council that consideration should be given to the development of a comprehensive neighborhood street improvement program for the entire City; and WHEREAS, the Earle Brown Neighborhood Advisory Committee was appointed by the City Council and charged with the responsibility of reviewing, commenting and making recommendations regarding matters which relate to the Southeast Neighborhood and said committee has expressed an interest in considering development of a pilot street improvement program in the area south of 57th Avenue North and easterly of T.H. 100 for implementation in 1993 or 1994; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Financial Commission has been appointed by the City Council and charged with the responsibility of reviewing, commenting and making recommendations regarding matters which have a significant financial impact on the City and its citizens. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center that: 1. City staff is hereby authorized and directed to assemble and develop such information as may be necessary to develop a reliable needs evaluation and cost estimates, financing options, and feasibility reports for a comprehensive street improvement program and for possible development of an initial pilot project. 2. In order to assure maximum opportunity for citizen participation, staff is authorized and directed to (1) meet with the Earle Brown Neighborhood Advisory Committee and extensions of that committee; (2) meet with other neighborhood groups who wish to participate, and (3) conduct general public information meetings within specific areas if the Advisory Committee RESOLUTION 110. recommends consideration of an improvement program within such areas. 3. Staff is authorized and directed to meet with the Financial Commission to discuss development of a long -term plan for a residential street improvement program and the integration of such a program into the City's Capital Improvement Program and financing options and policies. 4. It is anticipated that it will become necessary to contract for certain professional services, including but not limited to real estate appraisals, and televised inspection of sanitary and storm sewers. Formal consideration of contracts for such services will be individually considered by the City Council if they are recommended by an advisory group, and if they are submitted in compliance with the Policy for Procurement of Professional Services as adopted by the City Council on August 12, 1991. 5. All costs relating to preliminary development of a residential street improvement program shall be appropriated from the local Municipal State Aid Stree fund, Account No. 2911. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 08/24/92 Agenda Item Number 1,12e, REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: SELECTION COMMITTEE REPORT REGARDING PROPOSALS RECEIVED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DEPT. APPROVAL: / / Sy kdapp, Dire for of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION : ors ,,s''�C.a`.e';•:¢"t6 �. 4: -. No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes At its regular meeting of June 22, 1992, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 92 -152, which formally initiated the development of Brooklyn Center's Pavement Management Program. In accordance with the City's "Policy for Procurement of Professional Services ", proposals were solicited from consulting firms who provide the necessary expertise and experience to complete such a program. A selection committee was then appointed to review proposals. Interviews were conducted, and the selection committee recommended the firm of Braun Intertec Pavement Inc. for the development of the City's Pavement Management Program. The attached memorandum from City Engineer Mark Maloney reports the activities and recommendations of the selection committee. A representative from Braun Intertec Pavement, Inc. will attend the Council meeting and make a 10 to 15 minute presentation - discussing the firm and the proposed program. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution which accepts the proposal and approves execution of a contract with Braun Intertec Pavement, Inc. is attached for consideration by the City Council. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -17, AND ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFORE WHEREAS, Resolution No. 92 -152, adopted June 22, 1992, authorizes the solicitation of proposals from consultants for the development of Brooklyn Center's Pavement Management Program; and WHEREAS, the City's approved "Policy for Procurement of Professional Services" provides for the creation of a selection committee, whose composition was approved by Resolution No. 92 -152; and WHEREAS, the selection committee has recommended that the City enter into a contract with the firm Braun Intertec Pavement, Inc., for the provision of professional services in conjunction with the development of Brooklyn Center's Pavement Management Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The report and recommendation of the selection committee is hereby accepted. 2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a professional services contract between the City of Brooklyn Center and Braun Intertec Pavement, Inc. 3. Funding for the costs of this project shall be provided by (1) the $25,250 appropriation provided in Division 120, Data Processing, of the 1992 General Fund budget; and (2) a supplemental appropriation of $30,070 from the Municipal State Aid Street Fund, Account No. 2911. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OE] OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 BROOKLYN TELEPHONE: 569 -3300 C ENTER FAX: 569 -3494 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 20, 1992 TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM: Mark J. Maloney, City Engineer RE: Consultant Selection for Development of a Pavement Management Program Background At its regular meeting of June 22, 1992, with Resolution No. 92 -152, the City Council formally initiated development of Brooklyn Center's Pavement Management Program. Resolution No. 92 -152 approved the Request for Proposals, as prepared by the City Engineer, for use in soliciting proposals for the required consulting services. The Request for Proposals was developed so as to require the program to be tailored specifically to Brooklyn Center's needs, with regard to the types of pavements and rehabilitation techniques utilized locally. The general structure of the program, as defined by the Request for Proposals, involves data collection and entry, software development and staff training. A copy of the approved Request For Proposals (RFP) is attached to this report for reference. The 1992 budget for the Data Processing division of the General Fund includes $26,250 for the initial development of a pavement management program. As will be discussed later in this report, the consultants contacted for this program proposed costs in the range of $31,300 to $56,320. Can 1986 ALL�AEliCA piY Proposal /Interview Process In accordance with the City's "Policy for Procurement of Professional Services ", adopted on August 13, 1991, a schedule was developed which requested that Proposals from consultants be submitted to the City Engineer by July 16, 1992. Resolution 92 -152 stated that the Request for Proposals be submitted to the following firms: Braun Intertec Pavement, Inc. Carter Associates, Inc. Infrastructure Management Services Harris & Associates. These firms were selected for their demonstrated ability to develop pavement management programs for municipal clients. Of the four firms originally selected, three actually submitted proposals. Carter Associates, Inc. did not respond to the Request, and Harris & Associates has since been acquired by the firm Pavement Management Systems, Inc. The proposals actually received were from Braun Intertec Pavement, Inc., Infrastructure Management Services, and Pavement Management Systems, Inc. The City's adopted professional services policy also provides for the establishment of a selection committee, to conduct the selection process. The City Council, with Resolution No. 92 -152, approved a selection committee comprised of Sy Knapp - Brooklyn Center Director of Public Works, Mike Garris - Executive Director of LOGIS, and Steve Gatlin - Roseville Director of Public Works. City Engineer Mark Maloney was also appointed to serve as a non - voting "executive secretary" to the selection committee, to prepare and compile evaluation criteria and coordinate the activities of the committee. The proposals submitted by the three responding firms were reviewed in detail by the selection committee on July 24, 1992. Subsequently, all 3 firms were interviewed by the selection committee at City Hall on July 31, 1992. The interviews were scheduled for approximately one hour and consisted of a formal presentation /demonstration by the consultant and structured questioning by the selection committee. The selection committee rated the consultants on the basis of their presentation, responses to questions, knowledge and experience of the firm's professional /management staff, and other agreed upon criteria. After the proposal and interview process was concluded, the committee discussed their independent results, and formulated a consensus recommendation considering the best interests of the City. Copies of the Evaluation Criteria and Interview Questions utilized by the Selection Committee are attached for reference. Overview of Pavement Management Program as Proposed by Consultants All three of the consultants complied with the basic requirements of the Request for 2 Proposals, which are briefly summarized by the following: - The program shall incorporate a pavement inventory which, by street segment, will include street name, length, width, number of lanes, type of pavement, etc. - The program must utilize reliable and cost effective data collection techniques for the initial condition survey of the City's street system, and subsequent updates of the pavement condition database. This data collection method must be repeatable, that is, be as objective and consistent as possible. For this reason, all three of the consultants have proposed automated rather than manual data collection techniques. Automated data collection, characterized by laser, transducer and /or video assessment of the pavement surface is now considered "state of the art ", and based on comments made by each of the consultants, results from this process are much more repeatable and cost effective than results from manual data collection. Background When pavement management programs were being developed in the 1970's and 80's, data collection was performed by a trained pavement evaluation crew physically walking up and down the street segments, and manually (paper and pencil) recording the locations and severity of pavement distress. The results of the manual pavement survey were then input (by typing) into the database of the pavement management program. The observed disadvantages of this approach are that it is expensive for City Public Works or Engineering departments to maintain trained evaluation personnel and that even with identical training, no two people are going to be identical in their evaluation of the severity of pavement distress, environmental factors, etc. The data entry required in this approach to data collection is prone to error, and requires additional clerical involvement. The data collection as proposed by the consultants responding to the RFP involves the use of specialized vehicles using laser, transducer and /or video technology, and equipment to collect the data and store it in an onboard computer. The compiled information is then translated into usable data and loaded directly into the computer software. The obvious advantages of automated data collection are that the information is gathered quickly, cost - effectively, objectively, and without the need for additional clerical help to input the data into the program. - the program shall be capable of analyzing the current condition of the pavements, and provide predictions regarding the future welfare of the street system given various maintenance and rehabilitation techniques. - the program must be capable of providing a number of prioritized reports and specific yearly recommendations for maintenance and rehabilitation efforts. 3 - the computer software itself must operate within the City's networked environment, and must be capable of being interfaced with the Brooklyn Center's Geographic Information System (GIS), UltiMap. Analysis of Proposal /Interviews Pavement Management Systems, Inc. (PMS) After reading the PMS proposal and conducting the interview, the selection committee made the following observations: - The pavement rating scale used by PMS is non - standard, that is, it doesn't directly correlate to American Public Works Association or any other nationally recognized system. This could cause unnecessary confusion or extra work in the future if elements of another system were utilized. - Of the three programs reviewed, that of PMS was the least flexible with regard to the generation of user - defined reports. In addition, the PMS reports were the least readable, and tended to be too technical. - PMS indicated in their proposal that their system was compatible with the City's GIS (UltiMap), but at the interview they weren't exactly sure how the programs would interact. - PMS's program is currently used by only two other Minnesota agencies - Coon Rapids and Edina. - Future updating of the database was potentially cumbersome and subject to errors. For example, updating the database to reflect the previous year's patching, sealcoating, etc. would require substantially more effort than the programs proposed by the other two firms. - The program, as presented, reflected the use of costs, strategies, theory, etc. which PMS has developed for previous clients. While this approach was offered by the consultant as an effort to lower the overall initial cost of the program, the selection committee interpreted it as a "short- cut ", which would limit the reliability and usefulness of the program. The selection committee felt that the initial savings represented by this approach could soon be outweighed by the effects of a program which wasn't tailored specifically for the City. - The program theory is based almost entirely on the measured or observed surface conditions of the pavement, and it uses estimated values for structural conditions. The needed values would then be estimated from historical records and asbuilts. Given the limited availability of construction records for the majority of the 4 residential streets in Brooklyn Center, the selection committee believes this program would be inaccurate with regard to the estimated values. It should be noted that the frequency of "network" level structural testing requested in the RFP will not guarantee the subsurface conditions; i.e. "project" level testing will be required prior to actual construction. However, PMS's program appeared to make the least - effective use of the network level structural data. The initial program cost as proposed by Pavement Management Systems, Inc. is $31,300. Infrastructure Management Services (IMS) After reading the PMS proposal and conducting the interview, the selection committee made the following observations: - Similar to the program offered by PMS, IMS's software is structured around a database program named FoxPro. The selection committee felt that this is undesirable from the standpoint of the industry perception that FoxPro is outdated, and non- standard when compared to the more popular database management programs such as dBase, RBase or Paradox. - When comparing the three firms, the data collection technology utilized by IMS is the oldest, least efficient method. - The selection committee felt that there existed the potential for additional costs with regard to interfacing IMS's proposed program with the City's GIS (U1tiMap). It appears that a translation would be required in order to utilize the output of IMS's pavement management program for graphic purposes. - IMS's proposal identified only one previous client in the State of Minnesota, the City of Brooklyn Park. The services provided to Brooklyn Park consisted of data collection and a one -time printed report and recommended street replacement program. The services provided specifically did not include a software installation, or a plan for future data updates. - With regard to the apparent user - friendliness of the computer software itself, the selection committee felt that IMS's software, as demonstrated, was the best of the three. The program is divided into logical modules, and on -line help is available at any point in the program. I - The data collected and subsequently analyzed n f rehabilitation q y y ed for the determination 0 strategies includes environmental factors", for example, the condition of the adjacent boulevards and whether or not the use of the adjacent properties are having a 5 detrimental effect on the roadway surface. The selection committee perceived the ability of the program to utilize this information as an advantage when trying to get the "whole story" with regard to the condition of a street. The initial program cost as proposed by Infrastructure Management Services is $51,750. Braun Intertec Pavement, Inc. - Braun's software is structured around the database management program Paradox, which was identified by the selection committee as being most desirable of those proposed. - The data collection technology utilized by Braun's program is state -of -the -art for the industry, and has recently been adopted by Mn /DOT in their pavement management program(s). Braun's proposed data collection combines video, accelerator and non- destructive structural testing to assess the pavement parameters. The use of video allows the Braun program to collect and assess "environmental factors" on or adjacent to the pavement surface which may be affecting pavement conditions. - Braun's listing of clients includes many Minnesota city and county agencies, a number of which are in the Metro area. The cities of Bloomington, Champlain, Eagan, Oakdale, Roseville and Woodbury all are operating various versions of Braun's pavement management program. - Because Braun Intertec Pavement, Inc. is considered a local firm, the selection committee felt that the City would receive the highest level of service and support from Braun when compared to the other consultants. Braun Intertec has a well - established commitment to their clients in the Metro area, and offer extended maintenance and troubleshooting services at no cost for their software installations. - The selection committee placed the highest level of confidence in Braun's program theory and methodology, recognizing their familiarity with pavement distresses in our climate. - Braun has established an installation with the City of Bloomington which successfully integrates their pavement management program, U1tiMap GIS, and Hansen utility management software. Brooklyn Center's MIS Strategic Plan has identified such an environment as a tactical goal for the Public Works Department. - The initial program cost as proposed by Braun Intertec Pavement, Inc. is $56,320. 6 Cost analysis As previously mentioned, the 1992 Data Processing budget for the initial development of the pavement management program was established as $26,250. That value was estimated under the assumption that City personnel would be trained and subsequently manually collect the necessary pavement data, as was previously described in this report. It has since been demonstrated that it would be difficult for Brooklyn Center to maintain an accurate, cost - effective pavement management program based on manual data collection. This is an important point in that once a commitment is made for either manual or automated data collection, the City would be bound, in a practical sense, to that mode of data collection for as long as it would hope to utilize the program. Drastically changing data collection techniques in a program alters the baseline conditions previously established, and would effectively be like starting over. For these reasons, the most successful pavement management programs are being established with automated data collection methods, with all work performed by specialized consultants. The proposals obtained by the City for this program reflect the use of specialized equipment and personnel for data collection. The apparent difference in initial cost of the program(s) proposed and what was previously budgeted for is really the cost of having the consultant perform the data collection. The real initial cost of a pavement management program for the City of Brooklyn Center, which depended on manual data collection by City personnel, would be equal or exceed the amount being proposed by any of the current proposals when salaries, benefits, training costs for City personnel, etc. are considered. Also of importance is the issue of safety; manual data collection would expose City personnel to the hazards of traffic, while automated data collection performed by specialists is done at normal traffic speeds, inside vehicles. And again, the issues of objectivity and repeatability; there is little doubt that automated data collection offers the highest level of objectivity and consistency, and will ultimately provide a more accurate recommendation for cost - effective pavement rehabilitation strategies. Selection Committee Recommendation Based on these considerations, the selection committee unanimously recommends the proposal submitted by Braun Intertec Pavement, Inc. While it is the highest cost proposal, it also provides the City with the best management tool available to assist in developing the most cost - effective street maintenance program (annual expenditures of $650,000) and for setting priorities for a potential $25 million street improvement program. 7 It is recommended that funding for this avement management program be provided b 1 P g P g P ( Y ) utilizing the $26,250 which has been budgeted for this purpose with the Data Processing Division of the 1992 General Fund, and (2) approving a supplemental appropriation of $30,070 from the local Municipal State Aid Street Fund. Submitted By: Approved By: Mark J. Maloney Sy Knapp City Engineer Director of Public Works 8 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES COMPREHENSIVE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER June 22, 1992 OVERVIEW The City of Brooklyn Center has approximately 106 miles of paved, bituminous streets under its jurisdiction, with 21.3 miles of these streets designated as Municipal State -Aid routes, varying from 36 to 62 feet wide, with concrete curb and gutter. The ages of these driving surfaces vary from 3 to 35 years. Also, there are 84.5 miles of local, residential streets, typically 30 feet wide and lacking curb and gutter. These residential streets, in most cases, have not been resurfaced and /or regraded since their original construction 40 years ago. These streets, however, have been patched and regularly sealcoated (once every seven or eight years), and have provided good driving surfaces. The bituminous thickness of the streets within the City's jurisdiction varies from 2 to 12 inches, typically overlaying a small amount of aggregate base. The soil subgrade underlying the streets is typically a granular material, however, some areas within the City experience clay soils and high static groundwater elevations. INTRODUCTION The City of Brooklyn Center is seeking to retain the services of a qualified and experienced consultant to evaluate the condition of all streets maintained by the City and based upon that evaluation, develop a pavement management program to identify the needs of the system, establish cost effective priorities for making improvements, and develop a long -range program for implementation. This program will consist of data collection, computer software, training and all else that is necessary to provide the City with a Comprehensive Pavement Management Program, as described herein. The final result of the work shall be a program to assist the City in planning, implementation and coordination of its street reconstruction and maintenance program. At a minimum, this program shall contain the following information: 1. A pavement inventory including street name, length, width, area, test limits, number of lanes, street classification, traffic, and type of pavement. Also, cross - sectional data indicating pavement and base thicknesses for street segments shall be included in the inventory. The software shall also be designed to allow the user to group individual street segments as required by the user. 2. A pavement condition report which identifies the present condition of the pavement Is and the projected future performance for the next five years. It should identify the condition of the base and subgrade and identify the causes of pavement failure. Request For Proposal Page 2 i 3. A pavement improvement report indicating the rehabilitation strategies necessary to achieve the desired level of serviceability. Rehabilitation strategies shall not be limited to overlays. The report shall make provision for simultaneously analyzing the effectiveness of different strategies. 4. A priority listing indicating the pavements in order of best -to -worst pavement condition. In addition, a priority listing combining both pavement condition and traffic to establish user - benefit. 5. An economics report indicating the benefit for each maintenance strategy when applied to each street section based on both current maintenance costs and costs estimated to be in effect for each of the next five years. 6. The pavement management program shall make specific yearly recommendations based on a review of the pavement evaluation reports listed in one through five above. The pavement management report shall make recommendations as to the streets, rehabilitation strategies, and cost of rehabilitation that would be included in the yearly rehabilitation programs for each of the next five years. These recommendations shall include the cost necessary to achieve different levels of serviceability as well as the improvements necessary to obtain the greatest benefit from alternative funding levels. 7. The pavement management software program shall be designed to operate on an IBM or IBM - compatible microcomputer in a Novell Netware environment. The software shall have user - defined report writing capabilities or utilize a dBase addressable database. The uncompiled program code is to be owned by the City with no additional user fees to the consultant or any other party. If the pavement management software utilizes third -party software, the proposed cost of the pavement management system must include the cost of run -time versions or any additional required site licenses. 8. The pavement management program shall be compatible with and capable of processing information gathered through both automated and manual methods. 9. The pavement management program shall have expansion capabilities for interfacing or integrating with other management programs that the City currently utilizes or anticipates in the future such as a facility management system, equipment management system, work management system, geographic information system (GIS) and CAD mapping system. None of these systems are part of services being requested; however, the consultant must demonstrate their ability to interface or integrate with these systems. In addition, the City is part of the consortium LOGIS (Local Government Information Systems), and any proposed pavement management program for the City shall be coordinated with LOGIS goals, policies, etc. Request For Proposal Page 3 10. The pavement management software program shall be designed to allow the user to compile and store construction related information (including history, original design, and last two overlays or sealcoats) and retrieve this information as selected by the user. It shall also be designed to allow the user to input the actual implementation of maintenance strategies which will update the pavement management program and project the performance prior to retesting. The proposal shall also contain such other information that the consultant feels vital to the development of a comprehensive pavement management program. GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK The following is a general outline of the scope of work to be provided by the consultant. It is intended as a guide only, and the specific scope of work to be provided by the consultant must be included in the proposal. The following descriptions are not intended to exclude any firm from their ability to perform work as outlined. While it is believed the study requirements set forth in this Request for Proposal are in a logical sequence and include all elements essential for comprehensive system evaluation and development plan, those submitting proposals are advised to include any subject or procedure which they believe has been overlooked. They may also note required items which they believe to be excessive or extraneous to the scope of any effective study. The cost of such items to be added or deleted should be separately noted in the proposal. Similarly, any additional costs which must be expended to make the programs fully operational shall be identified and listed separately in the proposal. It should be understood that the City requires a single comprehensive study. The project consists of evaluating 106 miles of streets located throughout the City. The actual investigation should include the following: 1. A proposed schedule of work and the services to be provided by the City. 2. An environmental survey that considers the effects of climatic conditions, site conditions, drainage, and other factors affecting pavement performance. 3. A continuous and objective automated surface condition survey that includes a crack survey, macrotexture survey, rut depth measurement, and roughness survey. Collected data shall be stored in an onboard computer for direct transfer into the pavement management software program. Equipment used shall provide a high degree of repeatability. Documentation of the accuracy and repeatability may be required. 4. The collection of dynamic deflection data shall be non - destructive. Deflection data should be analyzed via a multi - sensor approach so as to indicate overall condition as well as the condition of the base course and subgrade individually. Request For Proposal Page 4 5. Analysis of traffic data provided by the City in such a way that the pavement life expectancies can be determined. 6. The development of a fully integrated pavement management software program to operate on the City's microcomputer that as a minimum, includes the following pavement evaluation output. A. Pavement inventory B. Pavement condition C. Pavement improvement strategies D. Cost benefit analysis E. Priority listing The Pavement Management Report should the above data to develop five -year recommendations indicating the rehabilitation strategy, year of implementation, cost, and improved serviceability. 7. The necessary training and user manuals to operate the installed pavement management software program. 8. A presentation of the results of the pavement management program to designated City personnel and /or elected officials. FORMAT OF PROPOSAL In order to facilitate the review and evaluation of the proposals, all proposals shall be organized using the following outline format: A. Statement of Qualifications And Experience Include a brief resume of the firm's background and expertise in the area of pavement evaluation and management programs. The resume shall also include names, special qualifications, and work assignments of your project staff. Include any references to former clients for whom similar work has been performed, especially those clients located within the State of Minnesota. Include the address and telephone number of your main office and regional or local offices from which the work is to be directed. Also, list the names, addresses and telephone numbers of any subcontractors you intend to use. State the names and qualifications of all persons to be assigned major project involvement. B. Scope and Services Describe in detail the firm's perception of the work required, including refinements of the description and tasks outlined herein which may be appropriate. Describe how your personnel, equipment and services will be utilized and estimate the time 0 Request For Proposal Page 5 involved in various activities. C. Time Schedule Provide a detailed time schedule for all project activities. Include expected need for City provided services if required. D. Information and Services to be Provided by the City Prepare and submit a detailed listing of all information and services to be provided by the City. If City personnel are expected to participate in any portion of the field or office data collection, the proposal shall contain an estimate of the number of hours of City personnel time that would be required to complete the task. E. Compensation The proposal should include the estimated cost per lane block (or other measurable unit) for the work to be, performed and a maximum cost which is anticipated for the entire project. The estimated cost shall be proposed in the format of the following two (2) alternates: Alternate A The assumption that the consultant and his forces shall perform all data collection services in the field Alternate B The assumption that City personnel would be utilized to the maximum possible extent for field data collection. This alternate should include an estimate of the number of hours of City personnel time that would be required to complete the data collection. This alternate should include as an add -on expense a cost per mile (or some other reasonable measure) for the firm's field data collection services should the City not be able to commit to the full number of City personnel hours required. F. Software Demonstration The submission of a proposal shall include a current demonstration diskette of the software utilized in the proposed pavement management program. EVALUATION CRITERIA The Selection Committee will determine and recommend the most qualified firm by applying the following criteria: 1. The ability of the pavement management program to meet or exceed the goals and objectives of the City of Brooklyn Center. Request For Proposal Page 6 2. Project team qualification and professional experience involving pavement management. 3. Experience of firm in pavement management. 4. Technical approach to project including suggested work outline and time schedule in meeting the scope of the project. 5. Amount of City personnel time necessary to implement and maintain program. 6. Annualized costs to own and operate program including ongoing data collection costs, site licenses and maintenance costs for a five -year period. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Five (5) copies of the proposal for professional services should be submitted to: Mark J. Maloney, City Engineer City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 All proposals must be received by 4:00 P.M. on Thursday, July 16, 1992. Proposals received after the deadline will be returned unopened. SELECTION PROCESS After the proposals are reviewed, interviews with the selected proposers will be arranged. It is anticipated that interviews will be conducted between the dates of July 27, 1992 and July 31, 1992. The interviews will consist generally of a presentation /software demonstration by the proposer(s), followed by structured questioning by the selection committee. Further information on the interview process will be furnished to the selected consultants prior to the interviews. 07/17/92 MJM SUGGESTED CRITERIA FOR THE EVALUATION OF PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PROPOSALS Proposals were received on July 16, 1992, from the following firms: -Braun Intertec -IMS Infrastructure Management Services - Pavement Management Systems Inc.(FKA Carter Associates) 1. How well does the proposed program respond to the RFP's requirement for: -a street inventory which includes length, width, no. of lanes, cross - sectional data, etc. - pavement condition reports for existing and projected conditions - pavement improvement reports indicating various strategies - priority listings, cost -to- benefit ratios -a program which has user - defined report writing or a dBase addressable database - capabilities for interfacing or integrating with Brooklyn Center's GIS (U1tiMap) 2. Does the firm's Statement of Qualifications and Experience indicate that they have worked with clients who have similar needs and concerns? 3. Does the proposal adequately describe the firm's perception of required work and provide a realistic time schedule for implementing the program? 4. Does the proposal adequately detail all of the information and services required of the City? Additionally, is the proposed program very flexible with regards to the possible use of City employees for data collection, input, etc.? 5. Do the estimated costs for implementing the proposed program seem realistic? Does there seem to be a great potential for additional costs to the City or unnecessary long - range commitments? 6. Overall, does the proposed program meet (or exceed) the goals and objectives of the City of Brooklyn Center? BROOKLYN CENTER CONSULTANT SELECTION INTERVIEW QUESTIONS for the development of a Pavement Management Program CONSULTANT TIME /DATE Steo 11 - Consultant makes formal presentation /demonstration Page 1 CONSULTANT TIME /DATE Step 2 - Structured Questions Notes: 1. The exact format of the questions to be asked each consultant may vary, depending on whether or not the item was covered in detail in the initial presentation /demonstration. 2. Members of the selection committee may ask follow -up questions to clarify responses to any of the questions. OUESTION NO. 1 : With regard to data collection, how often will the program need to be updated, and by what means? What portion of this updating will be accomplished by City Personnel? QUESTION NO. 2 : Regarding Automated data collection ,vs. Manual data collection: • describe relative costs • describe impact on costs • other pluses and minuses? QUESTION NO. 3 : Please discuss the adaptability of the program to varying rehabilitation strategies, for examble, sealcoats, overlays, milling, cracksealing. Page 2 CONSULTANT TINfE /DATE OUESTION NO. 4: Please explain how your pavement management program will interface or interact with the City's UltiMap system. QUESTION NO. 5 : (To each of the team members) — describe for us y2ur role in the program development, the amount of time you would expect to spend, and your overall availability for the program development. QU ESTION NO. 6 : What is our approach pproach to cost control —and what is your history regarding the need for professional service contract amendments? OUESTION NO. 7 : You are aware of the 3 consulting firms which this committee is interviewing. What are the principal reasons you believe this committee should select your firm rather than one of the other two? Page 3 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 08/24/92 0 Agenda Item Numbe, REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: STAFF REPORT REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF AN AREA EMERGENCY RESPONSE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DEPT. APPROVAL: Z2� / Sy Knapp, Di ctor o Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: 14 A r tX0 • ° No comments to supplement this report Comments below /atta ed SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached • During the past year the North Medical Transportation Services, representing North Memorial Hospital, has been in contact with City representatives to discuss the possible installation of an Emergency Vehicle Priority System on traffic signals and emergency vehicles in the Northwest Metro area (including the cities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Golden Valley, Maple Grove, Minneapolis, New Hope, Plymouth and Robbinsdale). In essence, this system would allow emergency vehicles (police, fire and ambulance) to activate a device to "pre -empt" control of a traffic control signal system, so as to allow these emergency vehicles faster and safer passage through signal - controlled intersections. The purpose of providing such a system for use by emergency vehicles is, of course, to facilitate the earliest possible response to an emergency. A copy of a detailed report prepared by North Medical Transportation Services is provided for the Council's review. The Administrative Traffic Committee (ATC) has reviewed the information submitted by North Medical Transportation Services, and has noted the following: • While earlier versions of Emergency Response Management (ERM) systems have experienced operational problems and relatively high maintenance costs, it appears that new "hi- tech" systems are virtually trouble -free and have low maintenance costs. • If an ERM system is installed, the ATC believes it is imperative to limit the use of the system to police, fire, and ambulance services. • ERM systems have been installed and are operating successfully in many of • the Southwest Metro suburbs. ■ The preliminary estimate of total costs for installing an ERM system in Brooklyn Center is $307,800, consisting of the following components: furnish and install emitters on police squad vehicles ( Note : This covers "squad" cars only. It does not include vehicles assigned to the police chief, the captains or the investigators.) 9 emitters @ $1600 each = $ 14,400 furnish and install emitters on fire department vehicles 9 emitters @ $1600 each = $ 14,400 furnish and install receiver units and pre - emption system in traffic control signal systems 31 units @ $9000 /unit = $279,000 Preliminary Estimate of Total Costs = $307,800 ■ North Medical Transportation Services has planned to submit an application for a federal grant to cover all, or a major portion of the costs for installing an ERM system in the North Metro area. However, under the new Federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act ( ISTEA), projects such as this must be sponsored by municipalities, and must compete for funds with other projects through the Metropolitan Council. To satisfy this requirement, the City of Robbinsdale has agreed to be the lead agency for the purpose of processing a grant application. It is North's intent to submit an application for ISTEA funds to cover the entire costs for furnishing and installing the entire ERM system in the 9 city North Metro area. However, because this will be a unique application, it is possible that the ISTEA program (through the Met Council) may offer to fund something less than the total costs. If that happens, North intends to review their proposal to consider (1) asking cities to pay the unfunded portion of the costs; (2) reducing the scope of the program; or (3) other options. ■ The Minnesota Department of Transportation ( MNDOT) will not participate in the costs of installing or operating ERM systems. However, they will allow such systems to be installed on MNDOT -owned traffic signal systems; and if an ERM is installed, MNDOT will provide maintenance services as necessary, but will charge the cost for those services to the municipality. ■ The Hennepin County Department of Transportation ( HCDOT) will not participate in the costs of installing and operating ERMs on HCDOT -owned traffic control systems. If an ERM is installed, and maintenance repairs are needed, HCDOT will only notify the municipality that such service is needed. Then the City must arrange for necessary repairs to be made. • Accordingly, if an ERM system is installed, the ATC recommends that such maintenance services be provided through the proposed joint powers network, rather than individually by each city. Based on these findings, the ATC recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution which constitutes a "Statement of Intent" to participate in the development of an ERM system. If a grant is received and /or a decision is made to proceed with implementation of a system, a detailed joint powers agreement will need to be developed and executed by all participating cities - to detail responsibilities, cost participation covering installation, operation and maintenance; control of the system, etc. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council. • rlo0 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO A JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AN AREA WIDE EMERGENCY RESPONSE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BY THE NORTH SUBURBAN REGIONAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE NETWORK, AND ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -23 FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center intends to become a member of the North Suburban Regional Emergency Response Network; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center desires to participate in the Area Wide Emergency Response Traffic Management System of the North Suburban Regional Response Network to be comprised of the cities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Golden Valley, Maple Grove, New Hope, Plymouth and Robbinsdale; and WHEREAS, a mutual need exists between members of the North Suburban Regional Emergency Response Network to share and assist one another in the areas of emergency, disaster control, and mitigation; and WHEREAS, an Area Wide Emergency Response Traffic Management System is desirable for the safety of emergency vehicle operators and personnel, and the citizens throughout the area, and will assist in maintaining or improving emergency response times throughout the area; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center considers it to be in the best interests of the City to participate in a mutual effort with the other members of the North Suburban Regional Emergency Response Network to establish such a system; and WHEREAS, the Association desires to assemble a project and seek funding for the project as a group. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the City indicates its intent to participate in this project with the North Suburban Regional Emergency Response Network and hereby authorizes its City Manager to represent the City of Brooklyn Center in this association and the City Manager is authorized to negotiate an agreement on behalf of said City of Brooklyn Center for formal consideration by the City Council. 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 8/24/92 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: DISCUSSION ITEM: PROGRAM ALLOWING HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS TO SERVE AS NONVOTING MEMBERS ON CITY ADVISORY COMMISSIONS AND CITY COUNCIL DEPT. APPROV Geolyn R. Barone, Personnel Coordinator MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMIVIENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUNMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) Mayor Todd Paulson has suggested the City consider establishing a program that would allow high school seniors the opportunity to serve as nonvoting members on City advisory commissions and the city council. The City of Maple Grove participates in such a program with the Osseo school district, and the city council is asked to discuss the possibility of replicating this program in Brooklyn Center. In Maple Grove, the city manager talks to high school seniors enrolled in the civics classes at the beginning of each trimester. Interested students sign up to serve on the advisory commission of most interest to them. One student is assigned to each commission and the council for the trimester. The students must attend all meetings scheduled during the trimester in order to earn credit for doing so. They receive the agenda packets just as regular members do, and they are encouraged to participate in the discussion at the meetings. They have no voting privileges, however. The suggestion for the City of Brooklyn Center would be to work with high school seniors at Brooklyn Center and Park Center high schools. Both school districts have been contacted, and they have shown a great deal of interest in working with the City to establish such a program. The schools have asked for a formal request in writing from the City before the program would begin. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Discuss the possible establishment of a high school program allowing seniors to serve as nonvoting members on City advisory commissions and the city council. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date / 8/24/92 Agenda Item Number / O REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: SAFETY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS DEPT. APPROVAL: Geralyn . Barone, Personnel Coordinator MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONMIENDATION: � No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) The employee safety committee has recommended the scheduling of two training programs for City personnel that are not included in the 1992 budget. The city council is being asked to consider approving funding for these programs. BLOODBORNE PATHOGENS STANDARD The first relates to the new OSHA standard regarding bloodborne pathogens. The City is required to implement a policy and provide training to employees who are at risk of exposure to bloodborne pathogens (e.g., HIV /Aids and hepatitis B) in the course of their work day. Attached is a copy of the policy which identifies our at -risk employees and sets forth procedures for dealing with exposures to bloodborne pathogens. An employee committee developed this policy and met with several agencies that provide specialized training in this area. The committee has suggested the American Red Cross provide the training at a cost of about $1,000. The Red Cross also offers a shorter session that could be presented to employees who are not at risk to exposure but are coworkers to those who are and might benefit from some knowledge of how certain diseases are transmitted. The cost of this optional training is around $500. The required training would have to be scheduled this fall. There are also some expenses related to personal protective equipment (e.g., gloves, masks) and housekeeping items (e.g., germicidal wipes, special disposal bags) in the amount of around $1,000 that must be purchased in order to comply with the OSHA standard. • DEFENSIVE DRIVING The safety committee has also recommended that the City should schedule defensive driving training for those City employees who regularly drive City vehicles or their own vehicles while conducting City business. Sworn police personnel already receive such instruction, so they would not be included in this. Those who would benefit from this training are public works, inspections, assessing and administrative /management personnel. The Minnesota Safety Council provides in -house training and could tailor a special program for those employees who drive one -ton or larger vehicles. The total cost of training is about $1,500, and the safety committee has recommended. training be scheduled by October (before the snow flies). RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Discuss the proposed training programs and consider the following resolutions: A Resolution Amending the 1992 General Fund Budget to Transfer Funds to Provide Training and Personal Protective Equipment for Employees at Risk of Exposure to Bloodborne Pathogens AND A Resolution Amending the 1992 General Fund Budget to Transfer Funds to Provide Training on Defensive Driving • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1992 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO TRANSFER FUNDS TO PROVIDE TRAINING AND PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT FOR EMPLOYEES AT RISK OF EXPOSURE TO BLOODBORNE PATHOGENS WHEREAS, OSHA Standard 1910.1030 requires employers having employees with occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens to establish a written exposure control plan; and WHEREAS, this standard also requires employers to ensure that all employees with occupational exposure participate in an annual training program which must be provided at no cost to the employee and during working hours; and WHEREAS, employers are also required to provide personal protective equipment and maintain certain housekeeping standards; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is implementing an exposure control plan and will provide training at a cost of $1000; and WHEREAS, the City is purchasing the necessary personal protective equipment and taking certain housekeeping precautions at an expense not to exceed $1000; and WHEREAS, the City is also providing educational training to employees who are coworkers to those personnel who have occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens at a cost of $500; and WHEREAS, Section 7.09 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn Center does provide for a contingency appropriation as a part of the General Fund Budget, and further provides that the contingency appropriation may be transferred to any other appropriation by the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the 1992 General Fund Budget is hereby amended as follows: Increase the appropriations for the following line items Department 180, Unallocated Departmental Expense Object No. 4411, Schools and Conferences $1,500 Department 113, City Manager's Office Object No. 4220, Operating Supplies, General $1,000 RESOLUTION NO. Decrease the appropriation for the following line item Department 180, Unallocated Department Expense Object No. 4995, Contingency $2,500 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. XVIII. PROCEDURES FOR PREVENTING THE SPREAD OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES TRANSMITTED BY BLOOD AND OTHER POTENTIALLY INFECTIOUS MATERIALS I. STANDARD PURPOSE: To provide full and part -time City employees with necessary information needed to prevent the spread of infectious disease in the work place. Necessary information includes, but is not limited to, principles of infection control, the infectious disease process and the use of personal protective equipment and supplies as they relate to the prevention of occupationally acquired infectious disease. II. EXPOSURE CONTROL PLAN (A) Exposure Determination. (1) Employees. Employees determined to be at -risk of exposure to infectious diseases transmitted through blood and other body fluids are in the following job classifications: (a) Sworn police personnel. (b) Public safety dispatchers. (c) Code enforcement officers. (d) Firefighters. (e) Lifeguards. (f) Custodians. (2) Groups. A high risk of the transmission of infectious diseases exists when department personnel have contact with the following groups: (a) Bleeding accident victims. (b) Alcohol abusers. (c) Illegal drug users. (d) Homosexual, bisexual, and promiscuous adults. (e) Hemophiliacs. (f) Persons with open or infected wounds. (g) Persons who state they have Hepatitis B or AIDS. (3) Situations. Employees may encounter situations where there is a high risk of the transmission of infectious disease. They are: (a) Anytime body fluids are present. (b) Homes with unsanitary conditions. (c) Death scenes, especially those situations where bod fluids may be oozing from the corpse. (d) Combative situations, especially those situations where bleeding occurs. (e) Body cavity searches. (f) Crime scenes. Specific dangers include knives, needles, and razor blades. (g) Extrication at auto accidents. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER EMPLOYEE SAFETY MANUAL (8/92) Page 44 (4) Other. Employees must judge the risk level of groups and situations not listed above. (B) Methods of Compliance. (1) Universal Precautions - Universal precautions will be observed when employees are exposed to blood or other potentially infectious materials. Documented exposures to infectious diseases have not resulted from feces, nasal secretions, sputum, sweat, tears, urine or vomitus. Since any body fluid may transmit infectious diseases if it contains traces of blood, employees are directed to treat all blood and body fluids as infectious substances. (2) Hand washing - Hands and other skin surfaces must be washed thoroughly as soon as possible if contaminated with blood or other potentially infectious materials to which universal precautions apply. Hands should always be washed after gloves are removed even if the gloves appear intact. Hand washing should be completed using appropriate facilities such as utility or restroom sinks. Hands must not be washed in a sink where food preparation may occur. Hand washing should be done with warm water and soap. The application of hand creme after hands are dried is advisable. Waterless antiseptic hand cleaner shall be provided to employees when hand washing facilities are not available. Employees are advised to wash their hands at the earliest opportunity after using the waterless antiseptic hand cleaner. (3) Protective Clothing - Employees at -risk will be provided disposable gloves, goggles, and face masks. Disposable gowns and disposable impervious shoe covering will be available for unusual cases where great volumes of blood or other potentially infectious materials may be present such as the scene of homicides, violent assaults, autopsies, etc. (a) Disposable gloves must be worn when employees are involved with emergency patient care. Where multiple patients are present, the employee shall change gloves, if possible, after caring for one patient and beginning care on the next. (b) Eyewear must be worn in cases where splashing of blood or other potentially infectious materials may be anticipated. (c) Face masks should be worn anytime the goggles are worn. (d) The employee must use personal protective equipment except in rare and extraordinary circumstances. Such circumstances occur when in the employee's professional judgement the use of personal protective equipment would have prevented the delivery of health care or public safety services or would have posed an increased hazard CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER EMPLOYEE SAFETY MANUAL (8/92) Page 45 to the safety of the employee or other associates. When the employee makes this judgement, the circumstances shall be investigated and documented in order to determine whether changes can be instituted to prevent such occurrences in the future. (e) Contaminated disposable items must be discarded in a leak- proof plastic bag that is red in color or marked with the international bio- hazard symbol. (4) Laundering of Clothing (a) The uniform issued to police and fire employees and nonuniform clothing worn by other employees is not considered protective clothing. Contaminated uniform and nonuniform items should be handled by employees wearing gloves, bagged in a leak proof, plastic bag, red in color, or marked with the international bio- hazard symbol. Soiled uniform items may be decontaminated by laundering according to the manufacturer's instructions. (b) Boots and leather may be scrub - brushed with soap and hot water to remove contamination. (c) Employees whose uniform or other clothing is soiled by blood or other potentially infectious materials shall change from the contaminated uniform or clothing to a clean uniform or clothing as soon as possible. (d) Employees are directed to avoid handling personal items such as combs and pens while wearing contaminated gloves. Contaminated gloves should be removed as soon as possible and discarded in a leak- proof bag. (5) Resuscitation Equipment - Employees are discouraged from giving mouth -to -mouth resuscitation to a non - breathing victim. Pocket masks with one -way valves, disposable airways, or resuscitation equipment are the preferred methods of treatment. Durable equipment such as face masks and resuscitation equipment must be thoroughly washed and cleaned with a disinfectant after each use. (6) Needles and Sharp Objects (a) Employees shall take precautions to prevent injuries caused by needles, knives, broken glass, razor blades, or other sharp instruments, devices, or debris which can puncture or lacerate the skin. (b) Police employees must use caution when searching prisoners for weapons or contraband or when searching small areas or crevices in containers, vehicles and buildings. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER EMPLOYEE SAFETY MANUAL (8/92) Page 46 (c) Sharp objects that are located and are inventoried by the police department must be placed in a puncture resistant container or packaged in such a manner as to render the sharp object harmless to those handling it. Evidence containers or sheathing material must be labeled with the bio- hazard warning label or color -coded or both. (7) Housekeeping (a) All equipment and work areas shall be cleaned and decontaminated after contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials. (b) The work area shall be cleaned with an appropriate disinfectant as soon as possible after a spill of blood or any other potentially infectious materials. (c) Waste baskets and other receptacles which have a likelihood of contamination shall be inspected and cleaned on a regularly scheduled basis. The wastebaskets must be color -coded and /or display the bio- hazard warning label. (d) Waste baskets and receptacles that are visibly contaminated shall be cleaned immediately. (e) Eating, drinking, smoking, applying cosmetics or lip balm and handling contact lens are prohibited in work areas where there is a reasonable likelihood of occupational exposure. (f) Food and drink shall not be kept in refrigerators, freezers, shelves, cabinets, or on counter tops where blood or other potentially infectious materials may be present. (8) Laundry (a) Contaminated laundry, such as blankets and towels, shall be handled as little as possible. Contaminated laundry shall be placed in bags or containers bearing the bio- hazard label or color coded to alert others of the potential danger. (b) The laundry service receiving the laundry must be advised of the contents. III. HEPATITIS B (A) Hepatitis B vaccination will be made available to all employees who have occupational exposure. The offer of vaccination will be made after employees have received training regarding Hepatitis B. Employees may decline to accept the Hepatitis B vaccination by signing a waiver which includes a statement that the employee acknowledges that the risks associated with contracting Hepatitis B have been explained. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER EMPLOYEE SAFETY MANUAL (8/92) Page 47 (B) New employees or employees who have changed assignments which classify them as having occupational exposure must receive the training regarding Hepatitis B and the vaccination must be made available within 10 days of the employee's date of employment. (C) Employees who initially decline the Hepatitis B vaccination, but at a later date decide to accept the vaccination, must be allowed to receive the Hepatitis B vaccination at that time. IV. SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE A significant exposure occurs when blood or infectious materials come into direct contact with eyes, nose, mouth, into an open cut, or by a needle puncture injury. (A) If an employee experiences significant exposure to blood or potentially infectious materials or experiences a situation where a significant exposure is likely to have occurred, the employee will: (1) report the incident to the supervisor on duty as soon as possible. (2) the employee will complete a short form report describing the incident completely. The report will document specifically the method of potential transmission of the infectious disease. (3) the supervisor will complete the required notice of injury forms. (B) Communicable Disease Exposure Report Form (1) The employee will report to North Memorial Medical Center with the completed communicable disease exposure report form and advise hospital staff of the exposure or potential exposure. The medical evaluation and follow up shall be confidential. (2) North Memorial Medical Center will test the source individual's blood as soon as feasible after consent is obtained in order to determine the presence of Hepatitis B virus or HIV. If the source individual declines to give consent the department shall establish that legally required consent can not be obtained. When the source individual's consent is not required by law the source individual's blood if available shall be tested and the results documented. (3) When the source individual is already known to be infected with Hepatitis B or HIV testing of the source individual's blood need not be repeated. (4) Results of the source individual's testing shall be made available to the exposed employee and the employee shall be informed of the applicable laws and regulations concerning disclosure of the identity and infectious status of the source individual. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER EMPLOYEE SAFETY MANUAL (8/92) Page 48 (S) The exposed employee's blood shall be collected as soon as feasible and tested after consent is obtained. If the employee consents to base line blood collection but does not give consent for HIV testing the sample shall be preserved for at least 90 days. If when in 90 days of the exposure incident the employee elects to have the base line sample tested such testing shall be done as soon as feasible. (6) Counseling during this period is available through the Employee Assistance Program. V. TRAINING The City of Brooklyn Center shall provide training regarding the spread of infectious disease to all personnel with the potential for occupational exposure. Training will be provided at the time of initial assignment to tasks where occupational exposure may take place. Annual refresher courses must be provided. Additional training shall be provided as technology and medical research dictate. VI. RECORD KEEPING (A) Medical records (1) Medical records are confidential and are not released without an employee's expressed written consent to any person within or outside the City, except as required by rule or law. (2) Medical records must include a copy of the employees Hepatitis B vaccination record including dates of vaccination, or copies of refusal forms. (3) Medical records will be maintained in a file separate from the employee's personnel file. Medical records will be maintained for the duration of the employee's employment plus 30 years. (B) Training Records (1) The City will keep a record of all training provided to its personnel. The training records will include the date and content of training and a roster of employees in attendance. The training records will be maintained for a minimum of 3 years from the date of training. VII. RESPONSIBILITY (A) General Employees (1) It is the responsibility of the employee to be aware of the types of infectious diseases that can be transmitted by blood or body fluid. The employee is responsible for participating in training by the City and is responsible for using protective equipment provided by the City as necessary. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER EMPLOYEE SAFETY MANUAL ( Page 49 (B) Supervisors (1) It is the supervisor's responsibility to monitor the activity of employees determined at -risk to be certain that the provisions of this policy are obeyed. (2) Any supervisor observing an infraction of this policy or observing a hazardous condition involving infectious disease transmitted by blood or body fluid must report that condition to his or her supervisor. (3) Supervisors are also responsible for maintaining the appropriate level of personal protective equipment. (C) City Administration (1) It is the responsibility of members of the City administration to provide personal protective equipment to those employees with occupational exposure. The exposure control plan for the City must be reviewed annually. The exposure control plan must also be posted in a conspicuous location within the City. (2) The City administration will make certain that each significant exposure incident is thoroughly evaluated to determine if the significant exposure could have been avoided. An evaluation of the circumstances will be conducted to determine if policies, procedures, or protective equipment should be amended or changed to avoid future significant exposure incidents. (3) Training to all employees with occupational exposure must be completed annually. (4) Hepatitis B vaccination must be provided to all employees with occupational exposure who desire the vaccination. (5) The City administration will be responsible for assuring that medical and training records are kept in an orderly fashion and under the retention schedule required. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER EMPLOYEE SAFETY MANUAL (8/92) Page 50 i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1992 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO TRANSFER FUNDS TO PROVIDE TRAINING ON DEFENSIVE DRIVING WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center employee safety committee has recommended that employees, excluding sworn police personnel, who regularly drive City vehicles or their own vehicles while conducting City business be provided defensive driving training; and WHEREAS, funding in the amount of $1,000 is not appropriated for in the 1992 General Fund budget; and WHEREAS the City would like to provide this training to employees in 1992; and WHEREAS, Section 7.09 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn Center does provide for a contingency appropriation as a part of the General Fund Budget, and further provides that the contingency appropriation may be transferred to any other appropriation by the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the 1992 General Fund Budget is hereby amended as follows: Increase the appropriations for the following line items Department 180, Unallocated Departmental Expense Object No. 4411, Schools and Conferences $1,500 Decrease the appropriation for the following line item Department 180, Unallocated Department Expense Object No. 4995, Contingency $1,500 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 8 � 7 Agenda Item Number___ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: 1993 CITY MANAGER'S PRELIMINARY PROPOSED BUDGET DEPT. APPR .. Gerald G. S ter, City Manager MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) Attached is a 1993 City Manager's Prelimina P Budget. This preliminary proposed ty ' g ry P g P asY P P budget is designed to give the City Council sufficient information to establish a preliminary 1993 property tax levy and budget total by September 15, 1992, certification deadline. This year State requirements dictate taxing entities, including cities, must establish preliminary budget and levy figures by September 15 of each year. Counties are responsible under the same law and regulation for mailing parcel specific tax notices notifying them of the required hearings to be held by cities, schools, counties and other taxing districts between November 15 and December 20 of each year. This year under State regulations cities must finalize their property tax levys and budgets prior to December 30, 1992. The 1993 preliminary proposed budget is being submitted based on preliminary estimates of revenues and expenditures. Please understand these are preliminary figures which must be finalized in October and November and, as in past years, are subject to considerable modification and change. The preliminary 1993 proposed maximum budget levy of $6,636,929 would increase taxes on the average Brooklyn Center home ($75,000 value) by $27.80 per year or $2.32 per month. During October and November we will have much more reliable figures on which to finalize the 1993 proposed budget. As in previous years, the City Council should understand whatever you set the preliminary tax levy at for the 1993 budget, it cannot be exceeded at a later time. You can levy less than what you establish in the preliminary 1993 levy but you cannot increase it. While you certify the 1993 preliminary proposed budget amount in the same fashion as the levy, the law allows you to increase the total budget amount but not the property tax levy amount. There are a number of significant factors which contribute to the complexity of preparing the 1993 preliminary budget and they are as follows: 1. In accordance with the newly adopted Financial Management Policies, unlike in previous years, the use of Fund Balance will not be available for the 1993 budget. In 1992 we used $303,725 from this source and that source of money is no longer available for the 1993 budget. 2. Beginning as of June 1, 1992, the City was required to pay the 6.5% sales tax on its purchases, the same as private industry and business. We anticipate the cost of this sales tax to the 1993 general fund budget to be approximately $100,000. 3. Since state Property Tax levy limits have been removed for the 1993 budget year, there is no longer any reason for borrowing for capital purchases by issuing certificates of indebtedness. Since the issuance of these certificates results in interest expense cost to the City, the Council has indicated the staff should try to develop the 1993 budget with limited use of these certificates. In the preliminary proposed budget we are recommending a cutback in the use of these certificates, not a complete withdrawal. This preliminary proposed budget provides for issuing certificates only for public safety equipment. This approach will begin the phasing out the certificates of indebtedness and reduce the amount of certificates issued in 1993 to $115,000 compared to the issuance of $480,000 in certificates in 1992. This will result in a $365,000 reduction in this funding source for 1993. 4. The City Council has further indicated a desire to levy taxes for the Economic Development Authority's special operating fund for the first time in the 1993 budget. This le will P g g v3' amount to $183,339. 5. One of the positive factors available to us in 1993 is the fact the 1980 park bond improvements will be paid off in February of 1992 so there is no need for a levy for this purpose in 1993 which will save the 1993 budget $350,238. 6. This preliminary proposed budget does include some but not all of priority one and two recommendations out of the Financial Commission's Prioritization Process. We have included those recommendations where we have solid figures and information on revenue enhancement or expenditure reduction items. We will include in the final proposed budget the other priorities when we have refined and finalized cost impacts on the remaining priority items. 7. Following advice from the City's independent auditor we have made significant changes in our budget formats. In previous years we have included the full time salaries and benefits paid in each general fund department as an appropriation and as a part of the costs which were reimbursed from outside sources (such as enterprise funds) were shown as revenue in the general fund budget. For 1993, we have shown the amounts expected to be reimbursed as a credit in effected department's budgets. We have also adjusted the 1992 budget to make a more valid comparison between the years possible. This accounting change was made to make comparison with other City budgets more accurate. We have, in previous years, overstated our expenses. Certain custodial positions which were previously budgeted in the Government Buildings budget, have been transferred to the Community Center budget in accordance with the Financial Management Policies directive to charge departments with all expenses attributed to their functions. Time and materials expended for other enterprise funds by the vehicle maintenance division will be charged to those funds and will be netted against the divisions other contractual services appropriations. We are also submitting for your review in accordance with your Financial Management Policies a preliminary draft of our 1993 Capital Improvements Program. The total preliminary proposed budget for 1993 is recommended at $11,349,767, a decrease of $47,465 (.42 %) from the 1992 budget level. The preliminary proposed tax levy for 1993 is t recommended at $6,636,929, an increase of $489,700 (7.97 %) over the actual levy for the 1992 budget. As was mentioned previously, $183,339 of this increase is related to the establishment of the Economic Development Authority special operating fund levy. This new levy accounts for approximately 3% of the total levy increase of 7.97 %. Other factors affecting this increase were mentioned previously and include, $100,000 increase in costs for states 6.5% sales tax, and approximately $365,000 in increased expenditures due to the phasing of certificates of indebtedness and we also had to replace the approximately $300,000 in loss of the use of Fund Balance. These figures do not include the $145,619 levy for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The HRA's levy is separate from the general fund and EDA levy. The preliminary 1993 budget and levy, as you can see by these figures, has been impacted far more on the revenue side than on the expenditure side. The 1993 Preliminary Proposed Levy and Budget has absorbed the loss of such revenues as general fund balance transfers, the phasing out of certificates of indebtedness which have a negative impact on our revenues, the increased cost of the 6.5% sales tax, and the addition of the Economic Development Authority special levy. Without the impacts of these four factors, the actual amount of the preliminary 1993 levy would have been a reduction from the 1992 levy figure. I recommend the City Council approve the attached resolution setting the 1993 preliminary property tax levy at $6,636,929 and the preliminary 1993 budget total at $11,349,767. Under State law the preliminary property tax levy cannot be exceeded once the City Council approves the preliminary levy. The budget figure can be exceeded later if authorized by the City Council. Because you can only lower the proposed property tax levy, we recommend the 1993 preliminary a levy be set on the high side to allow you flexibility during your consideration of the final proposed 1993 budget and levy in December. It is my intention to submit to the City Council the City Manager's final proposed budget for 1993 by mid - October. This document will have more reliable figures on which you can make intelligent and informed decisions. This preliminary document is designed strictly to establish the required preliminary property tax levy budget figures to comply with State notice requirements. This year your staff will be working closely with the Financial Commission in reviewing the final 1993 proposed budget. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION I recommend your favorable consideration of the attached resolution establishing the preliminary 1992 levy and budget figures to be adopted prior to September 15, 1992, in accordance with State law and requirement. (HHOBCS) PRELlhlitikRy CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA COMBINED ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR ALL BUDGETED CITY FUNDS --------------------------- GENERAL FUND DEBT RETIREMENT FUNDS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SPECIAL OPERATING FUND 1993 PROPOSED SUMMARY I PRELIMINARY (ISOERAA) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA COMBINED ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR ALL BUDGETED CITY FUNDS GENERAL FUND DEBT RETIREMENT FUNDS - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA) SPECIAL OPERATING FUND ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- 1993 PROPOSED SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED REVENUE AND APROPRIATIONS ---------------------------------------------- 1993 1992 1993 Percent Revenue Revenue Increase Increase REVENUE: Estimate Estimate (Decrease)- Decrease -- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- I. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 6,636,929 6,147,229 489,700 7.97% II. LODGING SALES TAX 400,000 385,000 15,000 3.90% III. BUSINESS LICENSES & PERMITS 180,720 183,436 (2,716) -1.48% IV. NON- BUSINESS LICENSES & PERMITS 125,415 111,400 14,015 12.58% V. INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE 1,964,677 1,915,162 49,515 2.59% VI. GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE CHARGES 31,910 177,210 (145,300) - 81.99% VII. PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICE CHARGES 21,000 17,000 4,000 23.53% VIII. RECREATION FEES 1,027,116 963,070 64,046 6.65% IX. FINES AND FORFEITURES 200,000 210,000 (10,000) -4.76% X. MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 417,000 844,000 (427,000) - 50.59% XI. FUND BALANCE TRANSFERS 0 303,725 (303,725) - 100.00% XII. TRANSFERS FROM OTHER FUNDS 345,000 140,000 205,000 146.43% ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE 11,349,767 11,397,232 (47,465) -0.42% 1993 1992 Proposed Adopted 1993 Percent Approp- Approp- Increase Increase APPROPRIATIONS: riations riations (Decrease)- Decrease --------- - - - - -- ---------- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- I. GENERAL FUND 10,690,028 10,587,994 102,034 0.96% II. DEPT REDEMPTION FUNDS 476,400 809,238 (332,838) - 41.13% III. EDA SPECIAL OPERATING FUND 183,339 0 183,339 100.00% ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- TOTAL.APPROPRIATIONS 11,349,767 11,397,232 (47,465) -0.42% 1 PRELIMINARY (HHRORAR) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA COMBINED ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR ALL BUDGETED CITY FUNDS GENERAL FUND DEBT RETIREMENT FUNDS - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA) SPECIAL OPERATING FUND ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1993 PROPOSED RESUME OF REVENUE AND ESTIMATED REVENUE ----------------------------------------------------- 1991 1993 1993 1993 1990 1991 Estimate Esti- Increase Increase Actual Actual of 1992 mated (Decrease)- Decrease Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue From 1992 From 1992 --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- I. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES General Fund Levy* 3,487,029 3,900,060 5,317,991 5,957,190 639,199 12.02% Debt Retirement Levy 273,115 528,718 809,238 476,400 (332,838) - 41.13% EDA Special Levy 0 0 0 183,339 183,339 100.00% Penalties & Interest 2,089 1,022 20,000 20,000 0 0.00% ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- Total Property Taxes 3,762,233 4,429,800 6,147,229 6,636,929 489,700 7.97% - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- II. LODGING TAXES 365,680 373,007 385,000 400,000 15,000 3.90% III. BUS. LICENSES & PERMIT 185,940 199,116 183,436 180,720 (2,716) -1.48% IV. NONBUS. LIC. & PERMITS 111,555 112,635 111,400 125,415 14,015 12.58% V. INTERGOVERNMENTAL REV. 3,276,659 3,055,509 1,915,162 1,964,677 49,515 2.59% VI. GEN. GOVERN. CHARGES 184,227 129,172 177,210 31,910 (145,300) - 81.99% VII. PUBLIC SAFETY CHARGES 17,151 20,540 17,000 21,000 4,000 23.53% VIII.RECREATION FEES 718,160 731,501 963,070 1,027,116 64,046 6.65% IX. FINES & FORFEITURES 215,804 202,090 210,000 200,000 (10,000) -4.76% X. MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Sale of Certificates 0 700,000 480,000 115,000 (365,000) - 76.04% Other Revenue 449,464 383,663 364,000 302,000 (62,000) - 17.03% ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- Total Miscl. Revenue 449,464 1,083,663 844,000 417,000 (427,000) - 50.59% - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- XI. FUND BALANCE TRANSFERS 0 0 303,725 0 (303,725) - 100.00% XII. TRANSFERS -OTHER FUNDS 503,183 177,477 140,000 345,000 205,000 146.43% - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- TOTAL GENERAL FUND 9,516,941 9,985,792 10,587,994 10,690,028 102,034 0.96% TOTAL DEBT RETIREMENT FUND 273,115 528,718 809,238 476,400 (332,838) - 41.13% TOTAL EDA SP. OPER. FUND 0 0 0 183,339 183,339 100.00% - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- TOTAL REVENUE & TRANSFERS 9,790,056 10,514,510 11,397,232 11,349,767 (47,465) -0.42% ------------------- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- *General property tax levies for 1990 and 1991 were decreased by the amount of State Home- stead Credit paid for taxpayers in those years. The credit for 1990 and 1991 is included in Intergovernmental Revenue. The General property tax levies for 1992 and 1993 make no provision for Homestead Credit since the amount is unknown until year -end. 2 PRELIMINARY' AAROAAE) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA COMBINED ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR ALL BUDGETED CITY FUNDS GENERAL FUND DEBT RETIREMENT FUNDS - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA) SPECIAL OPERATING FUND ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1993 PROPOSED RESUME OF APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES ------------------------------------------------------- 1990 1991 1992 1993 1993 1992 Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Increase Increase Expend- Expend- A ro - A ro - - Decrease - Decrease P p pp p Pp P itures itures riations riations From 1992 From 1991 -- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- I. GENERAL FUND BY FUNCTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT ------------------------------------------------ A. General Government 1,826,303 1,590,812 1,807,892 1,600,356 (207,536) - 11.48% B. Public Safety 3,473,091 3,950,762 4,084,030 4,077,142 (6,888) -0.17% C. Public Works 1,916,432 1,818,289 1,891,895 1,759,581 (132,314) -6.99% D. Health & Social Services 114,632 104,706 119,190 113,424 (5,766) -4.84% E. Recreation 1,842,299 1,867,715 1,989,458 2,239,555 250,097 12.57% F. Cons. of Natural Resource 46,125 0 0 0 0 0.00% G. Economic Development 169,942 177,178 182,000 190,000 8,000 4.40% H. Unallocated Expenses 396,551 414,149 513,529 709,970 196,441 38.25% - - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- Total General Fund 9,785,375 9,923,611 10,587,994 10,690,028 102,034 0.96% ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- II. DEBT SERVICE FUNDS BY FUND -------------------------- A. 1980 Park Improvement Bond Redemption Fund 364,119 363,363 350,238 0 (350,238) - 100.00% B. 1991 Cert. of Indebtedness Redemption Fund 0 306,000 261,000 243,000 (18,000) -6.90% C. 1992 Cert. of Indebtedness Redemption Fund 0 0 198,000 185,200 (12,800) -6.46% D. 1993 Cert. of Indebtedness Redemption Fund 0 0 0 48,200 48,200 100.00% ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- Total Debt Redemption 364,119 669,363 809,238 476,400 (332,838) - 41.13% ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- III. EDA SPECIAL OPERATING FUND -------------------------- A. Economic Development 0 0 0 183,339 183,339 100.00% ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- IV. TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES 10,149,494 10,592,974 11,397,232 11,349,767 (47,465) -0.42% 3 I PRELIMINARY (WWRTATB)Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 92- RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 1993 PROPOSED BUDGET -------------------------------------------- BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the appropriations for budgeted funds for the calendar year 1993 shall be: GENERAL FUND -- ---- - - -- -- Proposed Unit No. Organizational Unit Amount -- - - - - -- ------------------------------ - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- Ill Council $ 98,237 112 Charter Commission 1,500 113 City Manager's Office 274,583 114 Elections and Voters' Registration 25,253 115 Assessing 192,120 116 Finance 139,699 117 Independent Audit 17,500 118 Legal Counsel 189,196 119 Government Buildings 353,705 120 Data Processing 308,563 131 Police Protection 3,250,274 132 Fire Protection 433,411 133 Planning and Inspection 318,663 134 Emergency Preparedness 48,144 135 Animal Control 26,650 141 Engineering 303,802 142 Street Construction and Maintenance 858,098 143 Vehicle Maintenance 408,581 144 Traffic Signs and Signals 39,500 145 Street Lighting 146,500 146 Weed Control 3,100 151 Health Regulation and Inspection 77,777 152 Social Services 35,647 160 Recreation and Parks Administration 319,643 161 Adult Recreation Programs 323,190 162 Teen Recreation Programs 13,114 163 Children's Recreation Programs 85,312 164 General Recreation Programs 92,980 167 Community Center 699,470 169 Parks Maintenance 705,846 170 Convention and Tourism Bureau 190,000 180 Unallocated Departmental Expenses 299,700 181 - Unallocated Personal Services 235,270 182 Contingency 175,000 Total General Fund $10,690,028 1991 CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS REDEMPTION FUND 243,000 1992 CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS REDEMPTION FUND 185,200 1993 CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS REDEMPTION FUND 48,200 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SPECIAL OPERATING FUND - -- 183,339 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR BUDGETED FUNDS $11,349,767 ; and 4 PRELIMINARY RESOLUTION NO. 92- 6E IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the source of financing the sums appropriated are expected to be: General Property Taxes $ 6,616,929 Penalties and Interest on Property Taxes 20,000 Sales Taxes on Lodging 400,000 Business Licenses and Permits 180,720 Nonbusiness Licenses and Permits 125,415 Intergovernmental Revenue 1,964,677 General Government Charges for Services 31,910 Public Safety Charges for Services 21,000 Recreation Fees 1,027,116 Fines and Forfeits 200,000 Miscellaneous Revenue 417,000 Fund Balance Transfers 0 Transfers From Other Funds 345,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED SOURCE OF FINANCING $11,349,767 ------------------- - - - - -- ------------------------------------ Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member thereof: and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 5 PRELIMINAR (IRTATL) Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 92- RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A PROPOSED TAX LEVY FOR 1993 BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS -------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, The City of Brooklyn Center is annually required by Charter and state law to approve a resolution setting forth an annual tax levy to Hennepin County; and WHEREAS Minnesota to statutes currently in force require certification y q of a proposed tax levy to Hennepin County on or before September 15, 1992 and a final tax levy on or before December 30, 1992. Center: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn 1. There is hereby approved for expenditures from general taxes, the following sums for or the purpose indicated: GENERAL FUND $ 5,957,190 1993 CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS REDEMPTION FUND 48,200 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SPECIAL OPERATING FUND 183,339 $ 6,188,729 The foregoing does not include levies already certified to the County for the payment of outstanding loans, which levies for the year 1993 are as follows: 1992 CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS REDEMPTION FUND $ 185,200 1991 CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS REDEMPTION FUND 243,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES FOR THE YEAR 1993 FROM GENERAL TAXES $ 6,616,929 2. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property lying within the City of Brooklyn Center, in addition to all levies heretofore certified to Hennepin County as indicated in paragraph one hereof, the sum of $6,188,729, and the City Clerk shall cause a copy of this resolution to be certified to Hennepin County so that said sum shall be spread upon the tax rolls and will be payable in the year 1993. ------------------------- ------------------------------------ Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member thereof: and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 6 P RELIMINARI (HHBCCI) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR ALL BUDGETED CITY FUNDS --------------------- - - - - -- 1993 PROPOSED ------------------------------------------------ TO BE FINANCED WITH CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS ------------------------------------------------ DEPARTMENT CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEM DEPT TOTAL -------- - - - - -- --------------------------- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- PUBLIC SAFETY: -------- - - - - -- POLICE (131) Bullet -proof vests (10) $ 5,000 $ Total Other Equipment 5,000 Squad Cars (4) 60,000 Resuscitators (2) 1,150 Light bar /siren 2,221 Squad Screens (2) 700 Radar - Moving 1,995 Radar - Stationary (2) 2,400 Total Mobile Equipment - - - -- 68,466 73,466 FIRE (132) 3 Section Ladders (2) 2,800 Air Pacs (4) 7,600 Air Bottles (20) 9,000 Wyes (3) 1,125 Nozzels (8) 5,400 Piercing Nozzel 1,100 Resusciator 750 Eye Wash Units (3) 2,400 Encapsulated Dive Mask 1,900 Hose, 1 3/4" (1,600 10,800 VCR Unit 800 Total Other Equipment 43,675 43,675 Total Equipment to be Financed With C.I.'s $ 117,141 ROUND TO $ 115,000 7 Y H L11MINARY (HHBCCI) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR ALL BUDGETED CITY FUNDS --------------------------- 1993 PROPOSED ------------------------------------------------ TO BE FINANCED WITH CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS ------------------------------------------------ Certificates of Indebtedness are to be dated January 1, 1993 and will mature on December 31, 1993, 1994, and 1995 at an annual projected interest rate of 8 %. Principal at January 1, 1993 $ 115,000 Interest Payment on 12 -31 -93 $ 9,200 Principal Payment on 12 -31 -93 39,000 (39,000) ----- - - - - -- Debt Retirement Levy For 1993 Budget $ 48,200 Principal at January 1, 1994 76,000 Interest Payment on 12 -31 -94 $ 6,080 Principal Payment on 12 -31 -94 38,000 (38,000) ----- - - - - -- Debt Retirement Levy For 1994 Budget $ 44,080 Principal at January 1, 1995 38,000 Interest Payment on 12 -31 -95 $ 3,040 Principal Payment on 12 -31 -95 38,000 (38,000) ----- - - - - -- Debt Retirement Levy For 1995 Budget $ 41,040 ------------------ - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- Principal at January 1, 1996 $ 0 8 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 08 /17/9? Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM STATUS REPORT DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Director OePublic Vorks MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes • The City Council has adopted a financial policy which requires a capital projects budget to be considered along with the general fund operating budget. The following tables, which were excerpted from the CIP which was approved by the City Council in 1991, have been updated. Projects which have been completed, or are underway, are shaded - i.e., lk�i'S'"DD in Tables A through I - the sheets which show detailed project lists. Note These copies are labeled as PRELIMINARY copies. Diane Spector was "called" for maternity duty 2 weeks early and won't be available to finalize these reports for several weeks. i TABLE 1 - Capital Improvement Program - Summary by Functional Area 'Where The Funds Would Be Spent' 13 -Au -92 1991 1992; 1993 1<994 1995' 1996 -2000 PUBLIC UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS: Water Utility Capital Projects 1,292,500 475,000 3,690,000 165,000 225,000 1,749,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility Capital Projects 128,000 1,228,000 718,000 130,000 778,000 360,000 Storm Drainage Utility Capital Projects 63,000 125,000 175,000 225,000 225,000 1,225,000 SUBTOTAL $1 $1 828 000 $4 583 000 $520 $1 $3 SIDEWALK/TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS: Off -Street Trai Is 81,000 80,000 25,000 100,000 300,000 255,000 On -Street Trai Is 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 Sidewalks 0 0 83,000 0 0 48,000 SUBTOTAL $91 $90 $118 $110 $310,000 $353 000 PARK IMPROVEMENTS $0 $9,500 $63,000 $25,000 $25,000 $1,185,000 PUBLIC BUILDINGS $0 $200,000 $3,440,000 $0 $0 $450,000 i STREET IMPROVEMENTS: Sealcoating 150,000 150,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 700,000 Signals 0 110,000 250,000 300,000 0 0 Regular MSA Account #2613 Street Projects 2,200,000 4,469,680 1,100,000 1,089,000 1,197,000 2,684,000 Other Street Projects 0 0 600,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 6,000,000 Landscaping 72,000 0 170,000 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL $2,422,000 $4,729,680 $2,260 1 $2 $2 537 000 $9 384 000 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT: Data Processing 78,000 198,000 420,000 358,000 310,000 270,000 City Vehicles 181,000 169,000 247,500 175,000 366,000 1,506,000 SUBTOTALI $259 $367,000, $667 $533 $676,000 $1,776,000 GRAND TOTAL $4,255,500 $7,224,180 $11,131,500 $3,917,000 $4,776,000 $16,482,000 TABLE 2 - Capital Improvement Program - Summary by Fund "Where the Funds Would Come From" ZZ n 13-Aug-92 1991 1992 1993: 1994 1995 1996 -2000 WATER UTILITY $1, 292,500 $ 902 ,600 $4,020,000 $528,000 $507,000 $2,103,750 1 Improvement Projects 1,292,500 895,100 3,740,000 273,000 257,000 2,026,500 Other Capital Outlay 0 7,500 280,000 255,000 250,000 77,250 SANITARY SEWER UTILITY $128,000 $1,629,300 $727,000 $141,000 $910,000 $510,750 Improvement Projects 128,000 1,621,800 722,000 136,000 780,000 483,500 Other Capital Outlay 0 7,500 5,000 5,000 130,000 27,250 STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY $63,000 $ 125,000 $566,000 $360,000 $400,000 $1,612,000 Improvement Projects 63,000 125,000 501,000 360,000 270,000 1,462,000 ® Other Capital Outlay 0 0 65,000 0 130,000 150,000 TRANSPORTATION UTILITY $0 $0 $ 402 ,000 $804,000 $804,000 $4,020,000 Improvement Projects 0 0 0 0 0 0 tir Other Capital Outlay 0 0 402,000 804,000 804,000 4,020,000 Noma MSA- REGULAR ACCOUNT #2613 $2,000,000 $110,780 $404,000 $512,000 $1,015,000 $1,662,000 Improvement Projects 2,000,000 110,780 404,000 512,000 1,015,000 1,662,000 MSA - LOCAL ACCOUNT #2611 $163,000 $840,000 $ 244,000 $512,000 $308,000 $561,000 Improvement Projects 163,000 840,000 244,000 512,000 308,000 561,000 MSA - LOCAL ACCOUNT #2600 $0 $0 $120,000 $0 $0 $0 Improvement Projects 0 0 120,000 0 0 0 MSA - BONDS ACCOUNT #2612 $200,000 $2,755,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Improvement Projects 200,000 2,755,000 0 0 0 0 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND $0 $200,000 $1,720,000 $0 $0 $225,000 Improvement Projects 0 200,000 1,720,000 0 0 225,000 OTHER FUNDS $0 $0 $47,000 $14,000 $0 $0 Other Capital Outlay 0 0 47,000 14,000 0 0 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS $0 $0 $1,720,000 $0 $0 $1,060,000 Improvement Projects 0 0 1,720,000 0 0 1,060,000 GENERAL FUND $ 409, 000 $ 511,500 $443,500 $424,000 $331,000 $2,346,500 Improvement Projects 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000 Other Capital Outlay 259,000 361,500 293,500 274,000 181,000 1,596,500 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS $0 $ 150,000 $498,000 $572,000 $501,000 $2,381,000 Improvement Projects 0 150,000 498,000 572,000 501,000 2,381,000 OTHER GOVERNMENTS $0 $0 $190,000 $50,000 $0 $0 Improvement Projects 0 0 190,000 50,000 0 0 GRAND TOTAL $4,255,500 $7,224,180 $11,101,500 $3,917,000 $4,776,000 $16,482,000 i PRELIMINAR Y W1 �i9 TABLE 3 - Capital Improvement Program - Cash Balance Analysis 'Can We Afford To Make These Capital Outlays' 13-Au 1991 1992';: 1993 1994 ` 1995 ..;; 1996 -2000 WATER;UTILITY Note: Does not include the costs of the proposed Neighborhood Street Improvement Program Balance Jan 1 $5,064,602 $4,466,039 $3,923,848 $3,362,870 $2,978,031 $2,656,798 Revenues Investment Interest 344,834 312,623 274,669 235,401 208,462 643,797 User Fees 675,708 798,528 912,500 1,025,000 1,112,500 6,101,000 Bond Proceeds 3,000,000 Other 73,301 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 175,000 Expenditures Capital Outlays 950,383 902,600 4,020,000 528,000 507,000 2,103,750 Debt Service 48,610 46,855 364,000 356,000 1,710,000 Operating Costs 693,413 738,887 763,147 788,240 814,195 4,492,761 Balance Dec 31 $4,466,039 $3,923,848 $3,362,870 $2,978,031 $2,656,798 $1,270,084 SAN ITARY: SEWER. UTILITY Note: Does not include the costs of the proposed Neighborhood Street Improvement Program Balance Jan 1 $3,666,664 $3,605,992 $2,242,121 $1,820,902 $1,994,170 $1,430,684 Revenues Investment Interest 293,993 252,419 156,949 127,463 139,592 1,357,394 User Fees 1,697,886 1,796,405 2,015,683 2,160,546 2,293,726 12,139,260 Other 43,257 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 100,000 Expenditures Capital Outlays 383,390 1,629,300 727,000 141,000 910,000 510,750 Operating Costs 364,105 359,230 374,691 390,851 407,741 2,126,980 MWCC Charge 1,348,313 1,444,165 1,512,160 1,602,890 1,699,063 9,005,035 Balance Dec 31 $3,605,992 $2,242,121 $1,820,902 $1,994,170 $1,430,684 $3,384,573 STORM DRAINAGE:;UTILIT.Y Note: Does not include the costs of the proposed Neighborhood Street Improvement Program Balance Jan 1 $0 $194,006 $310,402 $344,991 $585,500 $800,345 Revenues Investment Interest 2,628 13,580 21,728 24,149 40,985 483,840 User Fees 374,040 447,816 726,360 726,360 726,360 3,631,800 Other Expenditures Capital Outlays 0 125,000 566,000 360,000 400,000 1,612,000 Operating Costs 182,662 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Management Costs 0 120,000 47,500 50,000 52,500 375,000 Balance Dec 31 $194,006 $310,402 $344,991 $585,500 $800,345 $2,428,985 0 0 171�-,�- PRELIMINARY TABLE 3 — Capital Improvement Program — Cash Balance Analysis 'Can We Afford To Make These Capital Outlays' 13—Aug-92 ! 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 -2000 TRANSP,O RTATION'UTILITY (PROPOSED): Balance Jan 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenues Special Assessments 0 0 0 0 Investment Interest 0 User Fees 0 0 0 0 Transfer from Storm Drain Utility 0 0 0 0 Expenditures Capital Outlays 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 Balance Dec 31 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 MUNICIPAL STATE AID:. 'REGULAR _ ACCOUNT # 496 Balance Jan 1 $1,633,835 $810,558 $773,304 $1,030,327 $1,190,775 $859,338 Revenues Intergovernmental 832,189 735,390 973,000 987,000 995,000 5,079,000 Expenditures Capital Outlays 1,593,098 593,007 404,000 512,000 1,015,000 1,662,000 Debt Service 62,368 179,637 311,977 314,552 311,437 1,565,730 Balance Dec 31 $810,558 $773,304 $1,030,327 $1,190,775 $859,338 $2,710,608 MUNICIPALSTATE AID - BONDS _. ACCOUNT #2912;; .. ............................... Balance Jan 1 $0 $2,062,073 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenues Bond Proceeds 2,940,534 0 Expenditures Capital Outlays 878,461 2,062,073 0 Balance Dec 31 $2,062,073 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ! 0 PRELIMINARY-07 TABLE 3 — Capital Improvement Program — Cash Balance Analysis 'Can We Afford To Make These Capital Outlays' 13 —Au —92 1'9911 1992:: 11993 1994 1995 1996 2000 MUNICIPAL STATEAID LOCAL ACCOUNT #291 .......... ................O..........:... Balance Jan 1 $452,974 $918,700 $125,799 $0 $0 $0 Revenues Special Assessments 307,628 0 Other 235,318 219,000 0 Expenditures Capital Outlays 77,220 1,011,901 0 0 0 0 Other 0 Balance Dec 31 $918,700 $125,799 $125,799 $0 $0 $0 MUNICIPAL STATEAI. - :LOCAL; ACCOUNT 29Q0 Balance Jan 1 $2,687,085 $2,925,395 $2,747,629 $2,584,769 $2,253,703 $2,103,462 Revenues Investment Interest 238,310 343,260 201,140 180,934 157,759 739,039 Other Expenditures Capital Outlays 0 521,026 364,000 512,000 308,000 561,000 Other Balance Dec 31 $2,925,395 $2,747,629 $2,584,769 $2,253,703 $2,103,462 $2,281,501 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Balance Jan 1 $4,109,274 $5,384,337 $5,561,241 $4,230,527 $4,526,664 $4,843,531 Revenues Investment Interest 337,601 376,904 389,287 296,137 316,867 1,879,843 Bond Proceeds 1,088,513 1,720,000 1,060,000 Expenditures Capital Outlays 151,051 200,000 3,440,000 0 0 1,285,000 Debt Service Balance Dec 31 $5,384,337 $5,561,241 $4,230,527 $4,526,664 $4,843,531 $6,498,373 0 • P R E L I M I N A R TABLE A — Capital Improvement Program — Detail of Capital Outlays Water Utility Capital Improvements Indicates in ress or com lete Italics indicates moved to 1993 ro 13 —Au —92 1991:::.: 19.92 1993 J! 1994 1995 1'996 2000 FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURES: WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM All Water Utili Well 10 to Well 6 Shingle Creek Pkwy to Brooklyn Blvd :; tp. 0 Well 6 to Shingle Creek Pkwy 300,000 0 Construct Well #10 2 MG Reservoir & Pumping Station 3,300,000 0 Construct Well #11 1,000 New Electric Controls at Wells 5, 6, 7 90,000 0 Loop 2" Water Main at Lawrence Circle 15 0 Paint Tower #1 166,000 Paint Tower #2 150,000 0 Paint Tower #3 158 Water Sample Lab Update 25,000 Routine Well Maintenance ?r5t}€ 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 Cathodic Protection 50,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 SCADA System Update 50,000 50,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1 292 500 $475 $165 $225 $1 749 000 FUND SOURCES: Water Utility 1,292,500 475,000 3,690,000 165,000 225,000 1,749,000 TOTAL $1 292,500 $47 $3 $165 $225,0 $1 749 i PRE Ll M1 NARf TABLE B — Capital Improvement Program — Detail of Capital Outlays Sanitary Sewer Utility Capital Improvements Indicates in progress or complete Italics indicates moved to 1993 13 —Au —92 1991 1992 7993 1994 19951: . 1996= 2000 FUND SOURCE. EXPENDITURES: All San Sewer Utility Replace Lift Station #2 1(#tit 0 Lift #1 Rehab, Replace Forcemain 600,000 0 Intrac/Motorola Update 90,000 0 Replace Lifts 8 & 9 SEWER REPLACEMENT: 69th Avenue, Brooklyn Blvd to Drew 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 >1€tE1Q! 750,000 0 Inspect/RepairMississippi River Interceptor 0 Replace Sewer Line at Brookdale Annual Televising Program 8,000 8 8 40 - - - - . 1/1 Remediation Program 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 100,000 Mobile Emergency Pump 30,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $128 $1,228 1 $718 $130 $778 $140 FUND SOURCES: Sanitary Sewer Utility 128,000 1,228,000 718,000 130,000 778,000 140,000 I TOTAL $128,0001 $1,228,0001 $718,0001 $130,0001 $778,0001 $140,000 I 0 PRE 11 MI NAM Y � TABLE C — Capital Improvement Program — Detail of Capital Outlays Storm Drainage Utility Capital Improvements AIM Indicates in prog or complete Italics indicates moved to 1993 13—Aug-92 1991 <! .1992 7993 1'994 1995.; 1996-=2000 FUND SOURCE All Storm Drainage EXPENDITURES: Utilit Repair or Replace Defective Sections of System 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Watershed Commission Capital Improvements3 100,000 Developer Initiated Improvements (oversizing, etc.) C 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 Water Quality Improvement Projects 50,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $63 $125 $175000 $225,0001 $225,000 $1,225,000 FUND SOURCES: Storm Drainage Utility 63,000 125,000 175,000 225,000 225,000 1,225,000 TOTAL $63,0001 $175 000 $225 000 $225 $1,225,000 P I i M i N'A R'fw/v/ TABLE D — Capital Improvement Program — Detail of Capital Outlays Sidewalk and Trail Improvements Indicates in progress or complete Italics indicates moved to 1993 13—Aug-92 1991 1992 1993: 1994 1995: 1.996- 2000 FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURES: OFF—STREET TRAIL Trail Subsidence Correction Behind Library Q 0 Local State Aid Humboldt Square Trail t 0 Local State Aid 53rd Avenue, Upton to Shingle Creek 0 Local State Aid Brookdale Center Trail 300,000 0 Local State Aid 69th Avenue, Brooklyn Blvd to Shingle Creek Parkway '':8!3t'' 0 Local State Aid Twin Lake/Preserve Trail 94,000 Local State Aid Hennepin Parks' Riverridge Trail 50,000 0 Hennepin County NSP Easement Trail, Knox to Dupont 50,000 0 Local State Aid Willow Lane, 1694 to West River Road 25,000 0 Local State Aid Palmer Lake Dual Trail 71,000 Local State Aid 69th Avenue, Shingle Creek Parkway to TH252 90,000 Local State Aid ON— STREET TRAIL: Marking and Signage 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 Local State Aid SIDEWALK: Northway Drive 18,000 0 Local State Aid 73rd Avenue, Humboldt to TH 252 35,000 0 Local State Aid 55th Avenue, Lions Park to Logan 21,000 Local State Aid 73rd Avenue, Humboldt to Penn 30,000 0 Local State Aid 71st/72nd Avenues, Noble to Halifax 27,000 Local State Aid TOTAL EXPENDITURES $91,0001 $90,0001 $118,000 1 $110 $310 $353,0001 FUND SOURCES: State Aid — Local Accounts #2611/ #2600 91,000 90,000 118,000 60,000 310,000 353,000 General Fund Other Governments 0 0 0 50,000 0 TOTAL $91 $90,0001 $118,0ooj $11o $310 000 $353,000 0 PREIIMINARYO TABLE E -- Capital Improvement Program — Detail of Capital Outlays Park Improvements Indicates in progress or com lete Italics indicates moved to 1993 13 —Au —92 i99... ; . 1992 1993, 1994 1995 1'996. 2000 FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURES: Playground Equipment Replacement: 2 per Year* 63,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 General Fund Replace 6 Shelter Buildings 360,000 GO Park Bonds Lighting— Grandview Baseball 100,000 GO Park Bonds Acquisition of New Park Land 200,000 GO Park Bonds Twin Lake /Preserve /Kylawn Improvements 400,000 GO Park Bonds TOTAL EXPENDITURES $0 $9,500 j $63 000 $25 $25 $1,185,000 FUND SOURCES: General Fund 0 9,500 63,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 GO Bonds 0 0 0 0 0 1,060,000 TOTAL $0 $9 500 $63 1 $25,000 $25,000 $1 * 1993 budget request = $63,000. All items pending comprehensive park and playground needs study. I I i 0 PRELIMINARU 9// 719- TABLE F — Capital Improvement Program — Detail of Capital Outlays Public Building Improvements Indicates in progress or complete Italics indicates moved to 1993 13 —Au —92 1991 1992 1993 ,i 1994 1995: 19913 2000 FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURES: CITY HALL Qty Office Improvements 1,500,000 0 1 /2 GO Bonds, l/z Capital Projects Fund COMMUNITY CENTER Senior Center/Elevator 1,000,000 0 1 /2 GO Bonds, 1 /2 Capital Projects Fund Water Slide ':2i'3f3rjQ`: 0 Capital Projects Fund Public Works Storage Building 450,000 1 /< Water,' /, Sewer Utilities, 1 /z Capital Projects FIRE STATIONS East Station 610,000 0 '/Z GO Bonds, 1 /z Capital West Station 330,000 0 Projects Fund TOTAL EXPENDITURES $0 $200,000 1 $3,440,000 1 $0 $0 1 $450 FUND SOURCES: Capital Projects 0 200,000 1,720,000 0 0 225,000 Water Utility 0 0 0 0 0 112,500 Sanitary Sewer Utility 0 0 0 0 0 112,500 GO Bonds 0 0 1,720,000 0 0 0 TOTAL $0 $200,000 1 $3,440,000 $0 $0 $450,000 PRELIMINARW 717_1 TABLE G — Capital Improvement Program — Detail of Capital Outlays Street Improvements <' Indicates in progress or com lete Italics indicates moved to 1993 13—Aug-92 .1991.. 1992 1993 <.; 1994 1995: 1'996 -2000 FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURES: SEALCOATING 140,000 140,000 140,000 700,000 General Fund SIGNALS 69th and France Avenues `' 3} 0 MSA— Regular #2613 Brooklyn Blvd & TH100 Northbound Ramp /Lilac Dr 150,000 0 Local State Aid Brooklyn Blvd & 51st Avenue 150,000 0 Local State Aid Summit & Earle Brown W (Target Entrance) 125,000 0 Special Assessments Shingle Creek Pkwy and Parkway Circle 125,000 0 Special Assessments REGULAR MSA ACCOUNT #2613 STREET PROJECTS 69th Avenue, Brooklyn Blvd to Shingle Creek Pkwy <?F 0 MSA — Regular #2613 0 MS — A Regular #2613 MSA— Local #2611/ #2600 ?t3J 0 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 MSA —Bonds #2612 2p #t# 0 MSA —Bonds #2612 Water Utility £Q: 0 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility € € 0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility ... 0 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 0 Special Assessments 57th Avenue. Logan to Lyndale 1,100,000 0 MSA — Regular #2613 404,000 0 MSA — Regular #2613 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 126,000 0 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 Water Utility 50,000 0 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 4,000 0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 326,000 0 Storm Drainage Utility Hennepin County 190 0 Hennepin Coun !t 0 PRELIMINARY*1171�;- TABLE G — Capital Improvement Program — Detail of Capital Outlays Street Improvements >< Indicates in progress or comp lete Italics indicates moved to 1993 13—Aug-92 1991 1992 1993 1!994 1995 1996 -2000 FUND SOURCE (State Aid Street Projects, con't) 63rd Avenue, W City Limits to Brooklyn Blvd 1,002,000 0 MSA— Regular #2613 461,000 0 MSA — Regular #2613 MSA— Local #2611/ #2600 156,000 0 MSA— Local #2611/ #2600 Water Utility 95,000 0 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 5,000 0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 135,000 0 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 150,000 0 Special Assessments Noble Avenue, Brooklyn Blvd to N City Limits 87,000 0 MSA — Regular #2613 51,000 0 MSA — Regular #2613 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 (4,000) 0 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 Water Utility 13,000 0 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 1,000 0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 0 0 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 26,000 0 Special Assessments 69th Avenue, Shingle Creek Pkwy to Oliver & Bridge 1,197,000 0 MSA— Regular #2613 1,015,000 0 MSA — Regular #2613 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 (2,000) 0 MSA— Local #2611/ #2600 Water Utility 32,000 0 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 2,000 0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 45,000 0 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 105,000 0 Special Assessments France Avenue, 69th to N City Limits 349,000 MSA— Regular #2613 188,000 MSA — Regular #2613 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 18,000 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 Water Utility 31,000 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 2,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 45,000 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 65 Special Assessments 0 0 1 M I At Y TABLE G — Capital Improvement Program — Detail of Capita ut ays Street Improvements '` Indicates in progEeSsPE complete Italics indicates moved to 1993 13 —Au —92 1991 1992 1993 11994 1995. 1'99642000 FUND SOURCE (State Aid Street Projects, con't) 53rd Avenue, France to 55th Avenue 403,000 MSA— Regular #2613 196,000 MSA — Regular #2613 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 51,000 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 Water Utility 36,000 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 2,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 51,000 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 67,000 Special Assessments Brooklyn Boulevard At Lilac Drive 571,000 MSA — Regular #2613 474,000 MSA — Regular #2613 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 23,000 MSA— Local #2611/ #2600 Water Utility 17,000 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 1,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 24,000 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 32,000 Special Assessments 51st Avenue, Brooklyn Blvd to Xerxes 71,000 MSA — Regular #2613 40,000 MSA — Regular #2613 MSA— Local #2611/ #2600 8,000 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 Water Utility 5,000 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 1,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 8,000 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 9,000 Special Assessments 69th Avenue, Oliver to Dupont 867,000 MSA — Regular #2613 544,000 MSA — Regular #2613 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 63,000 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 Water Utility 45,000 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 3,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 64,000 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 148 Special Assessments P P TABLE G - Capital Improvement Program - Detail of Capital Outlays Street Improvements Indicates in progress or complete Italics indicates moved to 1993 13-Aug-92 1991 1992 1993':1 1994 1995.: 1996 -2000 FUND SOURCE (State Aid Street Projects, con't) Humboldt Avenue. 69th to N City Limits 423,000 MSA- Regular #2613 220,000 MSA - Regular #2613 MSA - Local #2611/ #2600 45,000 MSA -Local #2611/ #2600 Water Utility 31,000 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 2,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility Stone Drainage Utility 45,000 Stone Drainage Utility Special Assessments 80,000 Special Assessments OTHER STREET PROJECTS 2/3 Bonds Neighborhood Street Improvement Program 600,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 6,000,000 1/3 Special Assessments LANDSCAPING West River Road Streetscape <? 0 MSA -Local #2611 Co Rd 10 Streetscape 100,000 0 1 /2 MSA - 2600,'/2 Special Assessments Xerxes Avenue Streetscape 70,000 0 MSA -Local #2600 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2 422 000 $4 729 680 $2 260 000 $2 729 000 $2 537 000 $12,068 FUND SOURCES: MSA - Regular #2613 2,000,000 110,780 404,000 512,000 1,015,000 1,662,000 MSA - Local #2611/ #2600 72,000 750,000 126,000 452,000 (2,000) 208,000 MSA - Local #2600 0 0 120,000 0 0 0 MSA - Bonds #2612 200,000 2,755,000 0 0 0 0 Water Utility 0 420,100 50,000 108,000 32,000 165,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility 0 393,800 4,000 6,000 2,000 11,000 Storm Drainage Utility 0 0 326,000 135,000 45,000 237,000 Special Assessments 0 150,000 498,000 572,000 501,000 2,381,000 Bonds 0 0 402,000 804,000 804,000 4,020,000 General Fund 150,000 150,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 700,000 Hennepin County 0 0 190 0 0 0 TOTAL $2 422 000 $4 729 680 $2 260 000 $2 729 000 $2 537 000 $9 384 000 * If a Transportation Utility is authorized by the Legislature, it could be used to replace some of the funding raised through Chapter 429 bonds. oft In PKELIMINAIK TABLE H — Capital Improvement Program — Detail of Capital Outlays Data Processing Equipment Indicates in rogress or com lete Italics indicates moved to 1993 13—Aug-92 .1`991 1992 X993 .1994 1995 1996 2000 FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURES: Network OR Distributed Site 20,000 170,000 General Fund 145 Annual Equipment 'i$€1 >'•.<: `�.::,..:... 000 108,000 40,000 100,000 General Fund, Other, Water & Sewer Utilities Remote Reading Water Meters 275,000 250,000 250,000 0 Water Utility TOTAL EXPENDITURES $78 , 0001 $198 000 $420 000 $358 000 $310 $270"000 FUND SOURCES: General Fund 78,000 183,000 98,000 94,000 60,000 270,000 Water Utility 0 7,500 275,000 250,000 250,000 0 Sanitary Sewer Utility 7,500 0 Other Funds 47,000 14,000 0 I TOTAL $78 000 $198 000 $420 000 $358 000 $310 000 $270 I �I 0 TABLE I — Capital Improvement Program — Detail of Capital Outlays City Vehicles `<<; Indicates in ro ress or com lete Italics indicates moved to 1993 13 —Au —92 1991 1992 1993 : :. 1`994 1995 1996 1 2000 1 FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURES: STREETS Ford 800 Dump (6) 213,000 General Fund Ford Tandem Dump (2) 'pct 50,000 0 General Fund Ford 700 Dump 0 General Fund Ford 800 Flat Bed /Sander 50,000 General Fund Oil Distributer 5,000 0 General Fund International 0 General Fund >zt€ Ford Water Truck 7,000 General Fund Aerial Bucket 0 General Fund Dodge 3/4 Ton Pickup ;: 0 General Fund Paint Striper (2) 0 General Fund Mechanical Sweeper 0 Storm Drainage Utility Vacuum Sweeper 150,000 Storm Drainage Utility Storm Sewer Jet/Vacter 130,000 0 Storm Drainage Utility Ford 1 Ton /Sign Box 35,000 General Fund Trackless Sidewalk Plow (3) 49,000 50,000 50,000 General Fund PARKS Pickups ........... . 10 000 0 General Fund : :.:......:....... ..:::...............:......:::. 11,50 Ford 350 Dump 0 General Fund Tractors (2) 0 General Fund Van 13,500 0 General Fund PUBLIC UTIUTIES Emergency Utility Van 30,000 Water Utility Sewer Jet/Vacter (Shared w /Storm Drainage) 130,000 0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Pickups 10,000 10,000 24,500 Water & Sewer Utilities Ford 350 Dump/L.Itility Dump/Utility Box I 30,000 Water & Sewer Utilities v PRE11M1NAR# TABLE I — Capital Improvement Program — Detail of Capital Outlays City Vehicles Indicates in p or complete Italics indicates moved to 1993 13—Aug-92 1991 1992. 1993.; 1994 1995 1996 -L2000 FUND SOURCE (Ciryvehicies, cony UNLICENSED 1 Ton Roller 0 General Fund Cat Grader 0 General Fund Cat Loader 75,000 General Fund Rubber Tired Roller 0 General Fund Backhoe 50,000 Water Utility Snow Blower 68,000 0 General Fund FIRE DEPARTMENT Vans 375,000 General Fund Pumpers 155,000 General Fund Autos mom 0 General Fund Ladder 0 General Fund POLICE Autos ; ::::::56;x: 56 000 56 000 56 000 8 »> :.....:::...:.. .:: :.............:......::::::: � � � 2 0,000 General Fund TOTAL EXPENDITURES $181,0001 $169,0001 $247,5001 $175,0001 $366,000 $1506,000 FUND SOURCES: General Fund 181,000 169,000 142,500 165,000 106,000 1,251,500 Water Utility 0 0 5,000 5,000 0 77,250 Storm Drainage Utility 0 0 65,000 0 130,000 150,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility 0 0 5,000 5,000 130,000 27,250 TOTALI $181 $169 $217,5001 $175 $366 000 $1 /off 3 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROPOSED TAX CAPACITY LEVY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATION, PROVIDING INFORMATIONAL SERVICE, AND RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MSA 469.001 THROUGH 469.047 OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR THE YEAR 1993 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center is the governing body of the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received a resolution from the Housing and and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center entitled a "Resolution Establishing the Proposed Tax Levy for the Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment Authority for the Year 1993 "; and WHEREAS, Minnesota statutes currently require certification of a proposed tax levy to the Hennepin County Auditor on or before September 15, 1992 and a final tax levy on or before December 25, 1992. WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to the provisions of MSA 469.033, Subdivision 6, must by resolution consent to the proposed tax levy of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that a special tax be levied upon all real and personal property within the City of Brooklyn Center at the rate of 0.0144% of taxable market value of all taxable property, real and personal, situated within the corporate limits of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota and not exempted by the Constitution of the State of Minnesota or the valid laws of the State of Minnesota. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the said property tax levy be used for the operation of the Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment Authority pursuant to the provisions of MSA 469.001 through 469.047. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting new 8 / 2 4 / [ 9 2 Agenda Item Number /Un REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION s ITEM DESCRIPTION: PLACEMENT OF 1% FOOD AND LIQUOR TAX QUESTION ON NOVEMBER 3, 1992, GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT DEPT. APPR dera4d rater, City Manager MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONEWENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMLARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached As per discussions with the City Council, city staff has reviewed the process for the placement of the legislative authorized 1% food and liquor tax for housing purposes on the November 3, 1992, general election ballot. As per previous discussions with the city staff, Council indicated a preference for waiting until after the primary election on September 15, 1992, to formally consider placing the question on the November 3, 1992, general election ballot. In reviewing the technical process for placing questions such as this on the ballot, we find there are notice requirements to the County Auditor which require the Council to certify the wording of this and other ballots to the County Auditor by September 16, 1992. This of course is one day after the September 15, 1992, primary election. We have checked with the County Auditor and they further informed us that once the City Council certifies the ballot there is no opportunity for them to withdraw it. Given the September 16 notice to the Auditor for inclusion of this question on the November ballot, the City Council should discuss and reassess the timing of the process of considering this question. The establishment of this ballot and its wording could be passed by the City Council at any special or regular City Council meeting between now and September 16, 1992. RECOMMENDATION • Staff recommends the Council discuss a revised schedule for considering the placement of the 1% sales tax on food and liquor question on the November 3, 1992, ballot considering the following items: 1. Establishment of the date of the public hearing (a public hearing is not required for this purpose but we recommend your consideration); 2. Public hearing notification process; 3. A process for polling City Council and Legislative candidates on their attitudes and opinions regarding this issue; 4. Direction to staff on the type of informational campaign the Council wishes to consider should they place the question on the ballot; and 5. Any other questions or concerns the Council may wish to consider. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 08/24/92 Agenda Item Number // / ,i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -21, TELEVISION INSPECTION OF SANITARY SEWERS, ACCEPTING PROPOSAL, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFORE �k�k�k�k�k�k�k�k�k�k�k�K�k�k�k$ c�k�k�k�k�K�K�K�k�k�k�k�k�k�k�K�kaM�k�k�k�k�K�k�k�k�k�K�k�F�k�k�K�k�K�K�k�k�k�K�k�k�k�k�k�k�k�K�k�k�k�k�k�K�k�k�k�K�k�k�k�k�k�E�k�k DEPT. APPROVAL: f Sy Knapp, irector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attac d SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes • Televised sewer inspection is utilized by the City in the search for infiltration, broken pipe sections, the effects of trench settlements, improper or failed service connection, the presence of excessive tree roots, etc. The needs for this type of inspection are annually coordinated into a single project, covering known or suspected problem areas. Consequently, the City Engineer requested proposals for Improvement Project No. 1992 -21, Television Inspection of Sanitary Sewers, for those sewer segments shown on the attached list. Of the proposals received for the work, the lowest submitted was that of Solidification, Inc., of Minneapolis, Minnesota. A list of the proposals received is as follows: Solidification, Inc. $3,696.07 Visu -Sewer Clean & Seal, Inc. $4,978.38 Solidification, Inc. has considerable experience in this type of work in the Metro area and has satisfactorily performed in Brooklyn Center on previous projects. Accordingly, staff recommends award to Solidification, Inc., of Minneapolis, MN. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution establishing the project, accepting proposal and awarding contract to Solidification, Inc, is provided for consideration by the City Council. r /%a Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -21, TELEVISION INSPECTION OF SANITARY SEWERS, ACCEPTING PROPOSAL, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFORE WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported to the City Council of the need for televised inspection; and WHEREAS, the City does not possess the equipment necessary to perform such inspections; and WHEREAS, proposals for Televised Sewer Inspection were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Engineer, on the 19th day of August, 1992, and said proposals were as follows: Bidder Bid Solidification, Inc. $3,696.07 Visu -Sewer Clean & Seal, Inc. $4,978.38 WHEREAS, it appears that Solidification, Inc. of Minneapolis, Minnesota, has provided the lowest responsible proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Improvement Project No. 1992 -21, Television Inspection of Sanitary Sewers, is hereby established. 2. The proposal as submitted by Solidification, Inc. of Minneapolis, Minnesota is hereby accepted and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract, in the amount of $3,696.07, with Solidification, Inc. in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1992 -21. 3. All costs relating to this project shall be charged to the Public Utility Fund. RESOLUTION NO. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -21 CLOSED CIRCUIT TV SEWER INSPECTION 8" to 12" dia. Sanitary Sewer Size (Dia.) Location Lin.Ft. 8" vcp Noble Ave. N. 63rd Ave. to 1,109' South 1,109 8 vcp Scott Ave. N. 63rd Ave. to 65th Ave. 1,208 8" vcp 55th Ave. N. Camden Ave. to 53rd Ave. 1,628 8 vcp rookview Dr. 56th Ave. to L.S. ##4 2 104 P , 8" vcp Irving Ave. N. N.S.P. Easement to 59th Ave. 969 8 vcp Camden Ave. N. 59th Ave. N. to 57th Ave. N. 1,324 12" vcp Shingle Creek Pkwy. 69th Ave. to L.S. ##1 6,107 12" vcp 57th Ave. N. Camden Ave. to River Interceptor 645 TOTAL (8" to 12" dia.) 15,086 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Dew 8t24/92 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT NO. 69791 WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SAID AGREEMENT, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFORE ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Virector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION. �z No comments to supplement this re n below/attached pp port Comments below /atta . SU EVIARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes MNDOT has proposed traffic signal improvements on T.H. 100 consisting of the following: • Installation of a new "permanent" traffic control signal system at the T.H. 100 /Indiana Avenue intersection; and • Modification of the existing signal system at the T.H. 100 /France Avenue intersection - such modifications to include the addition of street lights and an interconnection with the signals at Indiana Avenue. To accomplish this, MNDOT has prepared and submitted a proposed cooperative agreement wherein the cities of Brooklyn Center and Robbinsdale would agree to share in the costs of the proposed improvements. Following is a summary of total costs, and proposed cost sharing for these improvements: I Total Federal Aid MNDOT RoUUinsdale B, Center Location Costs Share Sharex., Share Share T.H. 100 /Indiana (Contract Costs) $112,000 $89,600 (80 %) $ 11,200 (10 %) $5,600(5%) $5,600 (5 %) T.H. 100 /France (Contract Costs) $ 20,000 $ 16,000 (80 %) $ 2,000 (10 %) N.A. $ 2,000 (10 %) Subtotal (Contract Costs) $132,000 $105,600 $ 13,200 $ 5,600 $ 7,600 Engineering Costs @ 6% $ 7,920 $ 6,336 $ 792 $ 336 $ 456 TOTALS $139,920 $111,936 $113,992 $ 5,936 $ 8,056 While MNDOT is concurrently planning to upgrade T.H. 100 to freeway standards, thereby obviating the need for traffic signals on T.H. 100, it is probable that those improvements will not occur in this area for 5 to 8 years. Accordingly, MNDOT believes the costs for these signal upgrades are justified, to provide improved service and safer conditions during this interim period. We agree with that decision, and recommend approval of the attached agreement as prepared by MNDOT. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution approving the agreement is provided for consideration by the City Council. I I Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT NO. 69791 WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SAID AGREEMENT, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFORE WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) has proposed to improve the traffic signal systems at the T.H. 100 /Indiana Avenue intersection and at the T.H. 100 /France Avenue intersection and has prepared and submitted proposed Agreement No. 69791 providing for cost sharing between MNDOT, the City of Brooklyn Center and the City of Robbinsdale for these improvements; with the City of Brooklyn Center's share estimated at $8056.00; and WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Council that these improvements are needed to provide for the public health, welfare, and safety. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The City of Brooklyn Center enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to wit: To remove the existing traffic control signal and install a new traffic control signal with street lights, signing and interconnect on T.H. 100 at Indiana Avenue North; and revise the existing traffic control signal with street lights, signing and interconnect on T.H. 100 at France Avenue North in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth and contained in Agreement No. 69791, a copy of which was before the Council. 2. The Mayor and City Manager be and hereby are authorized to execute such agreement, and thereby assume for and on behalf of the City all of the contractual obligations contained therein. 3. Funding for Brooklyn Center's share of these improvement costs, estimated at $8056.00 is hereby appropriated from the local Municipal State Aid Street fund, Account No. 2911. 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. MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AGREEMENT NO. 69791 BETWEEN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND THE CITY OF ROBBINSDALE TO Remove the existing Traffic Control Signal and Install a new Traffic Control Signal with Street Lights, Signing and Interconnect on Trunk Highway No. 100 at Indiana Avenue North; and Revise the existing Traffic Control Signal with Street Lights, Signing and Interconnect on Trunk Highway No. 100 at France Avenue North in Brooklyn Center and Robbinsdale, Hennepin County, Minnesota. S.P. 2755 -71 F.P. STP 5402 (21) Prepared by Traffic Engineering ESTIMATED AMOUNT RECEIVABLE AMOUNT ENCUMBERED City of Brooklyn Center $8,056.00 _City of Robbinsdale $5,936.00 None Otherwise Covered THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the "State ", and the City of Brooklyn Center, hereinafter referred to as "Brooklyn Center ", and the City of Robbinsdale, hereinafter referred to as "Robbinsdale ", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 161.20 authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to Make arrangements with and cooperate with any governmental authority for the purposes of construction, maintaining and improving the Trunk Highway system; and WHEREAS, the State has determined that there is justification and it is in the public's best interest to remove the existing traffic control signal and install a new traffic signal with street lights, signing and interconnect on Trunk Highway No. 100 at Indiana Avenue North; and revise the existing traffic control signal with street lights, signing and interconnect on Trunk Highway No. 100 at France Avenue North; and WHEREAS, it is considered in the public's best interest for the State to provide one (1) master controller and one (1) new cabinet and control equipment to operate said new traffic control signal; and 69791 — 1 — WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the new and revised traffic control signals with street lights, signing and interconnect work is eligible for 80 percent Federal —aid Surface Transportation Program Funds; and WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center, Robbinsdale and the State will participate in the cost, maintenance and operation of the new and revised traffic control signals with street lights, signing and interconnect as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The State shall prepare the necessary plan, specifications and proposal which shall constitute "Preliminary Engineering ". The State shall also perform the construction inspection required to complete the items of work hereinafter set forth, which shall constitute "Engineering and Inspection" and shall be so referred to hereinafter. 2. The contract cost of the work or, if the work is not contracted, the cost of all labor, materials, and equipment rental required to complete the work, except the cost of providing the power supply to the service poles or pads, shall constitute the actual "Construction Cost" and shall be so referred to hereinafter. 3. The State with its own forces and equipment or by contract shall perform the new and revised traffic control signal f 69791 2 work provided for under State Project No. 2755 -71 and Federal —aid Project No. STP 5402(21) with the Construction Costs shared as follows: a) Trunk Highway No. 100 at Indiana Avenue North. System "A ". Remove the existing traffic control signal and install a new traffic control signal with street lights and interconnect. Estimated Construction Cost is $112,000.00 which includes State furnished materials. Anticipated Federal —aid share is 80 percent. Anticipated State's share is 10 percent. Brooklyn Center's share is 5 percent. Robbinsdale's share is 5 percent. b) Trunk Highway No. 100 at France Avenue North. System "B ". Revise the existing traffic control signal with street lights and interconnect. Estimated Construction Cost is $20,000.00. Anticipated Federal —aid share is 80 percent. Anticipated State's share is 10 percent. Brooklyn Center's share is 10 percent. 69791 — 3 — 4. The State shall install or cause the installation of overhead signing and shall maintain said signing all at no cost to Brooklyn Center or Robbinsdale. 5. Upon execution of this agreement and a request in writing by the State, Brooklyn Center and Robbinsdale shall each advance to the State and amount equal to their portion of the project costs. Brooklyn Center's and Robbinsdale's total portion shall consist of the sum of the following: a) Brooklyn Center's and Robbinsdale's respective shares (as specified in Paragraph 3) based on the actual bid prices and the estimated State furnished materials costs. b) Six (6) percent of each respective share (Item (a) above] for the cost of Engineering and Inspection. 6. Upon completion and final acceptance of the project, Brooklyn Center's and Robbinsdale's final share shall consist of the sum of the following: a) Brooklyn Center's and Robbinsdale's respective shares (as specified in Paragraph 3) based on the final payment to the Contractor and the actual State furnished materials costs. 69791 — — 4 b) Six (6) percent of each respective final share [Item (a) above] for the cost of Engineering and Inspection. The amount of the funds advanced by Brooklyn Center and Robbinsdale in excess of Brooklyn Center's and Robbinsdale's final share will be returned to Brooklyn Center and Robbinsdale without interest and Brooklyn Center and Robbinsdale agrees to pay to the State that amount of their final share which is in excess of the amount of the funds advanced by Brooklyn Center and Robbinsdale. 7. Robbinsdale shall perpetuate an adequate electrical power supply to the service pad or pole, and upon completion of said traffic control signal with street lights installation (System " A " ) shall continue to provide necessary Y P Y electrical power for its operation at the cost and expense of Robbinsdale. 8. Upon completion of the work contemplated in Paragraph 3a (System " A " ) hereof, it shall be Robbinsdale's responsibility, at its cost and expense, to: (1) maintain the luminaries and all its components, including replacement of the 1 uminaire if necessary; (2) relamp the traffic control signal and street lights; and (3) clean and paint the traffic control signal, cabinet and luminaire mast arm extensions. It shall be 69791 5 the State's responsibility, at its cost and expense, to maintain the interconnect and to perform all other traffic control signal and street light maintenance. 9. Brooklyn Center shall perpetuate an adequate electrical power supply to the service pad or pole, and upon completion of said traffic control signal with street lights installation (System "B ") shall continue to provide necessary electrical power for its operation at the cost and expense of Brooklyn Center. 10. Upon completion of the work contemplated in Paragraph 3b (System "B ") hereof, it shall be Brooklyn Center's responsibility,'at its cost and expense, to: (1) maintain the luminaries and all its components, including replacement of the luminaire if necessary; (2) relamp the traffic control signal and street lights; and (3) clean and paint the traffic control signal, cabinet and luminaire mast arm extensions. It shall be the State's responsibility, at its cost and expense, to maintain the interconnect and to perform all other traffic control signal and street light maintenance. 11. Any and all persons engaged in the aforesaid work to be performed by the State shall not be considered employees of Brooklyn Center or Robbinsdale and any and all claims that may or might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act of this State on behalf of said employees while so engaged, and any and all claims 69791 6 — made by any fourth party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work contemplated herein shall not be the obligation and responsibility of Brooklyn Center or Robbinsdale. The State shall not be responsible under the Worker's Compensation Act for any employees of Brooklyn Center or Robbinsdale. 12. Timing of the new and revised traffic control signals provided for herein shall be determined by the State, through its Commissioner of Transportation, and no changes shall be made therein except with the approval of the State. 13. Upon proper execution by Brooklyn Center, Robbinsdale and the State and completion of the Construction work provided for herein, this agreement shall supersede and terminate Agreement No. 55902, dated November 6, 1968, between Robbinsdale and the State for the intersection of Trunk Highway No. 100 at Indiana Avenue North. 14. Upon proper execution by Brooklyn Center, Robbinsdale and the State and completion of the Construction work provided for herein, this agreement shall supersede and terminate Agreement g Bement No. 59878, dated May 27, 1980, between Brooklyn Center Y Y and the State for the intersection of Trunk Highway No. 100 at France Avenue North. 69791 7 - CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER APPROVED AS TO FORM: By City Attorney Mayor (City Seal) By City Manager CITY OF ROBBINSDALE APPROVED AS TO FORM: By City Attorney Mayor (City Seal) By City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By Assistant Division Engineer Assistant Commissioner Operations Division Dated APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION: DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION By Assistant Attorney General —State of Minnesota Dated 69791 — 8 — CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/24/92 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES DEPT. APPROVAL: S Y Knapp, ector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /atta ed SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached The attached resolution represents the official Council action required to expedite removal of the trees most recently marked by the City tree inspector, in accordance with approved procedures. It is anticipated that this resolution will be submitted for Council consideration each meeting during the summer and fall as new trees are marked. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION It is recommended the Council adopt the attached resolution. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES (ORDER NO. DST 08/24/92 ) WHEREAS, a Notice to Abate Nuisance and Diseased Tree Removal Agreement has been issued to the owners of certain properties in the City of Brooklyn Center giving the owners twenty (20) days to remove diseased trees on the owners' property; and WHEREAS, the City can expedite the removal of these diseased trees by declaring them a public nuisance: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn n Center Minnesota that: 1. The diseased trees at the following addresses are hereby declared to be a public nuisance: TREE PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY ADDRESS NUMBER ---------------------- - - - - -- ----------------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- ROSELLA LANE 6912 JUNE AVE N 224 ANDREW & LISA HOCKERT 6512 DREW AVE N 225 MERLE BIGGS 3910 65TH AVE N 226 WARREN & MYRTLE KENISTON 5007 61ST AVE N 227 JAMES GENADEK 6307 XERXES AVE N 228 CITY OF B.C. N OF 5611 LYNDALE AVE 229 GARRY & DONNA ARMSTRONG 701 69TH AVE N 230 RICHARD & KATHRYN SCHULTZ 701 68TH AVE N 231 JAMES LEADER 3301 QUARLES RD 232 FRANCES WOODSON 6206 XERXES AVE N 233 SYLVIA JORGENSON 6001 ZENITH AVE N 234 JUNE RATH 5948 ZENITH AVE N 235 BRUCE & JOAN OLSON 6538 EWING AVE N 236 DONALD & ALMA BRUNSELL 6526 DWING AVE N 237 DONALD & ALMA BRUNSELL 6526 EWING AVE N 238 JAMES & JOAN BURRIS 3601 66TH AVE N 239 RUDOLPH OLSON 6505 BROOKLYN BLVD. 240 HAROLD & LOIS VASENIUS 3007 MUMFORD RD 241 JOSEPH & RUTH CLARK 6043 EWING AVE N 242 WM. & CHRISTINE BURGGRAFF 4006 JANET LA 243 KEVIN GROVES 5556 LOGAN AVE N 244 KENNETH & JULIE HIRTE 4113 61ST AVE N 245 STERNFELS & ASSOC. 6637 HUMBOLDT AVE N 246 STERNFELS & ASSOC. 6637 HUMBOLDT AVE N 247 STERNFELS & ASSOC. 6637 HUMBOLDT AVE N 248 STERNFELS & ASSOC. 6637 HUMBOLDT AVE N 249 STERNFELS & ASSOC. 6637 HUMBOLDT AVE N 250 STERNFELS & ASSOC. 6637 HUMBOLDT AVE N 251 STERNFELS & ASSOC. 6637 HUMBOLDT AVE N 252 STERNFELS & ASSOC. 6637 HUMBOLDT AVE N 253 STERNFELS & ASSOC. 6637 HUMBOLDT AVE N 254 RESOLUTION NO. STERNFELS & ASSOC. 6637 HUMBOLDT AVE N 255 STERNFELS & ASSOC. 6637 HUMBOLDT AVE N 256 STERNFELS & ASSOC. 6637 HUMBOLDT AVE N 257 STERNFELS & ASSOC. 6637 HUMBOLDT AVE N 258 STERNFELS & ASSOC. 6637 HUMBOLDT AVE N 259 SERNFELS & ASSOC. 6637 HUMBOLDT AVE N 260 STERNFELS & ASSOC. 6637 HUMBOLDT AVE N 261 CAROLINE PEMBROOK 4206 61ST AVE N 262 2. After twenty (20) days from the date of the notice, the property owner(s) will receive a second written notice providing five (5) business days in which to contest the determination of the City Council by requesting, in writing, a hearing. Said request shall be filed with the City Clerk. 3. After five (5) days, if the property owner fails to request a hearing, the tree(s) shall be removed by the City. All removal costs, including legal, financing, and administrative charges, shall be specially assessed against the property. Date Mayor ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk 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 8/24/92 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST .FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AMENDING SCHEDULES B AND I OF THE 1992 PAY PLAN DEPT. APPROVAL: hg&zt�� Geralyn R. Barone, Personnel Coordinator 5C * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOM ENDATION: A ' ;tea No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached kACyt�c * * *At 7k * * *7K 7K * #%cIc7K 7 KK 7 Kk 7 K* �c********** K7k�cMt*** kKkK7K9C�c %k *:Ic�t7KKKK * *yc *7K * * *�c *Mt Mt At *7K *Mt #KKK :K :KKK * * * *:F SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • At its August 10, 1992, meeting, the city council approved an adjustment to Schedules B and I of the 1992 pay plan which provides a 2.9% increase to the executive employees' pay schedule. Attached is a resolution making this action official. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Pass A Resolution Amending Schedules B and I of the 1992 Pay Plan Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING SCHEDULES B AND I OF THE 1992 PAY PLAN WHEREAS, City of Brooklyn Center Resolution No. 91 -283 sets wages and salaries for calendar year 1992; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 91 -283 resolved that Schedule B (executive plan) would remain at the 1991 level of compensation until an analysis of the executive plan had been completed; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 91 -283 further resolved that the executive position salaries would be maintained at the 1991 levels and authorized the city manager to provide incentive pay of up to 2.9% to each executive until the study was completed and the schedule revised; and WHEREAS, a comprehensive analysis of the executive plan has been completed and was reviewed by the City Council at its August 10, 1992, meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council has directed that the 1992 pay plan be amended to reflect a 2.9% wage adjustment in Schedules B and I and to authorize the city manager to make proper salary adjustments as provided for in the pay plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Schedules B, B -1, B -2, and I of the 1992 pay plan are hereby amended by adoption of the attached schedules. 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. (YYPC7B) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1992 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE B EXECUTIVE POSITIONS ANNUAL SALARY SCHEDULE EXECUTIVE PLAN ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RANGE I RANGE II RANGE III GROWTH PERFORMANCE MERIT ---------- - - - - -- ------------------- - - - - -- --------------- POSITION MINIMUM MAXIMUM MINIMUM MIDPOINT MAXIMUM MINIMUM MAXIMUM --------------- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- City Manager $67,442 $75,377 $76,170 $79,344 $83,311 $84,105 $91,246 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director of Public Works $55,264 $61,766 $62,416 $65,017 $68,268 $68,918 $74,770 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director of Finance/ City Treasurer $51,386 $57,431 $58,036 $60,454 $63,477 $64,081 $69,522 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chief of Police $50,052 $55,941 $56,530 $58,885 $61,829 $62,418 $67,718 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director of Recreation $45,115 $50,423 $50,954 $53,077 $55,731 $56,262 $61,039 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director of Planning and Inspection $44,632 $49,883 $50,408 $52,508 $55,133 $55,658 $60,384 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fire Chief $43,626 $48,759 $49,272 $51,325 $53,891 $54,405 $59,024 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- City Assessor $42,775 $47,807 $48,310 $50,323 $52,839 $53,342 $57,871 Liquor $38,151 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERVALS: Each range has a spread of approximately 35% from minimum to maximum. The minimum is approximately 85% and the maximum is approximately 115% of the midpoint. SALARY RANGES: I: GROWTH RANGE. The lower range (approximately 85% to 95% of the midpoint) should normally include relatively inexperienced employees, as well as those whose performance remains below fully satisfactory levels. II. PERFORMANCE RANGE: The middle range (approximately 96% to 105% of the midpoint) should include the normally experienced, fully satisfactory employees and represent the established "going- rates ". III. MERIT RANGE. The top range (approximately 106% to 115% of the midpoint) should include only those employees who have demonstrated superior performance over a significant period on the job or at comparable levels of responsibility. SALARY SETTING AUTHORITY: The City Council must approve individual salary adjustments within Merit Range III. Salaries within Growth Range I and Performance Range II may be established by the City Manager. The City Manager is authorized to set salaries below the minimum range when performance or qualifications are less then required for the position. The City Manager's salary is established by the City Council. OVERTIME: These positions are exempt from overtime. -4- (AAPC7B1) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1992 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE B -1 EXECUTIVE POSITIONS ANNUAL SALARY CONVERSION SCHEDULE EXECUTIVE PLAN ----------------------------------------------- - - - - -- CONVERSION TABLE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RANGE I RANGE II RANGE III GROWTH PERFORMANCE MERIT ---------- - - - - -- ------------------- - - - - -- --------------- POSITION MINIMUM MAXIMUM MINIMUM MIDPOINT MAXIMUM MINIMUM MAXIMUM --------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- City Manager Annual: $67,442 $75,377 $76,170 $79,344 $83,311 $84,105 $91,246 Monthly: $5,620 $6,281 $6,348 $6,612 $6,943 $7,009 $7,604 Hourly: $32.177 $35.962 $36.341 $37.855 $39.748 $40.126 $43.533 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director of Annual: $55,264 $61,766 $62,416 $65,017 $68,268 $68,918 $74,770 Public Works Monthly: $4,605 $5,147 $5,201 $5,418 $5,689 $5,743 $6,231 Hourly: $26.367 $29.469 $29.779 $31.020 $32.571 $32.881 $35.672 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director of Annual: $51,386 $57,431 $58,036 $60,454 $63,477 $64,081 $69,522 Finance /City Monthly: $4,282 $4,786 $4,836 $5,038 $5,290 $5,340 $5,794 Treasurer Hourly: $24.516 $27.400 $27.689 $28.843 $30.285 $30.573 $33.169 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chief of Police Annual: $50,052 $55,941 $56,530 $58,885 $61,829 $62,418 $67,718 Monthly: $4,171 $4,662 $4,711 $4,907 $5,152 $5,202 $5,643 Hourly: $23.880 $26.689 $26.970 $28.094 $29.499 $29.780 $32.308 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director of Annual: $45,115 $50,423 $50,954 $53,077 $55,731 $56,262 $61,039 Recreation Monthly: $3,760 $4,202 $4,246 $4,423 $4,644 $4,688 $5,087 Hourly: $21.525 $24.057 $24.310 $25.323 $26.589 $26.842 $29.121 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director of Annual: $44,632 $49,883 $50,408 $52,508 $55,133 $55,658 $60,384 Planning and Monthly: $3,719 $4,157 $4,201 $4,376 $4,594 $4,638 $5,032 Inspection Hourly: $21.294 $23.799 $24.049 $25.052 $26.304 $26.555 $28.809 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fire Chief Annual: $43,626 $48,759 $49,272 $51,325 $53,891 $54,405 $59,024 Monthly: $3,636 $4,063 $4,106 $4,277 $4,491 $4,534 $4,919 Hourly: $20.814 $23.263 $23.508 $24.487 $25.711 $25.956 $28.160 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- City Assessor Annual: $42,775 $47,807 $48,310 $50,323 $52,839 $53,342 $57,871 Monthly: $3,565 $3,984 $4,026 $4,194 $4,403 $4,445 $4,823 - --------- - - - - -- Hourly: $20.408 $22.809 $23.049 $24.009 $25.210 $25.450 $27.610 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Liquor Stores Annual: $38,151 $42,640 $43,089 $44,884 $47,128 $47,577 $51,617 Manager Monthly: $3,179 $3,553 $3,591 $3,740 $3,927 $3,965 $4,301 Hourly: $18.202 $20.343 $20.558 $21.414 $22.485 $22.699 $24.626 --------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: The Executive positions are classified as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and are compensated at an annual salary. This schedule converts the annual salary to a monthly salary by dividing the annual salary by twelve months. The schedule converts the annual salary to an hourly equivalent by dividing the annual salary by the normal work 4111 hours in the current year. The number of normal work hours is determined by subtracting Saturdays and Sundays from the total number of days in the year and multiplying that number by eight hours. There are 2,096 normal work hours in 1992. This conversion schedule is for informational purposes only and is not an official wage schedule. -5- (AAPCIB2) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1992 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE B -2 EXECUTIVE POSITIONS 1992 MAXIMUM ANNUAL SALARIES ESTABLISHED EXECUTIVE POSITIONS ------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- 1992 ANNUAL SALARY MAXIMUMS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IN ADDITION TO THE SALARY SETTING AUTHORITY GRANTED THE CITY MANAGER IN EXECUTIVE PLAN SCHEDULE B TO SET SALARIES IN GROWTH RANGE I AND PERFORMANCE RANGE II, THE CITY MANAGER IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO SET INDIVIDUAL SALARIES WITHIN MERIT RANGE III DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR 1992 TO THE MAXIMUM SALARIES SHOWN IN THIS SCHEDULE. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONVERSION TABLE MAXIMUM MONTHLY HOURLY POSITION ANNUAL SALARY EQUIVALENT EQUIVALENT --------------------- - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- Director of Public Works $69,636 $5,803 $33.223 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director of Finance/ City Treasurer - - - - -- - -- - - - - - -- $66,014 - -- - - - - -- $5,501 $31.495 ---------------------------- - - - - -- --------------- -- Chief of Police $64,302 $5,359 $30.679 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: The Executive positions are classified as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and are compensated at an annual salary. This schedule also converts the annual salary to monthly and hourly. The conversions are for informational purposes only and are not a part of the official wage schedule. -6- AAPC7I) ITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1992 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE I 1992 CITY MANAGER'S COMPENSATION AGREEMENT CITY MANAGER'S ------------------------------------ - - - - -- COMPENSATION AGREEMENT i ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT: ---------------------------------- 1. The City Charter, adopted by the voters of the City of Brooklyn Center on November 8, 1966, created the position of City Manager. 2. Gerald G. Splinter was appointed City Manager effective October 17, 1977 (Resolution No. 77 -168) and is currently serving in that position. 3. The position of City Manager is not covered by the provisions of Chapter 17 of the City Ordinances. 4. Other conditions of employment are hereby explicitly stated: a. Mr. Splinter shall perform the duties and meet the obligations for the position of City Manager as set forth in the City Charter and Chapter 6 of the City Ordinances. b. Mr. Splinter's salary for 1992 shall be $80,465 per annum and adjustment to the City Manager's salary shall be reviewed annually in conjunction with the establishment of salaries for City employees. c. The City Manager shall be granted sick leave and holiday benefits granted to other employees and commencing January 1, 1983 he will earn four weeks vacation per year. d. The City Manager shall reside within Brooklyn Center within twelve months following the effective date of appointment. e. The full premium cost for individual and family coverage under the Brooklyn Center Group Health and Dental Plan and /or Insurance Plan and the full premium cost for two times his annual salary of term life insurance under the Brooklyn Center Group Life Insurance Plan shall be paid by the City on the City Manager's behalf. It may be necessary, in order to maintain IRS nontax status of all employee insurance benefits, to modify this section of the City Manager's compensation package. If the Finance Director recommends modification in the payment of the City Manager's insur- ance benefits as the simplest and most effective method for assuring "qualification" of Brooklyn Center's employee group insurance plans under IRS regulations, then the City Manager's salary is to be adjusted an equivalent amount to compensate for any reduction in insurance benefits. f. The City Manager shall receive $250 per month if the City does not provide a car for the City Manager's twenty -four hour business use. -17- 1992 City Manager's Compensation Agreement, Schedule I, Continued: ---------------------------------------------------------------- g. In the event of resignation, notice thereof shall be submitted in writing to the City Council at least 30 days prior to the effective date. h. In the event of dismissal by the City Council, the City Manager shall be notified at least 30 days in advance of the effective date of dismissal and shall be furnished a written statement of the reasons therefor, and further, shall be granted a hearing thereon, if requested. i. In the event of voluntary resignation or death, the City Manager shall receive severance pay based on 100% of his unused vacation leave and one -third of his unused sick leave. j. In the event of involuntary resignation or dismissal, severance pay based on 100% of his unused vacation leave and one -third of his unused sick leave plus eight months pay (to include health, dental, and life insurance premiums) shall be paid to the City Manager. However, in the event that the City Manager is terminated because of his conviction of any illegal act involving personal gain to him, the City shall have no obligation to pay the eight months severance sum designated in this paragraph. k. Minnesota State Law provides City Managers with a choice of pension plans: PERA or a deferred compensation fund. The City of Brooklyn Center will contribute to the qualified fund of the City Manager's choice a dollar amount equivalent to the required PERA contribution. 1. The City will, at a minimum, provide the cost for the City Manager to attend the state or national ICMA conferences or job - related courses, seminars, or training of equivalent cost. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 40 -18- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date Aueust 24, 1992 Agenda Item Number l/oE_ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ******************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF A LAWFUL GAMBLING LICENSE TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB TO OPERATE A PULL -TAB BOOTH AT THE LYNBROOK BOWL DEPT. APPRO : 7a s L dsay, Chief ce, 9*� MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONBIENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached • SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached yes ) The City of Brooklyn Center has received an application for a Minnesota Lawful Gambling License to operate a pull -tab booth at the Lynbrook Bowl. The Lions presently operate a pull -tab booth at the Earle Brown Bowl and have for some time. The Lions previously had a pull -tab booth at the Lynbrook Bowl, which they had operated for some time. As you are aware, there was a gambling arrest made at the Lynbrook Bowl in November of 1991. At that time, an individual was selling numbers on sporting events. Although the Brooklyn Center Lions were not involved in this incident in any way, the State requires all gambling on the premises be suspended for a year. A new license application is required for the sight. If approved by the City Council, the license would become effective in November of 1992. The Brooklyn Center Police Department and the State Charitable Gambling Control Board have had no problems with the conduct of the Brooklyn Center Lions Club with regard to their gambling licenses. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION The City Council approve the resolution authorizing issuance of a lawful gambling license to the Brooklyn Center Lions Club to operate a pull -tab booth at the Lynbrook Bowl. IAE Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF A LAWFUL GAMBLING LICENSE TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB TO OPERATE A PULL -TAB BOOTH AT THE LYNBROOK BOWL WHEREAS, the Minnesota Charitable Gambling Control Board requires a municipality to submit a resolution authorizing issuance of any lawful gambling license within its borders; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Lions Club has held and currently holds such licenses within the City of Brooklyn Center and has been no problem; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center allows for such conduct on premises within the City of Brooklyn Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the issuance of a lawful gambling license to the Brooklyn Center Lions Club to operate a pull -tab booth at the Lynbrook Bowl is hereby approved. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date August 24, 1992 Agenda Item Number / REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB DEPT. APPROVAL: I�L an"V � Arnie Mavis, Director of Park and Recreation MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMMNDATION: No comments to supplement, this report Comments below /attached • SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB WHEREAS, the main goal of the Brooklyn Center Lions Club is to help serve people in the community; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Lions Club has sponsored the Earle Brown Days Parade in 1991 and 1992; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Lions Club has been vital in the continuation and success of the Earle Brown Days parade; and WHEREAS, their public service and civic effort for the betterment of the community merit the gratitude of the citizens of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that their service to the community should be recognized and expressed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the dedicated public service of the Brooklyn Center Lions Club is hereby recognized and appreciated by the City of Brooklyn Center. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date Aueu3t 24, 1992 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION DECLARING HERITAGE FESTIVAL AS A CIVIC EVENT FROM OCTOBER 19 THROUGH OCTOBER 24, 1992 DEPT. APPROVAL: Arnie Mavis, Director of Park and Recreation MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOAMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached • SUNMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING HERITAGE FESTIVAL AS A CIVIC EVENT FROM OCTOBER 19 THROUGH OCTOBER 24 1992 WHEREAS, the purpose of the Heritage Festival is to encourage a climate within our communities that is sensitive and welcoming to a changing and diversified population, and to offer an opportunity whereby all residents can experience a sense of belonging and ownership within their community, and to celebrate the myriad of activities already happening that promote cooperation between various cultures; and WHEREAS, residents, the city community civic groups, and businesses participate in the annual civic event to celebrate the diversity of the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, in order for the Heritage Festival to schedule certain events requiring City- issued administrative land use permits, it is necessary for the Heritage Festival to be declared a civic event. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the Heritage Festival is declared a civic event from October 19, through October 24, 1992. 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 Aueust za. I992 Agenda Item Num]xe, REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING THE FIRST STAGE OF A FOUR - CITY BUSINESS RETENTION AND LOCAL MARKE EXPANSION PILOT PROJECT DEPT. APPROVAL: Brad Hoffman, EDA Coordinator MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMNIENDATION. �J J No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SLTNDLIARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • This resolution authorizes the execution of an agreement between the State of Minnesota and the City of Brooklyn Center to be the recipient of $50,000 for the development of local business retention /job expansion program. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING THE FIRST STAGE OF A FOUR -CITY BUSINESS RETENTION AND LOCAL MARKET EXPANSION PILOT PROJECT WHEREAS, the cities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, and Blaine have entered into a Joint Powers Agreement to develop and promote a business retention and local market expansion program; and WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center has been designated as the City to be the recipient and coordinator of grants and funds from outside sources; and WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota has awarded Brooklyn Center a $50,000 grant for the purpose of developing the pilot business expansion /retention program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Brooklyn Center enter into a grant agreement with the State of Minnesota for the purpose of conducting the first stage of a four -city business retention and local market expansion pilot project to be conducted during the period from July 1, 1992 through July 1, 1993. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Agreement a Grnt Agre i _ _ _ SPAP 92 0007 P _ FY93 This agreement is made between the State of Minnesota, acting through the Department of Trade and Economic Development (hereinafter the Grantor) and the City of Brooklyn Center (hereinafter the Grantee). Pursuant to Minnesota Laws, 1992, Chapter 513, Article 4, Section 17, Subsection (2), the Grantor has been allocated funds by the Legislature of the State of Minnesota for the purpose of conducting the first stage of a four -city business retention and local market expansion pilot project. In consideration of mutual promises set forth below, the parties agree as follows: The Grantor shall grant to the Grantee the total sum of FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($50,000), which shall be state funds appropriated by the Legislature of the State of Minnesota. Funds made available pursuant to the Agreement shall be used only for project costs in performing and accomplishing such purposes as described herein by Minnesota Laws, 1992, Chapter 513, Article 4, Section 17, Subsection (2) and the project proposal which is incorporated by reference. Accounting For all expenditures of funds made pursuant to this agreement, the Grantee shall keep financial records including properly executed contracts, invoices, and other documents sufficient to evidence in proper detail the nature and propriety of the expenditures. Payment Grantor shall disburse the entire grant to the Grantee, pursuant to this agreement based upon a request for payment submitted by the Grantee and reviewed and approved by the Grantor. Term The Grantee shall perform and accomplish such purposes and activities specified herein during the period of July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993. Reporting P 9 Grantee shall submit to the Grantor a report on the distribution of funds and the progress of the project pursuant to Minnesota Laws, 1992, Chapter 513, Article 4, Section 17 (2) no later than July 15 of each year. The report shall identify specific project goals listed in the project proposal and quantitatively and qualitatively measure the progress of such goals. The report shall include data collected by the project for use by the Department of Trade and Economic Development. -1- Provisions for Contracts and Subgrants The Grantee shall include in any contract and subgrant, in addition to provisions that define a sound and complete agreement, such provisions that also assure contractor and subgrantee compliance with applicable state and federal laws. Termination Clause If the Grantor finds that there has been a failure to comply with the provisions of this agreement, that reasonable progress has not been made, or that the purposes for which the funds were granted have not been or will not be fulfilled, notwithstanding n other provisions of this agreement to the 9 Y P 9 contrary, the Grantor may take action to protect the interests of the State of Minnesota, including the refusal to disburse additional funds and requiring the return of all or part of funds already disbursed. Affirmative Action A municipality that receives State money for any reason is encouraged to prepare and implement an affirmative action plan for the employment of minority persons, women, and the disabled and submit the plan to the Commissioner of Human Rights. Audit and Inspection Accounts and records related to the funds provided under this agreement shall be accessible to authorized representatives of the Grantor for the purposes of examination and audit. In addition, Grantee, subgrantee and contractors will give the State of Minnesota, Department of Trade and Economic Development, Legislative Auditor and State Auditor's Office, through any authorized representatives, access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the grant for inspection and audit. Amendments Any amendments to this agreement shall be in writing, and shall be executed by either the same parties who executed the original agreement, their successors in office, or by those parties authorized by the Grantee through a formal resolution of its governing body. Antitrust The Grantee and Subgrantees hereby assign to the State of Minnesota any and all claims for overcharges for goods and /or services provided in connection with this contract resulting from antitrust violations which arise under the antitrust laws of the United States and the antitrust laws of the State of Minnesota. Successors and Assignees This agreement shall be binding upon any successors or assignees of the parties. -2- Notice to Grantee You are required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 270.66, to provide your Minnesota tax identification number if you do business with the State of Minnesota. This information may be used in the enforcement of federal and state tax laws. Supplying these numbers could result in action to require you to file state tax returns and pay delinquent state tax liabilities. This contract will not be approved unless these numbers are provided. These numbers will be available to federal and state tax authorities and state personnel involved in the payment of state obligations. Minnesota Tax ID Federal Employer ID The Grantor and Grantee acknowledge their assent to this agreement and agree to be bound by its terms through their signatures entered below. This Agreement is effective upon execution by the Commissioner of Finance or its designee. APPROVED: GRANTEE: I have read and I agree to all of the above Commissioner of Administration provisions of this agreement. By B Date Title Date APPROVED: Commissioner of Finance STATE OF MINNESOTA by and through the Department of By Trade and Economic Development Date B Title APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION: Date Attorney General's Office By Date 8 7 -1 -3- ' CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/24192 Agenda Item Number REQUEST. FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ******************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION CALLING SPECIAL ELECTION FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CITY CHARTER AND FIXING FORM OF BALLOTS, NOVEMBER 3, 1992 DEPT. APP OVAL: Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk ************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOM MNDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUNEVIARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) At the July 27, 1992, City Council meeting, the Charter Commission presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 2 of the Brooklyn Center City Charter. The City Council has directed staff to prepare documentation necessary to place the proposed charter amendment as a question on the ballot for the November 3, 1992, general election. 1. Date of Election. Although the Charter Commission has requested that the amendment be voted on at the general election, the setting of the election is a matter which is within the discretion of the City Council. Under Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.10, subd. 1, the City Council is required to submit the question to the voters at the next general election since the next general election is within six months of the date the question was presented to the City Council. However, that same section authorizes the City Council to call a special election to consider only the charter amendment at any time provided it is within ninety days after the delivery of the draft amendment to the City Council. 2. Recall of Amendment. At any time before the City Council has fixed the date for the election, a charter commission may recall its proposal. After the City Council has fixed a date for an election, the commission may recall the proposed amendment only with the approval of the City Council. The proposed amendment may not be withdrawn after the first publication of the proposed charter amendment. 3. Notice of Election. Under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 410.10 and 410.12, subd. 4, the notice of election, which is published twice (once a week for two succession weeks), is to contain the complete text of the charter amendment. 4. Form of Ballot Question. Under Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, subd. 4, the form of the ballot is to be fixed by the City Council. This subdivision provides that "the statement of the question on the ballot shall be sufficient to identify the amendment clearly and to distinguish the question from every other question on the ballot at the same time ". The wording f ballot questions can become very controversial g q ry t oversial because it is felt by many that the way a question is worded may influence the vote of the electorate. Therefore, the Council should be very careful to attempt to assure that the form of the ballot is as fair, objective, and neutral as possible. Following are three options for wording: OPTION I SHALL THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT BE ADOPTED? YES NO OPTION II SHALL THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER ON , 1992, AND , 1992, BE ADOPTED? YES NO OPTION III SHALL THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT RELATING TO THE PROCEDURE FOR FILLING VACANCIES ON THE CITY COUNCIL BY APPOINTMENT OR BY SPECIAL ELECTION BE ADOPTED? YES NO The ballot question must be submitted to the County Auditor by September 16, 1992, in order to be placed on the November 3, 1992, general election ballot. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Choose or amend wording from Options I, II, or III for the ballot question and incorporate the wording chosen into the resolution and Pass A Resolution Calling Special Election for Submission of Proposed Amendments to City Charter and Fixing Form of Ballots, November 3, 1992 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CALLING SPECIAL ELECTION FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CITY CHARTER AND FIXING FORM OF BALLOTS, NOVEMBER 3, 1992 WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Charter Commission, appointed by the District Court of Hennepin County for the City of Brooklyn Center, has on July 27, 1992, delivered to the Mayor of the City proposed amendments to Section 2.05 of the Home Rule Charter duly adopted by the Charter Commission; and WHEREAS, the said proposal is to amend said Section 2.05 to read in its entirety as follows: (brackets indicate material to be deleted, underline indicates new material) Section 2.05 VACANCIES IN THE COUNCIL. [The office of Mayor or Council member shall become vacant upon death, resignation, removal from office in any manner authorized by law or forfeiture of the office.] When, for any reason a vacancy should occur in the City Council or office of the Mayor, the City Council must publicly declare such vacancy ( 10 within ten s of its occurrence. The ) days Mayor or Council member shall forfeit the office for (1) lack at any time during the term of office of any qualification for the office prescribed by this charter or by law_, (2) violation of any express prohibition of this charter, (3) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, [or] (4) failure to attend three consecutive regular meetings of the Council without being excused by the Council[.] , or (5) departure of residence from the City. [A vacancy in the Council shall be filled temporarily by the Council and then by the voters for the reminder of the term at the next regular election unless that election occurs within one hundred (100) days from the occurrence of the vacancy, this period being necessary to allow time for candidates to file. The Council by a majority vote of all its remaining members shall appoint a qualified person to fill the vacancy until the person elected to serve the remainder of the unexpired term takes office. If the Council fails to fill a vacancy within thirty (30) days, the election authorities shall call a special election to fill the vacancy. The election will be held not sooner than ninety (90) days and not later than one hundred twenty (120) days following the occurrence of the vacancy and to be otherwise governed by the provisions of Section 4.03, special elections. The quorum of the Council consists of three (3) members, if at any time the membership of the council is reduced to less than three (3), the remaining members may by unanimous action appoint additional members to raise the membership to three (3).] Section 2.05A. PROCEDURES TO FILL COUNCIL VACANCIES. If the unexpired term of the council vacancy is less than one year, the RESOLUTION NO. Council by a ma'ority vote of all its remaining members shall appoint a qualified person to fill the vacancy. If the Council fails to fill a vacancy within thirty (30) days the City Clerk shall call a special election to fill the vacancy. The election will be held not sooner than ninety (90) days and not later than one hundred twenty (120) days following the occurrence of the vacancy and to be otherwise governed by the provisions of Section 4.03, Special Elections If the unexpired term of the council vacancy is one year or longer, a special election shall be called by the Council or by the City Clerk if the Council fails to act within thirty (30) days The election will be held not sooner than ninety (90) days and not later than one hundred twenty (120) days following the occurrence of the vacancy and to be otherwise governed by the provisions of Section 4.03, Special Elections If more than two candidates file for the unexpired term a primary election shall be held The quorum of the Council consists of three (3) members; if at any time the membership of the Council is reduced to less than three (3) the remaining members may by unanimous action appoint additional members to raise the membership to three (3). THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center: 1. That the question of the adoption of said proposed amendments to the Home Rule Charter of the City shall be submitted to vote of the electors of the City at a special election which is hereby called to be held at the regular polling places in the City on the 3rd day of November, 1992, concurrently with the general City election to be held on said date. 2. The Clerk is authorized and directed to cause notice of the time and places of holding such election and of the issue to be submitted to the voters by publishing a notice thereof once each week in the official newspaper of the City for two (2) successive weeks prior to said election. 3. The Clerk is authorized and directed to cause suitable ballots to be prepared for said election which shall be in substantially the following form: SHALL ...(BALLOT LANGUAGE TO BE DECIDED BY CITY COUNCIL AND INSERTED HERE] RESOLUTION NO. 4. Such election shall be held and conducted and the returns thereof made and canvassed in the manner prescribed by law for such an election in the City. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date Aueust 24, 1992 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1992 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM DRUG FORFEITURE MONIES ******************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROV Q James in ay, Chief of Police MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONEV%I ATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUIVEVIARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached des ) The police department currently has $4,235 in forfeiture monies available. The police department's forfeiture committee has met and considered all requests. The committee also prioritizes requests for purchase as funds become available. At this time, funds are available to purchase seven items requested for various functions of the department. The items requested are as follows. The first item to be purchased is Smith and Wesson 9 mm handguns. These are the same model guns the department issues to all officers. The department has received notification that Smith & Wesson will no longer be making this model handgun. The department is requesting to purchase three guns as spares in the same model as officers currently use. The purchase of three guns would cost $975. The next item to be purchased are halloween bags for use at the department's substation. The department believes this will help the officers be closer to the community and they will give the bags out in the area. Bags will have safety tips for halloween on the front. The purchase of 1,500 bags costs $250. The next two items involve training for department personnel. One request was to send members of the department's EOU team to a training in Camp Dodge, Iowa. The department has fiends to cover half of the request in its regular training budget, the remainder will come from forfeiture funds. The second request was for monies to provide training for the clerical staff of the department. During the cuts to the 1992 these funds were eliminated from the budget. The total request for training funds comes to $955. The EOU team requested to purchase black nylon bags for each member to carry his equipment. This allows the member to keep the items handy at all times and easy to grab when called out for a situation. The total for the purchase of 11 bags is $293. The next item involves traffic safety posts and warning signs. The department currently carries some traffic cones in each squad car to use in case of accidents and other situations. OSHA has new • regulations which require these items to have reflectorized material on them. We would like to purchase several of the new style posts in both the 28" and 42" sizes for the vehicles and for special uses. We would also like to purchase several warning signs such as directional signs for the officers' use. This total request is $1,452. The last request was to purchase two clocks for use at the substation. The cost to purchase two clocks is $53. The total for these purchases is $3,978. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION: The City Council adopt the resolution amending the 1992 general fund budget, approving the purchase of items and authorizing the transfer of funds from drug forfeiture monies. • i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1992 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM DRUG FORFEITURE MONIES WHEREAS, Section 7.08 of the City Charter does provide for the increase of a budget appropriation by the City Council if the actual receipts exceed the estimates, but not to exceed the actual receipts; and WHEREAS, the actual receipts for the drug forfeiture account #3897 do exceed the estimates by $3,978; and WHEREAS, 1988 Laws of Minnesota C.665 provides for seizure and forfeiture of property used in commission of crime and proceeds of crime and contraband; and WHEREAS, said laws require that said property kept under said laws may be used only in the performance of official duties of the appropriate agency and may not be used for any other purpose; and WHEREAS, 70% of the sale of property may be used by the Brooklyn Center Police Department as a supplement to its operating fund for use in law enforcement; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by the adoption of Resolution No. 88 -195 on November 21, 1988; did authorize the Director of Finance to appropriate said proceeds to the Police Department Budget as they are received to the extent that said proceeds exceed five thousand dollars in any calendar year and then said excess will be reported to the City Council for its appropriation; and WHEREAS, the City Manager and the Chief of Police have recommended the purchase of 3 Smith & Wesson 9 mm handguns, bags for the substation, training, traffic safety posts and signs, bags for the EOU team, and 2 clocks for the substation; and have further recommended that these costs be appropriated from the balance of the drug forfeiture money. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to authorize the purchase of equipment at a total cost of $3,978; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to authorize an appropriation of $3,978 from forfeited property proceeds for these purchases and costs; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to amend the 1992 General Fund Budget as follows: RESOLUTION NO. Increase the Estimated Revenues from Forfeited Drug Money (3479) by $3,978. Increase Department 31, Police Protection, 4220 Operating Supplies by $2,048. Increase Department 31, Police Protection, 4411 Training by $955. Increase Department 31, Police Protection, 4552 Other Equipment by $975. 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 8 -2 4-92 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF JAMES P. LINDSAY DEPT. APPROVAL: P — Patricia Page, Deputy City Clerk MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: ' No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached !� RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION I recommend approval of the attached resolution. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF JAMES P. LINDSAY WHEREAS, James P. Lindsay has served the City of Brooklyn Center as an employee since January 10, 1959 and will retire from City employment as Police Chief on September 11, 1992; and WHEREAS, over the years he has progressed through the ranks of the Police Department and has been Police Chief since 1978; and WHEREAS, his devotion to the tasks and responsibilities in the Police Department has contributed to the institution of such community programs as Crime Prevention Fund, Telephone Assurance Program, D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education), Juvenile Diversionary Program, Domestic Abuse Intervention Program and most recently C.O.P. (Community Oriented Policing); and WHEREAS, his public service and civic effort for the betterment of the community merit the gratitude of the citizens of Brooklyn Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, that the dedicated public service of James P. Lindsay is recognized and appreciated by the City of Brooklyn Center and that the City wishes him a long and happy retirement. 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 8/24/92 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES DEPT. APPROVAL: 'J� Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONLUENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ******************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) Attached is the list of licenses to be approved by the city council. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Approve licenses. N .Licenses to be approved by the City Council on August 24, 1992: ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Axiom Marketing Brookdale Center P. Brooklyn Center Country Store 3600 - 63rd Ave. N. Sanitarian Zk- i GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE P � Waste Management - Blaine 10050 Naples St. NE Sanitarian ) C�k MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Pfiffner Heating & Air Conditioning 6301 Welcome Ave. N. Building Official RENTAL DWELLINGS Initial: Donald Steil, Dwaine Nelson, & Harriet Berg 620 - 53rd Ave. N. Esam & Tamera El- Fakahany 1215 -1217 54th Ave. N. Renewal: Gary D. Anakkala 5412 - 5412 Fremont Ave. N. James & Kathleen Utecht 5900 Washburn Ave. N. Ryan Lake Partners 3401 -3413 47th Ave. N. Director of Planning Ct and Inspections SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT (. 0 National ICEE 1600 Freeway Blvd. f Sanitarian i GENERAL APPROVAL: P. Page, Depdty Clerk I�