Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 07-27 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER JULY 27, 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. July 13, 1992 - Regular Session 8. Presentation: (7:15 p.m.) a. Charter Commission Amendment Recommendation 9. Planning Commission Items: (7:30 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 92009 submitted by Lutheran Church of the Triune God is a request for special use permit approval to operate a pre - school in the Lutheran Church of the Triune God located at 5827 Humboldt Avenue North. -This application was considered by the Planning Commission at its July 16, 1992, meeting and approval was recommended. b. Planning Commission Application No. 92010 submitted by New Horizon Child Care is a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to operate a day care center with a play area at the Humboldt Square Shopping Center located at 6800 Humboldt Avenue North. -This application was considered by the Planning Commission at its July 16, 1992, meeting and approval was recommended. 10. Discussion Items: a. Staff Report Regarding Status of 1992 Reforestation Program b. Water Management Task Force Recommendations Re: 63rd - 65th Avenue Storm Drainage System Improvements CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- July 27, 1992 C. Real Estate Sign Ordinance d. Financial Commission Terms e. State Retirement Incentive Program f. Restructuring of Police Department Management 1. Resolution Amending the 1992 Budget and Authorizing the Restructuring of the Police Department Management 11. Resolutions: a. Authorizing Mayor and City Manager to Execute Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County for the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program for year XVIII *b. Giving Preliminary Approval to the Issuance of Bonds to Refund the City of Brooklyn Center, City of Columbia Heights, City of Moorhead and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Robbinsdale, Minnesota, Single- Family Mortgage Revenue Bonds, Series 1982 *c. Accepting Work Performed and Approving Final Payment for Community Center Water Slide, Improvement Project No. 1990 -24, Contract 1991 -R *d. Accepting Work Performed and Approving Final Payment for Pool Filter Renovation, Improvement Project No. 1991 -26, Contract 1991 -U *e. Accepting Work Performed and Approving Final Payment for Remodeling Community Center Concession Stand, Improvement Project No. 1991 -28, Contract 1991 -W *f. Accepting Work Performed and Approving Final Payment for Security Improvement at Police Department Reception Counter, Improvement Project No. 1992 -07, Contract 1992 -F *g. Accepting Work Performed and Approving Final Payment for Lighting System Improvement in City Council Chambers, Improvement Project No. 1992 -08 *h. Providing for Hearing on Proposed Special Assessments for Diseased Shade Tree Removal Costs, Delinquent Public Utility Repair Accounts, Delinquent Public Utility Service Accounts, and Delinquent Weed Removal Costs -This resolution sets public hearings for these assessments on September 14. Notices of the public hearing will sent to all affected property owners and will be published in the City's official newspaper. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- July 27, 1992 i. Providing for Public Hearing Re: Special Assessments for West River Road, Improvement Project No. 1988 -18 *j. Approving Negotiated Agreement for the Purchase of Property at 4100 51st Avenue North, Improvement Project No. 1992 -12 - Brixius Property. *k. Approving Plans and Specifications and Directing Advertisement for Bids for Building Removal at 4100 51st Avenue North 1. Approving Change Order No. 2 to Contract 1992 -B for 69th Avenue Construction, Phase II, Improvement Project No. 1990 -10 *m. Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Diseased Trees (Order No. DST 7/27/92) *n. Accepting Bids and Authorizing Purchase of One (1) Copier - Approved in 1992 Budget. *o. Amending the 1992 General Fund Budget to Transfer Funds in Order to Vaccinate Certain City Employees Against Hepatitis B as Required by OSHA *p. Authorizing Execution of an Agreement between Metropolitan Clinic of Counseling, Inc. and the City of Brooklyn Center for an Employee Assistance Program *12. Licenses 13. Adjournment CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date July 27, 1992 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JULY 27, 1992 - REGULAR SESSION DEPT. APPROVAL: Patti A- Page, Deputy City Clerk MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOAMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUIVEVIARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JULY 13, 1992 CITY HALL CALL TQ ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Todd Paulson at 7 p.m. ROLL CALI. Mayor Todd Paulson, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Dave Rosene, and Philip Cohen. Councilmember Jerry Pedlar arrived at 9.40 p.m. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public, 'Works Sy Knapp, Assistant Director of Finance Charlie Hansen, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevcre, and Council Secretary Nancy Berg, OPENING CEREMONIES Elaine Burnards offered the invocation. OPEN FQRUM Beverly Koop, 5514 Colfax Avenue North, addressed the City Council stating her concern for herself and her daughter due to threats by her neighbor. She has a restraining order against the neighbor, and Ms. Koop is concerned that the Brooklyn Center police are not taking the order seriously. Ms. Koop provided the Council members with copies of the restraining order. The City Manager explained Ms. Koop and the neighbor each have restraining orders against each other, and the City Attorney is working with a mediator to resolve this matter. Mayor Paulson asked staff to prepare a report on the matter for the Councils review. The City Manager will call Ms. KQop next week when the report is available. Councilmember Rosene expressed his concern and stated the Council will give this matter their attention as quickly as possible. Councilmember Scott asked the report to include the date this occurred and what action has been taken by the City Attorney. 7/13/92 - 1 - APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Paulson inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items be removed from the consent agenda. None were made. APPROVAL Of MINUTES jjne 22.1992 - REGULAR SESSION There Was a motion by Councilmembcr &-ott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve the minutes of J'unc 22, 1992, regular session as printed. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTI RESOLUTION NO, 92 -155 Member Celia Scott introduccd the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO WRITE -OFF UNCOLLECI'IBLE CHECKS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO, 92 -156 Member Celia Scott introduccd the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT FROM THE ROTARY CLUB OF BROOKLYN CENTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLIIT__ OWN NQ Mcniber Celia Scott introduccd the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992- 13, AND TRAIL REPLACEMENT AT HUM13OLDT SQUARE, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -16, CONTRACT 1992 -I The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, acid the motion passed unanimously. 7/13/92 .2- RESOLUTION NO. 92 -158 Member Celia Scott introduced thc, following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR TRAIL REPLACEMENT Al' VARIOUS LOCATIONS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO, 1991 -07, CONTRACT 1991 -N The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 92 -159 Mcrnber Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR TRUNK SEWER REPLACEMENT UNDER I94/694, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO, 1992 -03, CONTRACT 1992 -D The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO, 92 -160 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR TRUNK SEWER REPLACEMENT IN 13RQOKDALE AREA, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO, 1992 -04, CONTRACT 1992 -C The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO, 92 -161 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR 1992 SEALCOATING, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -09, CONTRACT 1992 -G The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. i 7/13/92 - 3 - RESOLUTION NO. 92 - 162 Membcr Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption; RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SETTLEMENT OF CONDEMNATION ACTION; REGARDING PROPERTY AT 69TH AVENUE NORTH AND BROOKLYN BOULEVARD The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. RE OLUTIQN NO, 92 - 163 Membcr Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES (ORDER NO. 1)S 07/13/92) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. PERFORMANCE BOND R LEASES There was a motion by CounuilmCiuber Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve a Performance Bond release for Group Health, 6845 Lee Avenue North. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve a Performance Band release for Hoffman Engineering, 6530 James Avenue North. The motion passed unanimously. PERFORMANCE BOND REDUCT There was a motion by Councilmember 3uutt fluid seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve a Performance Bond reduction for Twin View Meadows Development, 51st and France Avenues North. The motion passed unanimously. NSIDEPSPECIFIED LICEN� There was a motion by Cvunc;ilmembor Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve a temporary On -Sale Into�dcating Liquor License for St. Alphonsus Catholic Church to sell beer and wino, at their annual Fun Fair. The motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve the following list of licenses; 7/13/92 - 4 - AMUS DEVICES - OPERATOR Beacon Bowl 6525 Wcst River Road Chi -Chi's 2101 Freeway Boulevard Davanni's 5937 Summit Urive Holiday Inn 2200 Freeway Boulevard Lynbrook Bowl 6357 N. Lilac Drive Metropolitan Transit Commission 6845 Shingle Creek Parkway Scoreboard Pizza 6816 Humboldt Avenue N. AMUSF_MF_NT DEVICES - VFNDQR American Amusement Arcades 850 Decatur Avenuc FOOD _ ST ABLISHMENT Lynbrook Bowl 6357 N. Lilac Drive UA B1 RAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLES Aagard Sanitation 875 Prior Avenue N. Block Sanitation 8924 Ashley Terrace Darling & Co; /Gordon Rendering P.O. Box 12785 Mengelkoch Company 119 NE 14th Street Northern Disposal, Inc, 2817 Anthony Lane S. T & L Sanitation Service P,O, Box 34695 Twin City Sanitation, Inc. 279 Meadowwood Lane Woodlake Sanitary Service, Inc. 4000 Hamel Road ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHM NT Brooklyn Center Police Department 6301 Shingle Crock Parkway St. Alphonsus Fun Fair 7025 Halifax Avenue N. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Holland Hcuting 7 A/C 5969 Lynwood Boulevard Midwest Heating & A/C 9809 Valley Forge Lane NO NPERISHABLE VENDING MAC14INE Theisen Vending 3804 Nicollet Avenue N. Days Inn 1501 Freeway Boulevard RENTAL DWELLINGS Liitial. Maranatha Residence CorporationMaranatha Place Apts. 7/13/92 -5 - Renewal: Savage II/LaSalle Group, Ltd. The Ponds Keith L. Nordby 5964 Brooklyn Boulevard Dorothy Ostrom 6025 Brooklyn Boulevard Chris Knutson 5200 France Avenue N. ROI Properties, Inc 7109 -7113 Unity Avenue N. Tracy Rice 5836 Xerxes Avenue N. Lyle Miller /Russell Domke 3513 47th Avenue N. Hobert and Fern Will 3416 50th Avenue N. Anna tiullord 2309 54th Avenue N. SIGN HANGER Crosstown Sign, Inc. 10166 Central Avenue NE Equity Construction Company 551 Third Street Identi - Graphics 8660 Highway 7 Signcrafters Outdoor Display, Inc, 7775 Main Street NE The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING The City Manager presented a Resolution Amending the Urban County Statement of Projected Use of Funds for Year XVIII by Reallocating $30,000 from the Rehabilitation of Private Property (Project 53002) to a New Activity, Brooklyn Center Business Expansion and Retention Study (Project 53091). Councilmember Cohen advised the Council he has a possible conflict of interest with this resolution as the project funding involves his associate, Mr. Strauss, Councilmember Cohen declined participation in the discussion. The EDA Coordinator reported the Board of Directors of the Brooklyn Center Chamber Of Commerce approves support of the efforts of the Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority to form a joint powers agreement with the cities of Brooklyn Park, 8I3ine, and Fridley to promote bu�incss retention, market expansion, and job creation; including a position for the Chamber on the business advisory council Councilmember Scott asked the EDA Coordinator to briefly enlighten the citizens of what is involved in forming the joint powers agrccment The EDA Coordinator explained the cities are exploring ways to enhance economic dcvelopmen< wid growth. The agreement will develop a program that will stimulate and assist local businesses to develop and expand in this area. The idea is to expand and retain employment in our cities. 7/13/92 -6- J Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on the proposed Resolution Amending the Urban County Statement of Projected Use of Funds for Year XVIII by Reallocating $30,000 from the Rehabilitation of Private Property (Project 53002) to a New Activity, Brooklyn Center Business Expansion and Retention Study (Project 53091) at 7:21 p.m. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council, no one appeared to speak, and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Couneilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing at 7.21 p.m. The motion passed. Cvuneilmember Cohen ab5tained. RESOLUTION NO. 92 -164 Mcmber Dave Roscnc introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE URBAN COUNTY STATEMENT OF PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS FOR YEAR XVIII BY REALLOCATING $30,000 FROM THE REHABILITATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY (PROJECT 53002) TO A NEW MULTI -YEAR ACTIVITY, BROOKLYN CENTER BUSINESS EXPANSION AND RETENTION STUDY (PROJECT 53091) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, The motion passed, Member Cohen abstained. ORDINANCES The City Manager presented an Interim Ordinance for the Purpose of Protecting the Planning Process and the Health, Safety and Welfare of the Residents of the Community, and Regulating and Restricting the Development of Special Home Occupations within the City. He indicated this ordinance was first read on June 22, 1992, published in the City's official newspaper on July 1, 1992, and is offered this evening for a second reading. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on an Interim Ordinance for the Purpose of Protecting the Planning Process and the Health, Safety and Welfare of the Residents of the Community, and Regulating and Restricting the Development of Special Home Occupations within the City at 7:25 p.m. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. Ron Christensen, 5101 June Avenue North, stated this moratorium is restricted to all properties within 400' of Brooklyn Boulevard between 'T .H. 100 and the north City lircriis and pertains to new applications only. Jack Leseault, 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard, stated he is involved with this study to see if it is feasible to bring business to Brooklyn Boulevard. He is concerned citizen's rights to full u5c of their property will be taken away with this moratorium. 7/13/92 -7- The City Manager stated the purpose of this. moratorium is to study the area and the length of the moratorium can be shortened at any time. Don Rosen, of Pilgrim Cleaners on 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard, stated his business will be required by the Federal Government to make improvements in the amount of $50,000 or more by December 31, 1993. He wants to be assured that the moratorium will not affect his business before purchasing the new equipment. The City Manager reiterated that this moratorium effects new home occupations and not commercial businesses. Councilmember Cohen pointed out the time schedule indicates the study will be completed by the end of this year, a six-month period, Karina Stellburg, 7206 Noble Avenue, risked for clarification as to what is considered a special home occupation, The Director of Planning and Inspection stated there are two types of home businesses both of which must be incidental and secondary to the residential use of the property. 1) is a business that is a non- intense use of the property such as a secretarial scrvicc or answering service that would not involve people coming and going to the property and is classified as a permitted home business, and 2) a special home occupation, such as a beauty shop or doctor would involve people coming to and leaving the property. A permit for a special home occupation must be granted by the City Council. Donna Zieska, 5455 Brooklyn Boulevard, expressed concern that the rights of the citizens were being taking away. He felt someone wanting to open up a business should be able to discuss it with the Council. The City Manager briefly reviewed the moratorium ordinance adding the area has a mixture of land uses including business, retail, apartments, and some residential. Councilmember Rosene stated this moratorium would not be taking away citizen's rights, just asking the citizens not to exercise those rights for several months, Tim Tigue, 5717 Brooklyn Boulevard, stated he is selling his home and needs to know how the property will be zoned. Sherry Woodford, 5836 Brooklyn Boulevard, asked if any consideration was being given to widening Brooklyn Boulevard. The City Manager answered it was previously a State road and is now a County road. The County is studying the Boulevard and has discussed some enhancements such as lane; widening at intersections but he is unaware of any possibility of widening the entire Boulevard. 7/13/92 - 8 - Alan Clark, 5234 Brooklyn Boulevard, expressed concern stating he purchased a home with two entrances so he could start a business if he. wanted to. The citizens need to know how the properties will be zoned on Brooklyn Boulevard, There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing at 8:09 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Cohen stated the Council's experience with moratoriums in the past has been in the best interest of the City. The idea is to make Brooklyn Boulevard a very nice, desirable place where the land use meets the present and future needs of the citizens. The purpose of the moratorium is just to provide the right path, not take away anyone's rights. ORDINANCE N4. 92 -09 Membcr Philip Cohen introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN INTERIM ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING PROCESS AND THE HEALTH, 6AFE - Y AND WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY, AND REGULATING AND RESTRICTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATIONS WITHIN THE CITY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously, The City Manager presented an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Relating to Residential Facilities. He indicated this ordinance received first reading on June 8, 1992, was published in the City's official newspaper on June 24, 1992, and is offered tonight for second reading. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Grdinances Relating to Residential Facilities at 8 :11 p.m. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. No one appeared to speak, and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. The was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to close the public hearing at 8:12 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. ORD INANCE NO. 92 -10 Membcr Celia Scott introduced the fallowing ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATING TO RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. 7/13/92 -9- The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Rel to Da Care Centers in Commercial Zones. He indicated this ordinance received Y first reading June ? 1992 was p ublished in the City' official newspaper on Jul 1 1992 i; P ty' Y > and is offered tonight for second reading. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Relating to Day Care Centers in Commercial Zones at 8 ;13 p.m, He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. No one appeared to speak, and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to close the public hearing at 8:14 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Rosene asked if the City can be assured the children will be protected by regulatory laws. The City Manager responded day care licenses are issued and regulated by the State. ORDINANCE NO, 92 -11 Mcmbcr Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATING TO DAY CARE CENTERS IN COMMERCIAL ZONES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS SFTNG A CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION R THE 1993 PRELIMINARY BUDGET_LEVY D CONSIDERATION OF TH ROLE OF THE FINANCIAL TASK FORCE IN THE 1993 B UDGET �! The City Manager stated as part of the consideration of the 1993 budget, the City Council must approve preliminary levy and budget by September 15, 1992. It would be useful for the City Council to schedule a work session to discuss issues relating to the 1993 budget including; the level of the 1993 preliminary budget and levy amounts; City Council requests for projects to be included in the 1993 budget process; use of the Prioritization Process recommendations; and the role of the Financial Task Force in the 1993 budget consideration, The City Council directed staff to contact members to schedule a work session the last week of July. 7/13/92 - 10- BRQDKLYN BOULEVARD STUDY AD HOC TASK FORCE COMMITTEE M MBER HIP The City Manager reported 40 citizens have expressed an interest in serving on the Brooklyn Boulevard Study Ad Hoc Task Force Committee. Two members, Janis Blumentals and Jack Lescault, have already been appointed by the City Council. An additional nine members need to be selected to make up the Chair and 10 member Task Force. Mayor Paulson suggested each Councilmember submit three choices during the recess and delay the decision until full Council is present. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:25 p.m. and reconvened at 8:42 p.m. STAFF REPORT REGARDINQ ACQUISITION OF SURPLUS RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONQ I94 FRQM MNDOT The City Manager reviewed the staff report regarding acquisition of surplus right -of -way along I94 from MNDot, Councilmember Scott abstained from discussion as she intends to purchase one of the parcels of surplus property, but she retained the right to make comments as ;5 private citizen. The Director of Public Works, using overhead transparencies, identified which parcels arc for sale. Councilmember Rosene asked how the $.20 per square foot price compares to present real estate values. The Director of Public Works reported that $,20 per square foot is what the City Assessor assigns to such parcels, Councilmember Cohen suggested setting standards for construction on the developable parcels so the houses will blend into the neighborhood. The Director of Public Works stated staff will provide Council a detailed recommendation on the development of the six developable parcels. Tonight the staff is recommending the Council approve the concept of selling the remnant parcels to the adjacent landowners. Celia Scott addressed the Council stating this has been a long process. The sale will enable homeowners to build garages and make improvements to their properties. Mayor Paulson thanked the citizens along 194 for their tenacious effort over the past decade. Brett Hildreth, (parcel P -45), 5519/23 Lyndale, expressed his interest in purchasing the property, however, at this time he and his partner are, financially unable to. He asked that a provision be added for an intent to purchase. The Director of Public Works stated the resolution before the Council includes a recommendation for property owners to sign a purchase agreement allowing, one year to purchase. 7/13/92 RESOLUTION NO, 92 -265 Member Philip Cohcn introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTIES ALONG I94, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO, 1967 -21 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Kosene, The motion passed. Member Celia Scott abstained. STAFF REPORT REQARDINQ JOINT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STUDY WITH BROOKLYN PARK The City Manager presented the staff report regarding a Joint "Transportation System Study with Brooklyn Park, The Director of Public Works explained the study will concentrate on the Brooklyn Boulcvard/194 -694 interchange area and north through the Brooklyn 1Bottievard/69th Avenue intersection. RESOLUTION NO, 92 -166 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT NO. 1992 -18, JOINT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STUDY WITH BROOKLYN PARK, ACCEPTING FRQPQSAL AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFORE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. 1991 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT PRESENTED JUNE 8 199 The Assistant Director of Finance reviewed the 1991 annual financial report and responded to questions from the Council. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Scott to accept staff's responses to the Auditor's Management Letter on the 1991 Annual Financial Report. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION -OF COUNCIL SALARIES The City Manager presented the draft ordinance amendments which address consideration of the salary and per diem issue. He explained there are three draft resolutions to be considered, Councilmember Cohen suggested this discussion be deferred until Councilmember Pedlar's arrival. The Council agreed. 7/13/92 - 12 - R SOLUTIONS(CONTINUED) The City Manager presented a Resolution Am;�rndiug the 1992 Gcncral Fund Budget and Approving the Purchase of Equipment and Authorizing the Transfer of Funds from Drug Forfeiture Monies. RESOLUTION N . 92 -167 Member Dave Rosene introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: AMENDING THE 1992 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT AND AUTHORIZING THL 'T RANSFER OF FUNDS FROM DRUG FORFEITURE MONIES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously, The City Manager presented a Resolution Amending Resolution Nos. 91 -115 and 92 -99 Transforming the Brooklyn Center Ad Hoc City Financial Task Force into a City Advisory Commission. Councilmember Scott thanked the Financial Task Force for the many, long hours they have worked and will work in the nature She added this Task Force definitely needs to be changed to a City Advisory Commission. RESOLUTION NO. 92 -168 Membcr Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: AMENDING RESOLUTION NOS. 91 -115 AND 92 -99 TRANSFORMING THE BROOKLYN CENTER AID HOC CITY FINANCIAL TASK FORCE INTO A CITY ADVISORY COMMISSION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Rosene stated establishing this Financial Task Force as a City Advisory Commission is setting a good example for other cities. He added the City (-)f Bruu Center is moving forward in its thinking and actions. REC There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen, and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to recess the meeting and reconvene following the EDA meeting when the full C,uuncil will be present. - The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 9:30 p.m, 7/13/92 - 13 - RECONVENE There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember. Scott to reconvene at 10;00 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. It was noted Councilmcmber Pedlar was in attendance. J)ISCUSSION OF COUNCIL SALARIES The City Manager reviewed three draft ordinance am( lndincruts to address reconsideration of the salary and per diem issue. These amendments are being presented for Council consideration and possible first reading. He explained while a public hearing is not necessary, the Council usually schedules one prior to second reading. A discussion ensued with members making the following points. Councilmember Rosene agreed with the Financial Task Force that the proposed salary increases were too excessive and the increases should be cut back. He suggested the Council consider a reduction of 20%o, resulting in a reduced Councilmember salary from $7,500 to $6,000 and Mayor's salary from $11,500 to $9,200. He also supported rescinding the per diem compensation ordinance. Councilmember Rosene's comments included concern some citizens would not be able to serve on the Council if the salary is not enough to reimburse members for time spent away from their jobs. Councilmember Pedlar reviewed eldsting budget constraints and pointed out City staff only received a 2.9 percent increase, He further stated he is against any salary increases for the Council since it may jeopardize existing employee's job security. Councilmcmber Pedlar supported elimination of the per diem compensation. 0 Councilmember Cohen questioned the actual purpose of the Council's salary; reimbursement for lost time at work, or actual salary compensation for a job. He supported refcrriuig the matter to the Financial Task Force for their recommendation. Councilmember Scott agreed the per diem should be eliminated. She added the Council has not receive a raise for 13 years and agreed a method to determine salaries should be established to prevent this from happening in the future. Mayor Paulson supported considering the current Financial Task Force recommendation at this time. He suggested a percentage figure be discussed as recommended by Councilmember Rosene and procedures be established as suggested by Councilmcmber Scott. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Scott for first reading of An Ordinance Rescinding Ordinance No. 91 -14 Refarding Certain Compensation to Be Paid to the Elected Officials of the City of Brooklyn Center. The motion passed unanimously, Councilmember Rosene suggested a lower increase, such as 15 %, be considered which would still be below the metro average. 7/13/92 - 14- k There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve first reading of An Ordinance Rescinding Ordinance No. 91 -16 Regarding Council Salaries. Councilmember Scott mentioned the cost savings that would result if the matter were referred to the Financial Task Force as this point since the ordinance would not need to be published or public hearing held until after Council acts on their recommendation. Mr. Kelly stated the Task Force's unanimous recommendation is very clear - due to the budget shortfall the Council's salary should be reduced to the current salary. Councilmember Rosene indicated a desire to have this matter resolved prior to the November election so it does not have to be delayed for another two years. He again stated his reasons for supporting a mid -point increase. Mayor Paulson felt the matter could be resolved by the Council by taking action on the basis of the Task Force recommendation and input. He suggested a thorough discussion take place on the issue in an attempt to reach a consensus. Councilmember Pedlar stated he does not feel this is a political issue and retained the right to support his own opinion which was based on economics, not politics. He again addressed the need to protect current City employees, both full and part -time. Councilmember Pedlar indicated support of the Task Force recommendation to keep Council salaries status quo. Councilmember Cohen suggested the matter be referred to the Task Force for their further study and recommendation on a percentage figure. He pointed out this procedure would take it out of the Council's "hands ". Councilmember Rosene concurred, indicating he felt the Task Force has done a good job and work in the best interest and welfare of the overall City, Mayor Paulson suggested the Council provide input to the Task Force for consideration in their recommendation. Councilmember Cohen felt any information or input prc)vidQLI by the Council to the Task Force should be in written form. There was a motion by Mayor Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to table further discussion of Council salaries until August lo, 1992 and refer matter of salaries to the Financial Task Force. The motion passed: three ayes, two nays. Councilmembers Pedlar and Cohen voted nay. BR KLYN BOULEVARD $TUDY AD HOC TASK. FORCE CONIMITTEE MEMBERSHIP (Continued) The City quncil recommended the following citizens be appointed to serve on the Brooklyn Boulevard Study Ad Hoc Task Force Committee: Diane Reem, Ron Christensen, Mark Holmes, Robert Torres, Robert Mickelson, Trayce Olsen, Bonnie Lukes, Don Rosen, and Karen Lang, 7113/92 - 15 - y There was a motion b Councilmember Rosene and se b Council Pe dlar to y rnernber Pe a Y express appreciation to all applicants. The. motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded b Councilmember Scott to �' Y appoint the citizens as recommended to the Brooklyn Boulevard Study Ad Hoc Task Furcc Committee. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar, and seconded by Couneilmernber Rosene to adjourn the meeting The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 11.11 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Nancy Berg Northern Counties Secretarial Services 7/13/92 - 16 - CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date lulu 27, 1992 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2 OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CHARTER DEPT. APPROVAL: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONEMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SU DLARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached • Fal CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider An Ordinance Amending Chapter 2 of the Brooklyn Center City Charter. 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 2 OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CHARTER THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 2.05 of the Brooklyn Center City Charter is hereby amended as follows: 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 within ten (10) days of its occurrence. The 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 Council by a majority 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). Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after publication and ninety (90) days following its adoption. Adopted this day of 19 Mayor, Todd Paulson ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OE] of BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE. . 569 -3300 C ENTER FAX: 569 -3494 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Todd Paulson, Mayor Phil Cohen, Councilmember Jerry Pedlar, Councilmember David Rosene, Councilmember Celia Scott, Councilmember 1 FROM: Allen Anderson, Chairperson Brooklyn Center Charter Commission DATE: .July 22, 1992 RE: Proposed Changes to Section 2.05 of the City Charter This memo is to advise you that the Charter Commission on July 15, 1992, unanimously approved wording changes to Section 2.05, Vacancies in the Council, of the City Charter. Proposed wording for this section is enclosed. In summary, the reasons for the proposed changes are to provide for more specific directions as to how a council vacancy would be filled. The Commission felt modifications were needed in light of the fact that council member and mayor terms are now four years. Therefore, it is proposed that in the case of a vacated term of office being less than one year, the City Council will appoint. In the case of a vacated term of office being one year or longer, a regular or special election shall be held. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 410.12 Subdivision 7, the Brooklyn Center Charter Commission recommends the adoption, by ordinance, of the attached proposed amendments to the Brooklyn Center City Charter. This item has been placed on the City Council agenda for July 27, 1992. If the City Council does not approve this charter amendment, it is the wishes of the Charter Commission to put this item to the vote of the people and place it on the ballot for the general election in 1992. Thanks for your consideration. cc: Charlie LeFevere, City Attorney All Charter Commission Members NN �� ,�asui+,wwc�ary � CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7/27/ Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 92009 - Lutheran Church of the Triune God DEPT. APPR Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: 13= o I No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached x ) s Planning Commission Application No. 92009 is a request for special use permit approval to operate a pre- school in the Lutheran Church of the Triune God at 5827 Humboldt Avenue North. This application was considered by the Planning Commission at its July 16, 1992 regular meeting. Attached for the Council's review are the minutes and information sheet from that meeting, a letter from the applicant, and a map of the area. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended approval of the application subject to the four conditions listed on pages 2 and 3 of the July 16, 1992 Planning Commission minutes. 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 JULY 16, 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 and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairperson Bernards noted that Commissioner Kalligher had called and may arrive late. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 11 1992 Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Holmes to approve the minutes of the June 11, 1992 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Commissioners Mann, Sander and Holmes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Chairperson Bernards and Commissioner Johnson. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 92009 Lutheran Church of the Triune God Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for special use permit approval to operate a pre - school in the Lutheran Church of the Triune God at 5827 Humboldt Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 92009, attached). Chairperson Bernards asked who the pre - school would be licensed by. The Secretary responded that it was the Department of Human Services, not the Department of Education. Mr. Wayne Chambard, the congregation president for the church, stated that enrollment in the pre - school was based on the amount of staffing provided. He stated that it was also limited by the Building Code. He stated they would start with 10 pupils and expand to the limit of 20 if there was sufficient demand. In response to a question from Chairperson Bernards, Mr. Chambard stated that the church would not restrict who could participate in the pre- school, but that there would be religious instruction at the pre - school. Commissioner Holmes noted that the play area would be across the street and asked whether there was any concern with this provision. The Secretary stated that the City does not have a problem with such an arrangement. He stated that the licensing standards probably require the play area to be within a certain distance of the church. 7 -16 -92 1 Commissioner Kalligher arrived at 7:40 p.m. Commissioner Sander asked what the age of the students would be. Mr. Chambard answered that they would be pre- kindergarten students age 3 and over. Commissioner Holmes noted that there is a school across the street and asked whether there might be a traffic conflict with the proposed pre- school. The Secretary stated that he did not see any major traffic concern with the operation since there would be only 20 students. Commissioner Sander asked when the pre- school would commence. The Secretary indicated that it would be January of 1993. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 92009) Chairperson Bernards then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Johnson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Bernards noted that the first precinct voting was done at the church and asked whether that would continue to be the case. Mr. Chambard answered in the affirmative. He discussed the layout of the building and where the voting takes place. They also discussed arrangements for funerals relative to how that would affect the operation of the day care center. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 92009 (Lutheran Church of the Triune God) Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Kalligher to recommend approval of Application No. 92009, subject to the following conditions: 1) The special use permit is issued for a pre- school for 20 children at one time. Any expansion or alteration of the pre- school operation which involves more students or school -age children will require an amendment to this special use permit. 2) The premises will be brought into compliance with all applicable state and local regulations as to fire safety, health, and building code standards for the pre- school operation and such compliance will be documented by the appropriate inspection agencies and submitted to the file prior to the issuance of the special use permit. 7 -16 -92 2 3) Vehicle access to the pre - school shall be through the parking lot adjacent to Irving Ave. North. Parking associated with the pre- school shall be in the parking lot and not on the public street. 4) The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations. Any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. Voting in favor: Chairperson Bernards, Commissioners Mann, Sander, Johnson, Holmes and Kalligher. Voting against. none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 92010 (NEW HORIZON DAY CARE) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to install and operate a day care center in the north end of the Humboldt Square Shopping Center at 6800 Humboldt Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 92010, attached) . The Secretary also noted that the applicant was moving ahead with the application before the effective date of the ordinance and was, therefore, doing so at their own risk. Commissioner Sander noted the proposal for 3' high posts and the staff recommendation for 4' high posts. She asked whether this was so they would be easier to see. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Sander suggested that reflectors be put on these posts so that they could more easily be seen when it is dark. In response to a question from Commissioner Sander, the Secretary showed the location of a bituminous walk out to 69th Avenue North. Commissioner Johnson inquired as to the traffic flow at the dropoff point. The Secretary pointed out that there is access out to Humboldt Avenue North directly west of the dropoff point. Commissioner Holmes asked for an explanation of the gray area on the plans. The Secretary answered that it is a sodded area. Commissioner Holmes asked whether plans of the building should have been submitted. The Secretary responded in the negative stating that the Building Official would review the interior remodeling plans. Chairperson Bernards asked whether there would be fire exits on the east side of the tenant space. The Secretary responded in the affirmative stating that these doors would be for emergency exit only in all likelihood. In response to Commissioner Sander, the Secretary explained that the tenant space division would be a one hour fire separation. He noted that the building is fire sprinklered. Chairperson Bernards asked if there was any set time for deliveries. He recommended avoiding any conflict with children in the play area and minimize traffic during the hours of operation. 7 -16 -92 3 0 PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No.92009 Applicant: Lutheran Church of the Triune God Location: 5827 Humboldt Ave. N. Request: Special Use Permit The applicant requests special use permit approval to operate a pre- school within the Lutheran Church of the Triune God at 5827 Humboldt Ave. North. The church property is zoned Rl and is bounded on the north by 59th Ave. N., on the east by Humboldt Ave. N., on the south by single family homes, and on the west by Irving Ave. North. Both churches and pre- schools are special uses in the R1 zone. The Church of the Triune God received special use permit approval for a LaPepiniere Montessori school in 1973. However, that school has not been in operation for many years. That special use permit approval has lapsed, therefore, and a new special use permit must be approved for this operation. The church has submitted a brief, unsigned letter (attached) regarding the proposed pre - school. The letter indicates that the pre- school will be licensed by the State which will allow only 20 students at a time in the facility. Sessions will be every morning or afternoon (presumably weekdays). Church staff have indicated that the church itself will operate the pre- school rather than a separate provider. The teacher will be of the same faith and there will be some religious instruction in the pre- school program. The letter describing the program indicates that the drop -off and pick -up place will be in the west parking lot, off Irving Ave. North. The door on Humboldt will not be used. The letter concludes by stating that the program may make use of the park across 59th Ave. North. If so, the crossing at Humboldt and 59th will be utilized. The church plans to start operating the pre- school in January, 1993. The church was inspected by the Building Official and the State Fire Marshal earlier this year. The Fire Marshal has required the installation of a smoke alarm system and a fire door within the building. Probably the main zoning concern with the proposed pre- school is that parking and traffic circulation be accommodated within the parking lot and not on the public streets. The applicant has indicated an intent to do just that. Recommendation In general,the application appears to be in order. Approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1) The special use permit is issued for a pre - school for 20 children at one time. Any expansion or alteration of the pre - school operation which involves more students or school -age children will require an amendment to this July 16, 1992 1 special use permit. 2) The premises will be brought into compliance with all applicable state and local regulations as to fire safety, health, and building code standards for the pre- school operation and such compliance will be documented by the appropriate inspection agencies and submitted to the file prior to the issuance of the special use permit. 3) Vehicle access to the pre- school shall be through the parking lot adjacent to Irving Ave. North. Parking associated with the pre- school shall be in the parking lot and not on the public street. 4) The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations. Any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. Submitted by, C­7 Gary Shallcross Planner Approved by, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspections July 16, 1992 2 The Lutheran Church of the Triune God wool (Missouri Synod) i " Humboldt Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 l �Church Office: (612) 561 -6470 Dial -A- Devotion: (612) 561 -6471 ' Pastor: Rev. John R. Fehrmann Rev. Matthew E. Thompson k ! Q 932 Dear Sirs: The Lutheran Church of the Triune God is opening a pre - school within its building at 5827 Humboldt Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. - The pre - school will be licensed with the State which allows only 20 students per session. Sessions will be every morning or afternoon a day. The drop -off and pick -up place will be the west parking lot, off Irving Avenue. The door on Humboldt Avenue will not be used. The park across from the church may be used, crossing at the stop sign at Humboldt and 59th Avenues with teacher supervision. We preach Christ crucified and risen! t w sse.i • A E N r i � � (� � � �� x X ?�. x �- ' A F.,. i� ..uc cl. 14 w - } � ( � ,y` / �•,:'�. ;��x! J i,� D/ n '�� � `\�. 9 r r ' ."flfT T A'r'E ° U EARIE I I 1 9 ROWN MOR3A.N AVE SUMMIT DR. L ' R p OGAN AVE. N. - -� 11-- 11--- 1L._.LLL7 __ _j OGAN AVE. N. � a � I� Ii I TT � f � I m I 'N '3AV 9ry — Kra x 1 _ .__ O DR EARLE 6iff L � I �� 'N •UIO 53P1(' JAlIES AVE. N. �I RVING AVE. N. 1 '� r�� LLL1ll1111_'� __ � 1I I II _ , °, , X •.�,� 6 y `w ti uu9oL AV � 1111 IIII IIII 111 I11 111 I11 I11 NUMBOLD A _E ,:�,%��� r_ f � a - ' _ - � � GIRARD AVE. �' 6 /BARD AVE. N. , GI AVE. N. �� X77777 - RAR AVE. FtTfl FREMONT AVE. s 43 ✓� = a i F_ EWONT AVE. N. EMONT AVE ' - -- u1u __ _ I EMERSON AVE m _ 1 j4RSON AVE. N ] `_- -_ - - -- �� u- i- u- LLl1111_Ll L- L- I- L- L- L-L_1J EMERSON A ? 1i r ' j ( � lI 77 I 7 III j77j7jJ�7���; rDUPOTl� E. DUPONT AVE - L- +- --+- -� �� J (10 COLFAX AVE N. ' per' I�AX AVE. N. Ii s 01. AX AVE. N I MBR " " [ ' =u Y -i 3{YM. - T AVE. N. - -X-. -� � � ' I • I I I --- I lI, ALDRICH AVE. N. _ _ __ CH AV N -- -�I X, 'yet . .�; ry� Cui(iE.N CAMDEN AVE. N. _ i CAMDEN AVE. N. l _ -------- ------------------ CAMDEN AVE LOW A. N, 1 JkL 1 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7/27/ Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 92010 - New Horizon Day Care ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPRO 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. 92010 is a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to install and operate a day care center in the north end of the Humboldt Square Shopping Center at 6800 Humboldt Avenue North. This application was considered by the Planning Commission at its July 16, 1992 meeting. Attached for the Council's review are the minutes and information sheet from that meeting, a letter from Clem Springer, manager of Humboldt Square Shopping Center, - standards for special use permits, Section 35 -322 regarding group day care facilities, two site plans and a map of the area. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended approval of the application subject to the seven conditions listed on page 6 of the July 16, 1992 Planning Commission minutes. z 3) Vehicle access to the pre - school shall be through the parking lot adjacent to Irving Ave. North. Parking associated with the pre- school shall be in the parking lot and not on the public street. 4) The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations. Any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. Voting in favor: Chairperson Bernards, Commissioners Mann, Sander, Johnson, Holmes and Kalligher. Voting against: none. The motion passed. VOK",PLICATION NO. 92010 (NEW HORIZON DAY CARE The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to install and operate a day care center in the north end of the Humboldt Square Shopping Center at 6800 Humboldt Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 92010, attached) . The Secretary also noted that the applicant was moving ahead with the application before the effective date of the ordinance and was, therefore, doing so at their own risk. Commissioner Sander noted the proposal for 3' high posts and the staff recommendation for 4' high posts. She asked whether this was so they would be easier to see. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Sander suggested that reflectors be put on these posts so that they could more easily be seen when it is dark. In response to a question from Commissioner Sander, the Secretary showed the location of a bituminous walk out to 69th Avenue North. Commissioner Johnson inquired as to the traffic flow at the dropoff point. The Secretary pointed out that there is access out to Humboldt Avenue North directly west of the dropoff point. Commissioner Holmes asked for an explanation of the gray area on the plans. The Secretary answered that it is a sodded area. Commissioner Holmes asked whether plans of the building should have been submitted. The Secretary responded in the negative stating that the Building Official would review the interior remodeling plans. Chairperson Bernards asked whether there would be fire exits on the east side of the tenant space. The Secretary responded in the affirmative stating that these doors would be for emergency exit only in all likelihood. In response to Commissioner Sander, the Secretary explained that the tenant space division would be a one hour fire separation. He noted that the building is fire sprinklered. Chairperson Bernards asked if there was any set time for deliveries. He recommended avoiding any conflict with children in the play area and minimize traffic during the hours of operation. -16- 7 92 3 Commissioner Mann inquired as to allowable signery. The Secretary pointed out that the shopping center has a freestanding sign and that no other freestanding signs would be allowed. He added that wall signs are allowed, but must be confined to the tenant space area. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 92010) Chairperson Bernards then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Johnson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Bernards asked the applicant how many children would be served by the day care center. Ms. Cindy Cook, of New Horizon, stated that they are licensed for 116 children. She stated that the day care center needs 35 sq. ft. of space per child. She added that the number of staff and the type of staff are determined by the number and age of the children served. Chairperson Bernards inquired as to the hours of operation. Ms. Cook responded that they would normally be open from 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., but might have extended hours depending on the needs of parents. Chairperson Bernards asked Ms. Cook if they had other day care centers in retail shopping centers. Ms. Cook responded in the affirmative and listed a number of other shopping centers where they are located. Chairperson Bernards stated that some of the Commission members have had reservations about changing the ordinance. Ms. Cook stated that the day care tenancy helps create a community atmosphere in the shopping center where more than one errand can be handled at a time without dragging children from one place to another. Chairperson Bernards asked as to the fate of the auto parts store. Ms. Cook stated that it was her understanding it would be relocated within the same shopping center. , Commissioner Kalligher inquired as to the possibility of a pickup on the east side of the building. Ms. Cook responded that that would not be used and that any doors along that side would only be for emergency exits. She stated that the day care center has strict security procedures to control the dropoff and pickup of children. Commissioners Holmes noted that the report refers to access off 69th Avenue North on the east side of the building. The Secretary explained that that refers to access to the site in general and that people entering from that side of the site would have to drive around the building to drop their children off or enter the site via Humboldt Avenue North. Commissioner Holmes noted that the report refers to the applicant checking the adequacy of the underground irrigation system. He 7 -16 -92 4 inquired as to what this implied. The Secretary explained that their is underground irrigation in place along 69th and that the applicant should see whether it was adequate to cover the area that would now be sodded as part of the play area. Chairperson Bernards asked whether it would be appropriate to have a condition on this application relating to the ordinance becoming effective. The Secretary stated that that was probably not necessary. The Planner noted that the last chance to rescind the ordinance would be at the same meeting when the day care center would be considered and that the Council could clearly choose at that time which course to take. Commissioner Johnson asked who controls how the day care center is operated. The Secretary answered that the State Department of Human Services licenses the operation. Commissioner Johnson asked what the City's role is in approving the operation. The Secretary explained that the City has land use controls and requirements regarding the play area, parking location, etc., but that the way the center would operate was not a matter for.City approval. The Secretary added that staff requirements, both as to number and qualifications, are controlled by State Statute. Commissioner Kalligher asked whether it would be appropriate to add a condition relating to the raising of the posts in front of the dropoff area. The Secretary asked the applicant whether they had any objection to that provision. There was no objection on the part of the applicants. Commissioner Sander also suggested the reflectors and stated that she felt that the proposal was a very good addition to Humboldt Square Shopping Center. Commissioner Holmes noted the passage in the report relating to the possibility of denying a use that had too many land use conflicts. He expressed concern about the conflict with the gas station and asked how much leeway the City had in denying a special use permit. The Secretary pointed out that the pump islands for the gas station are on the opposite side of the building, some distance from the play area. In response to Commissioner Kalligher, the Secretary discussed the location of the play area relative to the gas station and stated that there may be some noticeable noise or fumes from the gas station, but that he did not think these were severe enough to deny the special use permit. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 92010 (New Horizon Day Care) Motion by Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Sander to recommend approval of Application No. 92010, subject to the understandings contained in the record regarding the posts at the dropoff area and subject to the following conditions: 7 -16 -92 5 1) The special use permit is issued for a day care center use as described in the applicant's submittal and plans dated July 2, 1992. Any alteration or addition to the day care center will 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) Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 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 screening treatment for the outside play area. Voting in favor: Chairperson Bernards, Commissioners Mann, Sander, Johnson, Holmes and Kalligher. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Mr. Clem Springer noted that the entrance point shown on the plans was not definitel set at this point and that 't Y p i may be moved somewhat to the north. He stated that the floor space shown on the plan approximated the need for the day care center, but that there may be some slight adjustment between now and when the building permit is applied for. The Secretary acknowledged these possibilities and stated that if there was any significant change in the lans p they would have to be referred back to the Planning Commission. 7 -16 -92 6 PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No.92010 Applicant: New Horizon Child Care Location: 6800 Humboldt Ave. N. Request: Site and Building Plan /Special Use Permit Location /Use The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to operate a day care center with a play area at the Humboldt Square Shopping Center at 6800 Humboldt Ave. North. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded by 69th Ave. N. on the north, by Hi Crest Square Estates townhouses on the east, by three story apartments on the south, by Humboldt Ave. N. on the west, and by a Unocal service station on the northwest. Day care centers are special uses in the C2 zoning district. Previously, day care centers have not been allowed in shopping centers or adjacent to service stations, but these restrictions on location have recently been removed through an ordinance amendment. The Humboldt Square center is, therefore, an eligible location for the day care center. Access /Parking The day care center will utilize existing accesses to the shopping center property. The proposed plan calls for a drop -off point.in front of the shopping center, just southeast of the southeast corner of the gas station property. The drop -off point will be demarcated with steel posts to prevent cars from pulling onto the paved area in front of the day care center. The plan shows these posts at 3' high. Staff recommend that these posts be at least 4' high. This paved area is an existing drive lane which will be decorated with planters when the day care center goes in. There is also an existing driveway along the east side of the building which may be used by some day care center patrons. This driveway links up with a driveway along the south side of the site which continues out to Humboldt Ave. North. There is no plan to alter this driveway which is primarily a service entrance to the shopping center. However, the proposed play area will cut off the link between the access on 69th Ave. N. and the front of the shopping center, requiring people coming from the east to either enter the site from Humboldt or to drive around the back of the building. The installation of the play area north of the building will eliminate approximately 11 parking stalls. The site currently has about 280 stalls. Under the new retail parking formula of 5.5 spaces per 1000 sq. ft.of gross floor area, the parking requirement for the site is approximately 220 with no more than 15% of gross floor area utilized for restaurant space. The loss of 11 stalls should not, therefore, result in a parking deficiency. Landscaping The landscape plan calls for 53 Techny Arborvitae shrubs planted 4' July 16, 1992 1 apart around a 4' high coated chain link fence surrounding the play area. Sod is to be planted west and north of the fence and within most of the play area. The applicant should evaluate the adequacy of the existing underground irrigation system to properly maintain the planted material proposed on the plan. The remaining bituminous area in front of (west of) the day care center is referred to as an entry plaza and will have three raised planters, each with four Welchi Juniper shrubs and one Red Splendor Crab. A 6' wide bituminous walk is proposed to the west of the sod outside the play area. Drainage The proposed play area will drain into three catch basins north of the building, including one new catch basin inside a curbed play area filled with 8" of pea gravel. The play area will crown approximately in the middle and drain to the east and west. One existing catch basin in the easterly drive will remain and one northwest of the building will wind up in a sodded area, but still at an appropriate grade to take runoff from the west side of the play area. The three catch basins will be connected by an existing 15" storm sewer line. Play Area The proposed play area would be approximately 65' x 75 immediately north of the building. Within it would be a 35' x 53' curbed area with pea gravel. Presumably, most of the playground equipment would be located in the curbed portion of the play area. The play area would be surrounded by a coated chain link fence with a gate on the east and west sides near the building. The Zoning Ordinance requires that the fence be wood or a Council approved substitute. The applicants have indicated that a wood fence would cause problems with splinters. To provide opaque screening they propose to surround the fence with 3' high arborvitae shrubs. We believe this is an acceptable proposal for meeting the intent of the ordinance. In other respects the play area meets the requirements of Section 35 -412.7 (attached). The fence is 4' in height. The play area is contiguous to the day care facility. It is not located in a yard abutting a major thoroughfare. It does not have an impervious surface and extends at least 60' from the building. There is also proposed one light pole with two lamps in the play area. Special Use Standards The proposed day care center is subject to the special use standards contained in section 35 -220.2 (attached) and to the standards contained in section 35- 322.3.q (attached) pertaining to day care centers. Mr. Clement Springer of Weis Asset Management, the owners of Humboldt Square, has submitted a letter (attached) addressing both these sets of standards. Regarding the special use standards, the letter states that the day care center will enhance the general public.welfare of the community; that the proposed use will not be diminish to property values, but will result in July 16, 1992 2 improvements to the property on which it is located; that it could increase the desirability of living in the adjoining residential properties because of the services to be offered; that the facility will utilize existing access and parking and will not add congestion to the public streets since it will allow patrons to combine trip purposes to other retailers in the shopping center; and that the special use will conform to other applicable regulations. Regarding the standards pertaining to day care centers in section 35- 322.3.q, Mr. Springer states that the use will be appropriately landscaped and will not generate problems for the adjacent land uses and that it is a more restricted and regulated use than other C2 uses. He states that the day care use is complementary to existing land uses in that the proposed facility is intended to serve nearby residential areas. Persons coming to the center will use other facilities in the shopping center and nearby retail areas. The proposed use, he states, does not generate any problems that cannot be best addressed in a commercial land use setting. The activity levels generated by the day care facility are similar to other retail uses in the shopping center and is, according to Mr. Springer, more appropriate in a commercial setting than in a residential location. Mr. Springer also states that the traffic generated by the facility is in keeping with the commercial area it will be a part of and should not have any additional impact upon public facilities noting hat the day center g y will be relocated from within the same neighborhood using the same streets. Finally, Mr. Springer points out that the play area and location of the facility within the shopping center is at one end of the building and is isolated from the main traffic circulation. Excellent pedestrian access is provided. Staff are generally in agreement with the arguments presented by Mr. Springer with respect to these ordinance standards. The day care center will meet a public need in this neighborhood for day care and will be a welcome addition to Humboldt Square. The location of the center at the north end of the shopping center is appropriate and the play area meets the requirements of the ordinance fairly generously. It would be preferable if the day care center were not located adjacent to a gas station, but most of the service station traffic should be shielded by the building. The recent Zoning Ordinance amendment has removed the restrictions on the location of day care centers. However, the special use standards and the standards pertaining to day care centers may still rule out certain locations if it is felt that land use conflicts present a threat to the well being of the children in the day care center. In this case, we believe that the applicants have done all they can to mitigate conflicts and that the day care center will be an appropriate use in this location. Accordingly, we would recommend approval of this application, subject to at least the following conditions: July 16, 1992 3 1) The special use permit is issued for a day care center use as described in the applicant's submittal and plans dated July 2, 1992. Any alteration or addition to the day care center will 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) Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 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 screening treatment for the outside play area. Submitted by, I Gary Shallcross Planner Approved by, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspections July 16, 1992 4 ....:... .. WEIS ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC M E! 3601 Minnesota Drive Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 -5863 Telephone. 612 -831 -9060 Fax; 612 -831 -3132 July 1, 1992 Mr. Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: New Horizons Special Use Permit Dear Mr. Warren: Thank you for your letter of June 24, 1992 regarding the procedures and time schedule for the application for a Special Use Permit for a New Horizon Child Care center at Humboldt Square. The application for the permit is enclosed with a site plan for the outdoor play facilities. Following is a response to Section 35 -220, Standards for Special Use Permits: a) The establishment of a group daycare facility will provide a service that will enhance the general public welfare of the community and neighborhood. b) The facility will not be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other property in the neighborhood or diminish and impair property values. The proposed use will result in improvements to the property on which it is located. C) The c' fa ility will not have a negative effect on the development of surrounding property which is 100% developed. It could increase the desirability of living in the adjoining residential properties because of the services to be offered. d) This facility will utilize existing ingress and egress to public streets and existing parking. No additional congestion to local streets will be added and it has the potential to reduce total trips made by the public because of the convenience factor and combining of trip purposes to other retailers in the center. e) The special use will conform to other applicable regulations. COMMERCIAL PROPERTY LEASING AND MANAGEMENT Following is a response to the requirements of Section 35 -322 Subdivision Q: 1. The proposed use would be compatible with existing adjacent land uses permitted in the C2 district. Appropriate landscaping of the site is planned. The use will not generate problems for the adjacent land uses and is a more restricted and regulated use than other uses permitted in the C2 zone. 2. The use is complementary to existing land uses in that the proposed facility is intended to serve nearby residential areas. Also the persons coming to the center will use other facilities in the center and nearby retail areas. The proposed use does not generate any problems that cannot be best addressed in a commercial land use setting. 3. The activity levels generated by a group daycare facility of this size is very similar to other retail uses in the center and is appropriate in a commercial setting than a residential location. 4. The traffic generated by the facility is in keeping with the commercial area it will be part of and should not have any additional impact upon public facilities. The facility is a relocation from within the same neighborhood using the same streets. 5. The play area and location of the facility within the center is at one end of the building and is isolated from the main traffic circulation. Excellent pedestrian access is provided. A site plan for the outside play area is attached for your review. We believe it addresses all the issues that surfaced in earlier discussions at the Planning Commission and City Council presentations on the zoning ordinance change. Again we appreciate the City's cooperation in moving this approval process along to facilitate the New Horizon's need to open in early September. We look forward to meeting with the appropriate parties to gain the required approvals. Sincerely, Clement D. Springer As Manager for Humboldt Square Center CDS /vs Enclosures Section 35 -220. SPECIAL USE PERMITS 2. Standards for Special Use Permits A special use permit may be granted by the City Council after. demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met: (a) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. (b) The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. (c) The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. (d) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. (e) The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may impose such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location, construction, maintenance and operation of the special use as deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest and to secure compliance with requirements specified in this ord- inance. In all cases in which special use permits are granted, the City Council may require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary as part of the conditions stipulated in connec- tion therewith. 4. Resubmission No application for a special use permit which has been denied . by the City Council shall be resubmitted for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of the final determination by the City Council; except that the applicant may set forth in writing newly discovered evidence of change of condition upon which he relies to gain the consent of the City Council for resubmission at an earlier time. 5. Revocation and Extension of Si2ecial Use Permits When a special use permit has been issued pursuant to the pro- visions of this ordinance, such permit shall expire without further action by the Planning Commission or the City Council unless the applicant or his assignee or successor commences work upon the sub- ject property within one year of the date the special use permit is granted, or unless before the expiration of the one year period the applicant shall apply for an extension thereof by filling out and submitting to the Secretary of the Planning Commission a "Special Use Permit" application requesting such extension and paying an additional fee of $15.00. Special use permits granted pursuant to the provisions of a prior ordinance of Brooklyn Center shall expire within one year of the effective date of this ordinance if construction upon the sub- ject property pursuant to such special use permit has not commenced within that time. 'In any instance where an existing and established special use is abandoned for a period of one year, the special use permit re- lated thereto shall expire one year following the date of abandon- ment. 35 -322 1. Sauna establishments and massage establishments, provided they do not abut any residential (R1 through R7) district, including abutment at a street line. M. School bus garage facilities provided all storage, including vehicles, and minor servicing and minor repair shall be conducted wholly within an enclosed building and further provided it does not abut any residential (Rl through R7) districts, including abutment at a street line. n. Amusement centers provided the property on which the amusement center is to be located is not within 150 feet of any residentially zoned (R1 through R7) property. o. Automobile and truck rental and leasing. p. Tennis clubs, racket and swim clubs and other athletic clubs, health spas and suntan studios. V q. Group day care facilities rovided the are not P y located on the same property as or adjacent to any use which is not permitted to abut Rl, R2, or R3 zoned property and provided they are not located in a retail shopping center; and further 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 ermitted i n the C P 2 disc rict . enerall g y 2. Complementary to existing adjacent land uses as well as with those uses permitted in the C2 district generally. 3. Of comparable intensity to permitted C2 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. Furthermore, group day care facilities shall be subject to the special requirements set forth in Section 35 -412. i 35 -412 6. Access from a local street intended primarily to serve residential development may only be allowed upon a finding by the City Council that such access will not negatively affect the residential character of that neighborhood. 7. In the case of group day care facilities, outside recreational facilities shall be appropriately separated from the parking and driving areas by a wood fence not less than four feet in height; or Council approved substitute; shall be located contiguous to the day care facility; shall not be located in any yard abutting a major thoroughfare unless buffered by a device set forth in Section 35 -400, Footnote 10; shall not have an impervious surface for more than half the playground area; and shall extend at least 60 feet from the wall of the building or to an adjacent property line, whichever is less, or shall be bounded on not more than two sides by parking and driving areas. Section 35 -413. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS IN I -1 AND I -2 DISTRICTS. 1. Buffer and Setback Where a proposed I -1 or I -2 development abuts any residential district (R1 through R7) either at a property line or a public street line, buffer provisions shall be established according to the following: a. Where I -1 or I -2 abuts R1, R2, or R3 at a property line., the protective strip shall be no less than 100 feet in width. The protective strip shall not be used for parking, driveway, off - street loading or storage and shall be landscaped. Parking may be permitted in the buffer strip where an I -1 or I -2 use abuts an institutional use provided it does not extend to within 15 feet of the property line. The landscaped treatment shall contain an opaque fence or wall which shall not extend within 10 feet of any street right -of -way. The fence or wall design must be approved by the City Council as being in harmony with the residential neighborhood and providing sufficient screening of the industrial area. The fence or wall shall be eight feet in height. The protective strip shall contain no structures other than the approved fence or wall. b. Where I -1 or I -2 abuts R1, R2, or R3 at a public street line, the protective buffer strip shall be no less than 50 feet in width, shall contain no structures other than screening devices, shall not be used for parking, off - street loading, storage, or any other industrial activity, and shall be landscaped. Parking may be permitted in the buffer strip where an I -1 or I -2 use abuts an institutional use provided it does not extend to within 15 feet of the property line. Activity areas shall be effectively screened from view of the residential district in a manner to be approved b the City Council. P Y Y C. Where I -1 or I -2 abuts R4, R5, R6, or R7 at a property line, the protective buffer strip shall be no less than 50 feet in width, shall contain no structures other than screening devices, shall not be used for off - street loading, o industrial activity, g, age r any other in 1 ct ity, and shall be landscaped. Parking may be permitted in the buffer strip provided it does not extend to within 15 feet of the property line. Activity areas shall be effectively screened from view of the residential district in a manner to be approved by the City Council. 69th AVENUE NORTH ­7 7 7T o4q,7q — 39'`I.Sd rr 848.33 i I t3 � I im it r a G6 847.$1 p ' X I15 enz Al X347 .P99s�t uN.PA4.a5 �KV.�i, � . bqq v I FIN •�tGYJF� A�M6D g�q,5o , NEW HORIZON_ . 3 CHILD CARE GAS STATION t tAb"lo� 1 M6 vt, 69th AVENUE NORTH • � 1 1 `(E I 1 l i l i i t � O Q 3 , i t I i I 1 GAS STATION Z 1 �I 4 - i N p �-�L11 � Y1M011IA ��- as ;<•'' \.''``.' o .Ob IN3AIH� 153M __ —__./� V �I'�'� - - - as 1 N' -- - _ - - -1 FN AVE. � _�1 - � I�.lu II II f ,x r'�Y 'Y �X F ��� �� '* ALDRI AVEAVE - L - 1__LLl_L1.1J _ � r'—• BfiYnN7 AV — E. N- -N 3nv xv3i� r L I I ' N TT _ (� DU � zz��I L111.L1_Ll_ LL1_L1lL L..1_-I__L_ -LY I 1NOdU � I m ' � ___ • i � s Y wS -3^� 2 11. _ AVE. ', i � 1� II � �'� - -' DUPONI I� - - � I .3nV WSH713 '-- - ` -+-+ E s 1 N '3'Y La YI ?9j ? Vt. A N. •� � _ - _ \ 1 � b � G. IAERSON J IN(N13tl3 OdYb +9�S '3nV 1N0 - [\ , — , \, .•.� --r ;i 1f • ;iY, - ol N • 3nV OHVHID � 1 ` \' k, x � •`�; ; • L_ -1�1J Lll.L_L l y. m IGyry I cV F \ (_ f� \ ' w i AV - --- --- �1 JS CI NER. N. 'N '3nV ONIAUI r .� 1RVING w z , Lr N N O SNINGIE ` CN ' � NMOhg 9R6 AN O P OR. i \ i 1 \ J `L( `k' 1 Y kk i NC 14" _n- i v �\ L 5 1 l� r _ 1 Y V , , „ , , , r` 1 „ , f. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date W27/92 Agenda Item Numbe 0— REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: STAFF REPORT REGARDING STATUS OF 1992 REFORESTATION PROGRAM DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Dire r of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOM MNDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attac SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached No • The City Council earlier this year authorized the 1992 Residential Reforestation program. This program provides certificates to residents good for $50 off the purchase of a tree planted to replace a tree lost to disease. This year the City received a $1,000 grant from Global ReLeaf to help support the program. A total of 80 certificates were available; 75 were issued. All but twelve of those certificates were used. Those twelve residents will be contacted to determine if they continue to be interested in using the certificate. All unused certificates will be offered to property owners who had a diseased tree removed in spring or early summer of 1992. Comments from property owners have been overwhelmingly positive. The most popular replacement trees have been the several varieties of maples. Four property owners planted a tree on the boulevard; the remainder appear to have been planted on private property. Other Reforestation Information We have been notified by the DNR that Brooklyn Center has been awarded a $5,000 Small Business Administration grant for reforestation. The grant will be used to provide matching funds to plant new boulevard trees. Funds will be made available to the City later this fall, for planting in Spring, 1993. I CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 07/27/92 • Agenda Item Number / 1 9 16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: WATER MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS RE: 63RD - 65TH AVENUE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS DEPT. APPROV Sy Knapp, rector ublic Works �� y MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attac ed SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes • In January the City Council approved a contract for engineering services with Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik and Associates, Inc. (BRAA) for development of a Water Management Plan for the City of Brooklyn Center, to comply with state mandates and to provide a "blueprint" for future improvements to the City's storm drainage system. To date, BRAA has assembled data regarding the City's system, and has presented a preliminary report regarding possible improvements to the 63rd /65th Avenue storm drainage system, in response to the City Council's request for priority analysis of needs in that area - as demonstrated by numerous citizen reports regarding flooding of streets and private properties. This report has been reviewed by the Water Management Task Force which was appointed by the City Council. At its meeting on July 20, that Task Force recommended: • that a "5 -year storm" design standard be used for the analysis, design and improvement of storm drainage systems throughout the City; and • that the concepts shown in BRAA's report (see attached information) be given preliminary approval and referred to the City Council for its review and comments, with the recommendation that the Council request both the Park and Recreation Board, and the Planning Commission to review and comment on the proposed use of park properties as storm water ponds, and request the City Council to provide direction regarding solicitation of public input. ( Note : detailed staff report attached.) In addition, the Task Force approved a draft article "Are We Killing Our Wetlands" for printing and publication in the City Newsletter - and suggested that the Council consider approval of a coloring contest for the related graphic. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A representative from BRAA, members of the Water Management Task Force, and City staff will attend the July 27 Council meeting to present and discuss this information. Based on the City Council's review and discussion, the following actions are suggested: • If additional information is needed, describe those needs to BRAA, the Task Force, and /or City staff. • Consider referring the question of park land use to the Park and Recreation Board and to the Planning Commission. • Provide direction regarding solicitation of public input ... • Consider approval of the educational material for publication in the City newsletter. • Consider approval of a coloring contest with prizes. • CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 B YROOKLYN TELEPHONE: 569 -3300 C ENTER FAX: 569 -3494 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: G. G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: July 23, 1992 SUBJ: Water Management Task Force Recommendations I. Technical Recommendation On January 27, 1992 the City Council approved an agreement with Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik and Associates, Inc. (BRAA) for the development of Phase I of a water management plan which will comply with state mandates and provide a "blueprint" for future improvements to the City's storm drainage system. One priority issue which BRAA was requested to address as soon as possible is the 63rd /65th Avenue storm drain system - with particular emphasis on resolving the periodic flooding problems which occur west of Brooklyn Boulevard. During the past several months, BRAA has collected and analyzed storm drainage system data for the entire City, and has developed a preliminary analysis of the 63rd /65th Avenue storm drainage system. This information has been reviewed with City staff and with the Water Management Task Force which was appointed by the City Council. Following is a summary of the findings and consensus which has been developed between BRAA, the Task Force and City staff. ■ It is recommended that the design standard to be used for analysis, design and improvement of storm drainage systems throughout the City, should be the "5 -year storm ". This means that the system should be designed and constructed in such a way that, on the average (over a very long period of time), some streets, yards or properties will experience some degree of flooding once every five years. This standard was agreed to because it is the prevailing standard which most Minnesota cities now use. Some cities and other agencies use a higher standard (i.e. - a 10 -year storm, or other). The 5 -year standard is recommended because we believe: (1) it is reasonable and appropriate; (2) a higher standard would unnecessarily escalate costs; and (3) a lower standard would expose the City to litigation for damages resulting from improper design. i 19�6ALLAMIEIACA CRY � ■ Attached hereto are the following exhibits which show information developed by BRAA, and which has been reviewed and recommended for Council consideration by the Task Force and by staff: Exhibit A - a map showing the existing storm sewers and proposed improvements within the 63rd /65th Avenue storm drainage system. Exhibit B - a summary of cost estimates of the various elements of the proposed improvements to this system, and 13 alternate combinations of those elements. Exhibits C, D, and E - very preliminary sketches showing possible configurations for 3 storm drainage ponds which are recommended for consideration. Based on the above -noted recommendation that all storm drainage systems within the City should be designed for the "5 -year storm," the Task Force has given preliminary approval to the concepts shown in BRAA's report (i.e. - Exhibit A, which demonstrates implementation of all of the elements included in Alternative 10). The Task Force has referred this plan to the City Council, with the recommendation that the Council request both the Park and Recreation Board and the City Planning Commission to review and comment on the proposed use of park properties as storm water ponds, and requests the City Council to provide direction regarding solicitation of public input to these design concepts. Staff Notes 1. Based on BRAA's analysis, the estimated costs for implementation of BRAA's Alternate 10 plan for the 63rd /65th Avenue storm drainage system improvements total $1,089,816 - not including any land acquisition costs or easement costs, and not including rehabilitation of any defective existing sewers. 2. Alternative 11 shows the impact of project costs if a decision is made that Marlin Park cannot be used for storm water ponding. On this basis, total system costs increase to $1,539,621 ... an increase of nearly $450,000. 3. Alternative 12 shows the impact on project costs if a decision is made that Orchard Lane Park cannot be used for storm water ponding. On this basis, total system costs would increase to $1,756,722 ... an increase of nearly $667,000. 4. Alternative 13 shows the impact of project costs if a decision is made to not build any storm water ponds, and to build an "all- pipe" system. These total system costs would be $2,916,849 ... a $1,827,000 increase. It must also be noted that, since this alternate would increase the rate of discharge to Shingle Creek, and would not provide any water quality improvements (such as those provided by a storm water pond) this alternative would be totally unacceptable under current Watershed, State and Federal guidelines. 5. No estimate has been made of the costs of buying additional property adjacent to either Marlin Park or Orchard Lane Park - either for the purpose of using those properties for storm water ponding in lieu of the parks or using such properties as replacement for lost park properties. However, a very cursory review of that option would indicate that these costs would very roughly approximate the costs for additional piping (i.e. - Alternatives 11 or 12). 6. Regarding the proposed pond at the southwest corner of the Brooklyn Boulevard /1694 interchange, it is noted that this pond is proposed to be located on the 4.1 acre vacant property. Councilmembers will recall that the City considered purchase of this property for use as a storm water holding pond, in cooperation with MNDOT, in 1989. However, that proposal was indefinitely tabled because (1) the City had no detailed analysis which proved the need for a pond, and (2) MNDOT was not far enough along on its plan for "3rd lane" improvements to I694, west of Brooklyn Blvd., to allow them to expend funds for this purpose; and (3) preliminary negotiations with the property owners were unsuccessful. 7. Recently, a representative of MTC contacted the City Manager to discuss the possibility of locating a Park and Ride facility on this 4.1 acre site. Subsequently, City staff met with representatives from MNDOT and MTC, and agreement has been reached that the 3 parties (i.e. - MTC, MNDOT and the City) will cooperate to develop a concept for optional joint use of this site. 8. It is noted that this plan, or any amended plan, for improvements to the 63rd /65th Avenue storm sewer system, could certainly be staged - based on a prioritization of needs, integration with other public improvement projects, availability of funding sources, etc. However, each stage would need to be evaluated to assure the level of its effectiveness so long as the total system improvements are incomplete. 9. For example, BRAA advises that construction of a storm water pond in Marlin Park, along with its inlet and outlet facilities (i.e. - element B) could be effective in substantially reducing drainage problems on Indiana Avenue. However, the level of service would be something less than a 5 -year design, and a "check valve" type device would need to be installed into the outlet pipe to prevent the 65th Avenue storm sewer from backflowing into the pond. Accordingly this element of the plan could be accomplished for an estimated $135,000 (i.e. - $125,308 plus approximately $10,000 for a backflow preventor). II. Public Education Recommendations At its meeting on July 20, the Task Force also made the following recommendations regarding a public education program: • It approved the attached article "Are We Killing Our Wetlands" (see Exhibit F) and graphic (see Exhibit G) for publication as an insert into the next City newsletter. • It recommended that the City Council approve sponsorship of a "coloring contest" to encourage readership and interest in preventing pollution. The attached letter from BRAA (Exhibit H) provides some details which could be incorporated into the contest. The Task Force offered to judge the entries to such a contest, and further suggested that the City consider awarding "Stormie" refrigerator magnets to all entrants. It is noted that articles relating to the water management planning process have been included in the last two City newsletters, and it is our intent to increase the amount of informational and educational coverage in future additions of the newsletter. Sy IV Attachments cc: Members of the Water Management Task Force Kristin Mann Dan McGroarty Jon Perkins Tim Teas William Siems Graydon Boeck Ismael Martinez - BRAA r j()j LDO A 03 IT- �v � -1N _N I(EGUN't AVE. -1 ffr V UUAIL AVE. A fn au 14' ORMARD AVE. w 41 OR CJIy IT A t_ T� �y- - -- ( -I .� 1_ _IIIQl11lE� � -- __I - j - I I ��C,j. �1UJOil ��-� __ — A V w1i I _►A jOR AV. _ r -, - -� 1 r� - 1 —1 — — T = } - _ _ _ __ - -� _�= I = - I 1 -�T C2 C6 !,n _ y i _ r i I l l _ rIT-11TI Lq i t AVr r =-E DR- WAL IN 4- Cpl , ; ; ; : _ _ ?o /A1,11(Al ALY , _ j I -- In Alt [[ --- EW - N 46P _3 _AVhQ __ AW.. iu VE. AVE ( - I_) -- _ - -- - tl --- 6 M _11 L= _ -- - C. v I C� 0) Avi W I f 24' A4 fl V.4 TOLEDO AVE. s co T AVE-A REG A VE. AVE. _ FW3A) OuAlL AVELA I-T- �PT ' A . N -.-I — A --- wa T= ORCH _0_AVE- N. t400LE E. N. N LE E. fi -_ I C! 1. 1 ituo I � 'witl • 9 * ;AV M:Iuu 3AVAUVM 1100 kill N .\1 Im A, AVAGhi ti 63 rd. & 65 th. Ave. Storm Sewer System 1 Year storm 5 Year storm Cost ( *) Alternatives Features Area Serviced Percent of total Area Serviced Percent of total ac. ac. Existing 191 37.5 36 7.1 $0.00 1 A 224 43.9 138 27.1 $237,440.00 2 A -B 392 76.9 284 55.7 $362,748.00 3 A -B -D 490 96.1 337 66.1 $441,648.00 4 A -B -D -F 490 96.1 376 73.7 $566,672.00 5 A -B -D -G 490 96.1 383 75.1 $487,034.00 6 A -B -D -E 510 100.0 406 79.6 $634,176.00 7 A- B -D -E -F 510 100.0 445 87.3 $759,200.00 8 A- B -C -D -F 490 96.1 441 86.5 $897,288.00 9 A- B- C -D -E -G 510 100.0 510 100.0 $1,010,178.00 10 A- B- C -D -E -F 510 100.0 510 100.0 $1,089,816.00 11 A -C -D -F + 1 510 100.0 510 100.0 $1,539,621.00 12 A -B -E + II 510 100.0 510 100.0 $1,756,722.00 13 III 510 100.0 510 100.0 $2,916,849.00 A Brooklyn Blvd. /1694 Pond and the Brooklyn Dr. pipe and outlet addi $237,440.00 B Marlin Park Pond $125,308.00 C 65 th Ave. N. Pipe replacement (54` RCP form Orchard to Kyle) $330,616.00 D Orchard Lane Park Pond $78,900.00 E Parallel pipe additions (27' RCP Brooklyn Blvd. south of 63rd. Ave. $192,528.00 42" RCP Garden City School grounds) F Parallel pipe additions (27' RCP Orchard Ave. 65 th. to 63 rd. Ave. $125,024.00 G Orchard Lane School Pond $45,386.00 1 Equivalent in performance to features B, E If Equivalent in performance to features C, D, F III Equivalent in performance to features A, B, C, D, E, F ( *) Estimates do not include land acquisition and easement costs Note: Alternatives Existing through 6 do not include rehabilitation cost for existing segment C pipe. Cost of not building Marlin Pond $449,805.00 Orchard Park $666,906.00 EXHIBIT 13 Brooklyn Blvd. / 1694 Pond $710,322.00 8onestroo Client: '�2 Page 3 i ® Rosene Project: Proj. No. Zo"L Anderlik & Calculations For: p1�21< r Re ared B : Date: , �e Z Associates �'OtJt V(� 5 wed By: Date: G AJT�lZ AAA a C C � 8�'� 1� 1 1. C tsa S . t X53 (« *Af,) Z2 &: MAg4.4A p�z-�'� 7, .Q v � 06, X04 !2 a� EXHIBIT C Bonestroo Client: oo L (,�,�y Page F3 WAN Rosene Project: p. Pro'. No. (2 Anderlik & Calculations For: 0zc. Prepared By: Datea 2 Associates QR« o b Reviewed By: Date: �g Mr-Q X5 01 t .� (too (: Lv 852 D 7 w( gSS•Z of D J ® C7 YEAR 1 '�R El- E�/•.1. l CO A F. S5 a AF. o Y� EXHIBIT D Bonestroo Client: L�Z-(L- age 1 of 3 Rosene Project: /, P. Pro'. No. 2.", Anderlik & Calculations For:$ scKL Prepared B : 2E Date: 2 - z Associates p oop S Reviewed By: Date: C4 O 0R, AZE . �To� ?i 3., 473 5 Yri . n� loo YR. , - 841./ a - $53A " Ym �~ T ■ Are We Killing Our Wetlands? Natural wildlife habitats associated with dean water are impacted by our everyday activities. We generate pollution which enters our water resources, impacts water quality, disturbs the ecosystem, pollutes wetlands, and affects the water quality of streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans. Wildlife, fish, and vegetation will no longer exist in these areas if they are severely polluted. Storm sewers carry the following pollutants to wetlands, streams, lakes, and rivers: ❑ Residuals from car maintenance: > paint chips > wax > soap >detergents ❑ Dirty snow containing: > salt > road de -icers > sand > driveway tar ❑ Spilled substances: >oa > gasoline >transmission fluid > fine, dusty residuals from fire and street wear Here are a few ways you can help limit the amount of pollutants that reach our storm sewers: ❑ Do not drain waste fluids, especially oil, into the sewer. ❑ When maintaining your car, avoid spills and -use funnels. If you do spill a substance, wipe it up and dispose of it properly. ❑ If you use salt or sand for de -icing sidewalks or steps, use it sparingly. Let'StormfW show you how to help protect our water resources. EXHIBIT F 0 o Auto o JIM ° Exhaust i Grass - - -- ins Leaves ® Oil Clippings Motor an PP 9 ;Lubricants LEAD. �OXYGEr" ONSL a4 CADMIUM , ZINC, GaSOlin@ PestlCideS U MGMAT .. P Tire Wear Eroded S NI7 ERl HYDROCARBONS TOXIC MATERIALS OGEN, Bq qLS• SOLI ACTERIA,OXYGEN CONSUMING MATERIALS,,. Pet W8S1BS > �O Paint ° ' o x " " SEDIME LIL LEA With thousands of Storm sewer Inlets around town stormwater is a major contributor OXYGEN ,CONSUMIN Fertilizer to water pollution in urban areas. Although each storm sewer inlet contributes only • ° MATERIALS Metal a small number of pollutants, when added together, pollution concentrations often Corrosion PHpgPNO EN exceed the limits established for industries and wastewater treatment plants. If the pollutants entering each of these inlets can be reduced, so will the pollution in area + ZINC, p COPPER. waters. u_ + CHROMIU `., YGEN ' x OX CONSUM BACTERIA � . » . a „ + PIaSIICS -_� ,� \ k a Street Litt er Y « u s'. aL Y . . \ 5 -�% a » y r e + + SA P \P U"��'�. - 9 V� - ` • » �• 7OX1C % �`�- » C 1 What cities can do to help: _ What you can do to help: • Adopt and enforce erosion control ordinances for • Do not allow soil, leaves or grass clippings to accumulate on your ' construction sites. (3 4 driveway, sidewalk or in the street. • Require stormwater controls in all new developments. ® • Do not use the storm sewer for disposing of motor oil, • Install stormwater controls in existing areas where ^ Q antifreeze, pesticides, paints, solvents, or other materials. ° stormwater is very polluted. `t Y • Sweep (do not wash) fertililizer and soil off driveways and walkways. • Increase spring and fall street sweeping. Any debris remaining on paved areas will quickly be washed into the -_ • Require leaves and other yard wastes to be placed along nearest storm sewer during the next rainfall. _ the curb for collection rather than in the gutter. • Minimize your use of de -icing materials on sidewalks and driveways. • Dispose of pet wastes by flushing them down the toilet or by burial. UWEX and , To lake, river Wisconsin DNR or wetland EXHIBIT G Otto G. Bonestroo. PE. Howard A. Sanford, P.E. Gary E Rylander, PE. Philip J. Caswell, P.E. Robert W Bonestroo Joseph C Anderik, RE. Ro R. Pfefferle. Michael Riau? E Mil B . Jensen, P RE. Rosene Marvin L Sorvala. PE Richard W Foster, PE. Agnes M. Ring, A LGP L. Phillip Gravel III, PE. Q Richard E. Turner, PE. David O. Loskota, PE. Thomas W. Peterson, P.E. Karen L. Wiemeri, P.E. Ander�ik Q( Glenn R. Cook, PE. Robert C..Russek, A:I.A. Michael C. Lynch, RE. F. Todd Foster. P.E. Thomas E. Noyes, PE. Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E. James R. Maland, PE. Keith R. Yapp, P.E. Robert G. Schunicht, PE. Mark A. Hanson, PE. Jerry D. Pertzsch, P.E. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. Assoc iates Susan M. Eberlin. CPA. Michael T. Rautmann, PE. Kenneth P. Anderson, P.E. Cecilio Olivier, P.E. *Senior Consultant Ted K. Field, PE. Mark R. Rolfs, P.E. Charles A. Erickson Thomas R. Anderson, A.I.A. Mark A. Seip. P.E. Leo M. Pawelsky Engineers & Architects Donald C. Burgardt. PE. Gary W Morien, P.E. Harlan M. Olson Thomas E. Angus, PE. Daniel J. Edgerton, P.E. James F. Engelhardt July 21, 1992 City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Attn: Sy Knapp, Public Works Director Re: Ideas on coloring contest for the "Stormie" graphic Our File No. 41202 Dear Sy: At our last Water Management Task Force meeting, the "Stormie" stormwater pollution sources graphic was presented to the task force for their approval for its use in the next city newsletter. Ismael Martinez (BRA) suggested that a coloring contest on the "Stormie" graphic with a prize for the winner may be a good idea to get kids involved and begin the educational process related to stormwater issues. The Task Force was unanimous in their approval of the idea and recommended that the graphic be used in the next city newsletter as a looseleaf flyer addition including the coloring contest with some sort of a prize award be referred to the City council. The coloring contest prize could be 1 year pass to the City pool Monetary prize Several passes to one of the area attractions (Valleyfair, MN Zoo, Wave Pool, Waterslides,etc.) The contest could be open to all kids under the age of 16 with one prize for the winner, or age groups could be chosen with prizes for each group. I would recommend the separation into age groups 0 -5, 6 -10, 11 -16. This would encourage greater participation as the pictures would be judged against others of similar skill levels. The consensus of the Task Force was that the key to the success of the stormwater quality program is with the kids. They are the ones that we need to target through various educational programs and this contest may be a first step in that process. Yours very truly, BONESTJZOO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. �P EXHIBIT H Keith R. Yap , 41202.cor 2335 West Hlghway 36 • St. Paul, Mlnnesota 55113 • 612- 636 -4600 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council M eeting Date 7/27 92 Agenda Item Number _/ �e-- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: 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 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 Planning Commission's recommendation is 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. • 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. 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] 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 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 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.) 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 Hail, 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. 1 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 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 buildings. Commissioner Johnson asked about the 95% provision 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 -16 -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 up when 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 good 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 than the provisions currently or formerly in place. 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] 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.] 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 Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) 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: 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 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 95 %. 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 C1A) 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 95%. 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.) 9 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. ISCUSS 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 Y 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 Is 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 800 occupied. He asked Mr. Kelly whether 80% is a reasonable occupancy for removal. Mr. Kelly answered that a building that is 80% occupied is still not profitable. He stated he couldn't remember when he had a building that was 100% occupied. He stated that 95% 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 95% 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 i 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 Plannin g 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 he sign down once a ear. She asked g g y 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 tLat 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. 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 day care centers in commercial zones. 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 DAY CARE CENTERS IN COMMERCIAL ZONES 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 -320. C1 SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT. 3. Special Uses 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 R1, R2, R3 zoned land and provided] that such developments, in each specific case, are demonstrated to be: 1. Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as with those uses permitted in the C1 district generally. 2. Complementary to existing adjacent land uses as well as to those uses permitted in the C1 district generally. 3. Of comparable intensity to permitted C1 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. Section 35 -322. C2 COMMERCE DISTRICT 3. Special Uses q. Group day care facilities provided [they are not located on the same property as or adjacent to any use which is not permitted to abut R1, R2, or R3 zoned property and provided they are not located in a retail shopping center; and further provided] that such developments, in each specific case, are demonstrated to be: 1. Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as with those uses permitted in the C2 district generally. 2. Complementary to existing adjacent land uses as well as with those uses permitted in the C2 district generally. 3. Of comparable intensity to permitted C2 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. Furthermore, group day care facilities shall be subject to the special requirements set forth in Section 35 -412. 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: Clerk r Date of Publication: Effective Date: (Underline indicates new matter; brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) 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. z "Ic. 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 are temporary 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 wall 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 S CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7/8/91 Agenda item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 91008 - Welsh Companies, Inc. ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Ronala 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 ) submitted b Welsh Planning Commission Application No. 91008 Y 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 the grounds that the standards for a sign ordinance variance were 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. t SUMMARY EXPLANATION 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 advertising a business, 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. 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 50% 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.) if fl REAL ESTATE SIGNS (FOR LEASE) Bloomington Will fax Brooklyn Park 20 sq. ft. freestanding sign 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 800 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 two family district, 32 sq. ft. in multiple family, commercial and industrial districts. Heavy industrial = 50 sq. ft. Minnetonka (Temporary signs) 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 sq. 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 1' for each 1' of ht. Permit is $45 for 3 months for banners. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7/22/9 Agenda Rem 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: 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 The City Council at its Jul 8 1991 meeting, denied ► y g, 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 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 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 8/12/9 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION it�cit�t�tF�t�t�k�t�t�ta ticicicicicic* ic* �k�t�k�k�F�F�t�t* �F�t�t�t�t* icitic�t�k�kic�ir�k�k�t** tk�k** �1r* ir* �k** �Mr�t�k�tirkir�t * *�t�t * * *�t�kicir * *�Ir *�k * *�t* 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 k 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 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; 2) limited freestanding real estate signs 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 9 day of September , 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 travelinct public and which is not making a Pickup or delivery or being anpronriately 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- d ORDINANCE NO. 91 -13 way in the following manner:] no greater than 32 scr. 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. [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 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 August 1991. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication August 21 , 1991 Effective Date Sept ember 20, 1991 (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Mecting Date July 27, 199 , Agwda It. N..t. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: DISCUSSION ITEM: FINANCIAL COMMISSION TERMS DEPT. APPROVAL: Geral . Barone, Personnel Coordinator MANAGERS REVIEW/RECOMAIENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached YES At its July 13, 1992, meeting, the city council approved Resolution No. 92 -168 which transformed • the Brooklyn Center ad hoc City financial task force into a City advisory commission. This resolution now establishes staggered three -year terms, so it is necessary for the city council to assign term expiration dates for each of the financial commission members. One suggested method is to put all names of the commissioners in a hat and draw one name for filling the first spot. Thereafter, the spots could be filled alphabetically. Attached is a listing of the commission membership and a form with term expiration dates. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Assign term expiration dates for financial commission members. BROOKLYN CENTER FINANCIAL COMMUSSION MEMBERS Pat Boran Ulyssess Boyd Ron Christensen Don Escher Viola "Vi" Kanatz Denis Kelly Greg Peppin FINANCIAL COMMISSION TERM EXPIRATIONS DECEMBER 31, 1993 DECEMBER 31, 1993 DECEMBER 31, 1994 DECEMBER 31, 1994 DECEMBER 31, 1995 DECEMBER 31, 1995 DECEMBER 31, 1995 t CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Comcil Mecting Date 7/27192 Agmda Item Numbs REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION I'T'EM DESCRIPTION: STATE RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM DEPT. APP erald plinter, City Manager MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOAMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUIVE WRY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) During the last legislative session modifications were approved to existing law which allows for a temporary early retirement employer paid health insurance program for city employees who retire between July 1, 1992, and October 1, 1992. Under this program Minnesota cities are allowed, not obligated, to establish a retirement incentive program which could allow the city to commit to a contribution by the City of up to the current employer contribution rate ($280 per month) towards insurance premiums for employees qualifying under this special legislation after their retirement. The City Council has recently adopted a retirement incentive program which pays the current single premium (currently $131 to $174 per month) for those qualifying under the Council adopted resolution approving this program. This State program has a limited application for Brooklyn Center as there would be only six employees qualifying under the terms of the special legislation. Because the state authorized program would be more expensive and have less benefit to the City, it doesn't appear to have significant advantage over our existing program. The chief advantage this program has over our existing program is that it allows for a greater benefit payment and it allows the City Council to commit for the full term of the benefit and does not have to be approved on a year to year basis. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Discuss the merits of the State of Minnesota temporary early retirement incentive program and give instructions to City staff regarding your desire to implement the program or not. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date July 27. 1992 Agenda Item Number /O REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESTRUCTURING OF POLICE DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1992 BUDGET AND AUTHORIZING THE RESTRUCTURING OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT DEPT. APPROV James inds y, Chief of Police MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report rt. Comment elow /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached yes ) In December, 1991 the City Council considered restructuring the police department by looking at middle management positions and compressing duties downward. When the Police Chief announced his retirement to be effective in 1992, the council decided to delay this consideration until a new chief was appointed. Chief Lindsay has announced his retirement effective September 11, 1992. Captain A. Paul Monteen has announced he has accepted the Police Chief position in Crookston, Minnesota effective August 1, 1992. Monteen's last day with the Brooklyn Center Police Department will be July 24, 1992. The department looked at implementing structure changes at this time for several reasons. The new chief is scheduled to start about October 5, 1992. If he is from outside the department, it will be several months before he will be familiar enough to make a recommendation. If the new chief is promoted from within, it will leave two key positions vacant. I selected a committee to review and make recommendations. The five -year plan was consulted by the committee. The current structure was reviewed for activities appropriate to be compressed downward. The five -year plan has projected the need for establishing a supervisor for the investigative function. This position would be responsible for the day -to -day direction and supervision of investigators. The committee concentrated on developing this program. Three basic options were considered in the review of the situation. First, we could elect to do nothing to fill the vacant captain position. This was not seen as a viable option for anyone as there is a great deal of duties which need to be performed on a daily basis. There would be no easy method of having these duties performed. 0 The second option was to provide an interim or temporary appointment. This would allow the new chief to make the decision on the management staffing of the department. The problems caused by this option are many in number. This type of operation is less effective as the person knows the position is only temporary. It also places the new chief in the position of having to make a quick decision before he can adequately learn the organization and its needs. Interim promotions cause problems for both the promoted party and the promoter; these types of problems cause the organization to be less YP P g efficient. Some of the types of problems caused b interim promotions r YP P y are related to the labor contract. Examples are that at the contract calls for individuals P a s promoted to loose their seniority with the union. This would mean any individual who accepted the temporary promotion would then come back to the bottom of the seniority list at the end of his promotional period. There are also shift assignment problems caused as anything over 30 days is a permanent change in the schedule and all officers must rebid. The last option considered was for a permanent appointment. This option makes the organization fully effective as quickly as possible. It allows the new chief some time to acquaint himself with the organizations before having to make some of these decisions. Because of the time it takes to process and evaluate the candidates, the new chief would be involved in making the actual appointment recommendation. This option also eliminates the negatives posed by the other two options. The only possible problem with this option would be if the new chief does', not like the new organizational structure. This was considered a lesser possibility since the decision was reached through a department committee composed of personnel with the department P p pa tment for quite some time; follows the direction of the five -year plan committee of the department; and the wishes of the Council to compress some duties • down to first -line supervisors. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Authorize the restructuring of the police department management and approve the resolution amending the 1992 budget. �� N CEN BROOKLYN CENTE N R POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICE MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: James Lindsay, Chief of Police DATE: July 20, 1992 SUBJECT: Justification for Proposed Restructuring of Police Department Management The recent notice of Captain Monteen's separation has created a need to review administrative duties in the police department. I first considered requesting to fill the existing position on an interim basis. This would allow the new chief to have input into the permanent selection. After review, I believe the interim appointment will be less desirable. It places the new chief in a position of having to make a quick decision because of the circumstances. It also has the tendency to provide undue support for the interim incumbent when a more permanent position is finalized. It also creates problems coordinating the position with the labor contract. The position would exist for a period longer than 30 days, creating a vacancy in the schedule. This would require the rebidding of the entire schedule and possibly a disruption from their current assignment. By addressing the matter at this time, it would allow the department to remain fully effective. It will allow the new chief to evaluate the department before he has to make a restructuring decision. A new chief is going to have a number of very important considerations to make almost immediately after he starts. The five -city study report for consolidated dispatch phase I is due by August lst. It appears the report is going to tell us that it is feasible to join together as well as being cost effective and a more efficient operation. It would be expected the new chief would have input into this decision process. Memo to G.G. Splinter Page 2 July 20, 1992 If it is decided to go forward with the joint dispatch, the new chief will be required to look at a number of internal operations immediately. If we no longer have dispatchers on site, do we keep the office open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? If the answer is yes, then how do we staff the facility. Also closely tied to this decision is the staffing of the jail. Do we continue to lodge prisoners in our jail and provide 24 hour staffing, or do we use the county jail where the current costs are $98 for the booking process plus $17 per quarter -day for lodging. This would add well over $100,000 to the board of prisoners line item in the police budget per year. If there is a decision to implement the dispatching, the police chiefs are very interested in establishing one jail facility jointly, replacing the four facilities now operated 24 hours a day. We have also started the process of creating a new eligibility list for patrol officer. The schedule is such that the new chief will have input into the final phase of the new eligibility list. Considering the above, the new chief will have immediate major considerations regarding staffing and reorganization. I consider the appointment of creating an investigative lieutenant's position more as a stop gap matter. In addition to being short a captain, the remaining staff has an amount of vacation time scheduled during the next 90 days. I asked the committee of four department employees to review and make a recommendation. They first reviewed the current five -year plan that was put together by that committee, as well as considered all the above stated concerns. The next staffing matter addressed by the five -year plan was to add an investigative supervisor. It was this four member committee's recommendation to create this position at this time. The new position would absorb a number of duties that are currently performed by a captain. This eliminated the need for temporarily filling the captain's position until the new chief deals with the overall restructuring. After lengthy considerations, it was decided to propose this position as a lieutenant's position rather than a sergeant. The implications regarding the labor contract appear too great and costly to establish the position with the title of sergeant. A sergeant is in the bargaining unit, therefore eligible for overtime, standby pay, and the question of whether or not the assignment of sergeant in investigation would be bid by seniority or by management assignment. Memo to G.G. Splinter Page 3 July 20, 1992 The committee reviewed these considerations and recommended the title of lieutenant, placing the position outside the union contract. The lieutenant would be exempt from overtime, would not receive standby pay when on call during the weekends, and would be a long -term position, not bid annually. In the police department hierarchy, the lieutenant's position will be considered a first -line supervisor. We anticipate the lieutenant's position to be 80% supervision and 20% actively involved in investigating major cases. When dealing with establishing the duties of the investigative lieutenant, because there would be one less captain, we also looked at dispursing the duties of that captain to the other two captains, the investigative lieutenant, the sergeants, and other administrative personnel. I will identify those compressed duties in an adjoining document. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER POSITION DESCRIPTION POSITION IDENTIFICATION TITLE: Police Lieutenant DEPARTMENT: Police STATUS: Exempt SALARY LEVEL: Supervisory - Professional Schedule C DATE WRITTEN /REVISED: 7/92 POSITION SUMMARY Overall direction of the investigative function of the police department, review and assign cases, and assists in coordinating investigative function with other functions of the police department. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Overall direction of the investigative division (includes evaluations of investigators and general crime -type assignments). 2. Communicates regularly with captain regarding overall administration of investigative function and items impacting other functions of department. 3. Schedule design and implementation (includes approval of overtime and time off requests) for investigative division. 4. Review all cases and assign appropriate ones to investigators. 5. Major case commander (case investigator has actual control, lieutenant has overall control of major scenes). 6. Handle in- custody cases and prisoners, assigns to investigator. 7. Supervises case load in investigative function. 8. Responsible for making recommendations on training for investigative function. 9. Liaison with patrol (i.e. attends some roll calls to gather /disseminate information, et cetera). 10. Responsible for dealing directly with officer to correct problems with reports, but informs sergeant of problem and progress. 11. Investigates internal complaints against officers that involve criminal charges. 12. Liaison with County Attorney's office. 13. Responsible for subpoenas and court notices from the County Attorney's office for all employees. 14. Primary representative for department at various inter- department investigative function meetings; including MOCIC, Anoka /Hennepin Drug Task Force, et cetera. 15. Responsible for handling of all intelligence information including dissemination and assignment thereof. 16. Responsible for maintenance and control of equipment in investigative function. 17. Responsible for cleanliness of investigative area. 18. Functional supervision of patrol, dispatch, and clerical staff. 19. Other duties as assigned. 1 KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES 1. Ability to communicate ideas and explanations clearly, both orally and in writing. 2. Knowledge of the principles and techniques of management and supervision. 3. Ability to work congenially with other employees and to deal with the public in a friendly, tactful manner. 4. Comprehension of rules covering evidence and ability to direct the gathering, identifying and preserving of evidence at a crime scene and knowledge to present it properly in court. 5. Working knowledge of City ordinances and related State and Federal laws. 6. Ability to make fair, timely and effective decisions both in an emergency situation and in a nonemergency situation. 7. Possess and reflect overall leadership characteristics including a willingness and an ability to accept responsibility, emotional maturity, reliability, ability to inspire respect from others, decisive decision - making, initiative - taking, and sense of humor. EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE REQUIRED 1. Three years experience as an investigator; or three years experience as a sergeant, along with at least two years experience in investigation. All experience must be with the Brooklyn Center Police Department. POSITION DESCRIPTION APPROVED By Department Director Date Approved By City Manager Date Approved 1992 Bud et A pproved Maxim Chief $62,490.00 Captain $53,721.00 Lieutenant* $49,885.00 Sergeant $46,080.84 Investigator $43 *Proposed Lieutenant's Maximum Pay Proposed Lieutenant's Pay Per 1992 Pay Scale Schedule C, Supervisor Exempt from overtime Rate Monthly Annual Be innin Rate: S29A $3,416.00 $40,992.00 Going Rate: S31 C $3,957.00 $47,782.001 Maximum Rate: S33C $4 $49,885.00 3 COMPRESSION OF DUTIES FROM CAPTAIN: Duties Compressed to the Lieutenant: 1. Supervision of investigators. 2. Evaluations of investigators at least semi - annually. 3. Scheduling of investigators. 4. Court notices for all county attorney cases. 5. Review of all daily reports for assignment to investigators or return to patrol officers. 6. Intelligence information - handling, dissemination, and assignment. 7. Review and recommend updates in general orders dealing with investigative division. 8. Responsible for cleanliness of investigative area. 9. Assist in planning and research of various department administrative reports as requested. Duties Compressed to the 5 Sergeants,. 1. Court notices for all city attorney cases. 2. Supervision of code enforcement officers and cadets. 3. Review and recommend updates in general orders dealing with patrol division. 4. Responsible for developing training program for cadets. 5. Responsible for cleanliness of sergeants' office, squad room garage, halls, locker room, and jail. 6. Overtime and short -term time off authorization for officers, code enforcement, and cadets. 7. Review and make recommendations on schedule design. 8. Schedule maintenance and repair of squad cars and equipment. 9. Schedule department tours. 10. Administers department ride -along program. 11. Responsible for quarterly report of assists to and from outside agencies. 12. Responsible for security at special events, i.e. parade, etcetera. 13. Responsible for written evaluations of all patrol officers, code enforcement officers, and cadets at least semi - annually. 14. Department liaison with the explorer scout post. 15. Assist in planning and research of various department administrative reports as requested. Duties Compressed to the Administrative Services Manager: 1. Supervision of telephone assurance program. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING 1992 PAY PLAN TO IMPLEMENT CHANGES IN THE ORGANIZATION OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ---------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is continually reviewing staffing needs to provide the most cost effective service; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is currently undertaking a financial and service prioritization process to identify cost savings and rank priorities and, as a part of this process, the Police Department has been considering alternative staffing methods in an attempt to meet its goals more economically; and WHEREAS, after a review of options and the financial impact, staff has recommended that one position of Police Captain be eliminated and replaced by a Polce Lieutenant position. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the 1992 Pay Plan is hereby amended as follows: 1. The Police Department section of Schedule A, 1992 Positions Authorized is amended to reduce the number of authorized Police Captain positions from three to two and to add one Police Lieutenant position. 2. Schedule C is amended to add the position of Lieutenant with a grade range of S29A to S33C and a monthly salary range of $3,416 to $4,157. 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 camcil Meeting Datc Jaty p 1992 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO AUTHORIZE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FOR YEAR XVIII DEPT. APPROVAL: Tom Bublitz, Assistant EDA Coordinator MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONEWENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached YES ) This Resolution authorizes execution of the Subrecipient Agreement between Hennepin County and the City of Brooklyn Center for the Year XVIII CDBG Program. The Subrecipient Agreement sets forth the regulations for how the CDBG funds must be spent. Essentially, it is a standard contract which is executed annually and reflects the City's CDBG Program for the year. A copy of the agreement is included with this memorandum. As you may recall, $12,000.00 has been allocated in the CDBG program to the Household and Outside Maintenance for Elderly (H.O.M.E.) program. Since this is a new program, I have arranged to have a representative of Senior Community Services, the nonprofit corporation administering the program, attend the Council meeting to explain how the program will work. t RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Staff recommends approval of resolution. //a i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FOR YEAR XVIII WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has executed a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County for the purpose of participating in the 1992 (Year XVIII) Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County is the recipient of an annual grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for purposes of the program, and the City is a subrecipient under the program and receives a share of the grant; and WHEREAS, program regulations require that the City and County execute a Subrecipient Agreement which sets forth the specific implementation processes for activities to be undertaken with program funds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Brooklyn Center City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and the City Council to execute Subrecipient Agreement, County Contract Number AO 9392, on behalf of the City. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Contract No. A090392 SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA, hereinafter referred to as "RECIPIENT," A -2400 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487, and CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, hereinafter referred to as "SUBRECIPIENT," 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the State of Minnesota, and is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59: WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Recipient has received a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement allocation under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, to carry out various community development activities in cooperation with Subrecipient, according to the implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 570; and WHEREAS, $ 217.491.00 from Federal Fiscal Year 1992 CDBG funds has been approved by Recipient for use by Subrecipient for the implementation of eligible and fundable community development activity /ies as included in and a part of the 1992 Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds, Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and as set forth in the Statement of Work described in Exhibit 1 to this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Subrecipient agrees to assume certain responsibilities for the implementation of the approved activities described in Exhibit 1, said responsibilities being specified in part in the Joint Cooperation Agreement effective October 1, 1991, executed between Recipient and Subrecipient on August 20, 1991, and in the 1992 Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds, Urban Hennepin County CDBG program and the Certifications contained therein. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereunto do hereby agree as follows: 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES A. The Subrecipient shall expend all or any part of its CDBG allocation only on those activities identified in Exhibit 1, "Statement of Work," subject to the requirements of this Agreement and the stipulations and requirements set forth in Exhibit 1 to this Agreement. B. The Subrecipient shall take all necessary actions, not only to comply with the stipulations as set out in Exhibit 1, but to comply with any requests by the Recipient in that connection; it being understood that the Recipient is responsible to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for ensuring compliance with such requirements. The Subrecipient also will promptly notify the Recipient of any changes in the scope or character of the activity /ies which it is implementing. 2. TERM OF AGREEMENT The effective date of this Agreement is July 1, 1992. The termination date of this Agreement is December 31, 1993, or at such time as the activity /ies constituting part of this Agreement are satisfactorily completed prior thereto. Upon expiration, the Subrecipient shall relinquish to the Recipient all program funds unexpended or uncommitted and all accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds for the activities described in Exhibit 1. 3. THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS The Subrecipient may subcontract this Agreement and /or the services to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, only with the prior consent of the Recipient and only through a written Third Party Agreement acceptable to the Recipient. The Subrecipient shall not otherwise assign, transfer, or pledge this Agreement and /or the services to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, without the prior consent of the Recipient. 4. AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENT Any material alterations, variations, modifications or waivers of provisions of this Agreement which are a substantial change shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an Amendment to this Agreement signed, approved, and properly executed by the authorized representatives of the parties. All Amendments to this Agreement shall be made a part of this Agreement by inclusion as a numbered Exhibit which shall be attached at the time of any Amendment. Substantial change is defined as a change in (1) beneficiary; (2) project location; (3) purpose; or (4) scope, resulting in more than a 50% increase or decrease in the original budget or $10,000, whichever is greater, in any authorized activity. The total budget of multi - community activities will be used in determining substantial change. 5. PAYMENT OF CDBG FUNDS The Recipient agrees to provide the Subrecipient with CDBG funds not to exceed $ 217.491.00 to enable the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG- eligible activity /ies as described in Exhibit 1. It is understood that the Recipient shall be held accountable to HUD for the lawful expenditure of CDBG funds under this Agreement. The Recipient shall therefore make no payment of CDBG funds to the Subrecipient and draw no funds from HUD/U.S. Treasury on behalf of a Subrecipient activity /ies, prior to having received a proper Hennepin County Warrant Request form from the Subrecipient for the expenses incurred, as well as copies of all documents and records needed to ensure that the Subrecipient has complied p pli d with the appropriate regulations and requirements. 6. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE f A. The Subrecipient does hereby agree to release, indemnify, and hold harmless the Recipient from and against all costs, expenses, claims, suits or judgments arising from or growing out of any injuries, loss or damage sustained by any person or corporation, including employees of Subrecipient and property of Subrecipient, which are caused by or sustained in connection with the tasks carried out by the Subrecipient under this Agreement. B. The Subrecipient does further agree that in order to protect itself as well as the Recipient under the indemnity agreement provisions hereinabove set forth it will at all times during the term of this Agreement and any renewal thereof, have and keep in force: a single limit or combined limit or excess umbrella commercial and general liability insurance policy of an amount of not less than $600,000 for property damage arising from one occurrence, $600,000 for damages arising from death and /or total bodily injuries arising from one occurrence, and $600,000 for total personal injuries arising from one occurrence. Such P olic shall also include contractual liabilit Y Y coverage protecting the Recipient, its officers, ees agents and employees g P Y by a certificate acknowledging this Agreement between the Subrecipient and the Recipient. C. The Subrecipient's liability, however, shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466. 7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST A. In the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction, and services by the Subrecipient, the conflict of interest provisions in 24 CFR P P 85.36 and OMB Circular A -110 shall apply. B. In all other cases, the provisions of 24 CFR 570.611 shall apply. 8. DATA PRIVACY The Subrecipient agrees to abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and all other applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations relating o data privacy or confidentialit g P Y y, and as any of the same may be amended. The Subrecipient agrees to defend Y P g and hold the Recipient, its officers, agents, and employees harmless from any claims resulting from the Subrecipient's unlawful disclosure and /or use of such protected data. 9. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION A. If the Subrecipient materially fails to comply with any term of this Agreement or so fails to administer the work as to endanger the performance of this Agreement, this shall constitute noncompliance and a default. Unless the Subrecipient's default is excused by the Recipient, the Recipient may take one or more of the actions prescribed in 24 CFR 85.43, including the option of immediately cancelling this Agreement in its entirety. B. The Recipient's failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement. C. This Agreement may be cancelled with or without cause by either party upon thirty (30) days' written notice according to the provisions in 24 CFR 85.44. D. CDBG funds allocated to the Subrecipient under this Agreement may not be obligated or expended by the Subrecipient following such date of termination. Any funds allocated to the Subrecipient under this Agreement which remain unobligated or unspent following such date of termination shall automatically revert to the Recipient. 10. REVERSION OF ASSETS Upon expiration or termination of this Agreement, the Subrecipient shall transfer to the Recipient any CDBG funds on hand or in the accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds, including CDBG funds provided to the Subrecipient in the form of a loan. An real property Y P P Y under the control of the Subrecipient that was acquired or improved, in whole or in art using p i g CDBG funds in excess of $25,000 shall either be: A. Used to meet one of the national objectives in 24 CFR 570.208 and not used for the general conduct of government until: (1) For units of general local government, five years from the date that the unit of general local government is no longer considered by HUD to be a part of Urban Hennepin County; or (2) For any other Subrecipient, five years after expiration of this Agreement. Or, B. Not used in accordance with A. above, in which event the Subrecipient shall pay to the Recipient an amount equal to the current market value of the property less any portion of the value attributable to expenditures of non -CDBG funds for acquisition of, or improvement to, the property. The payment is program income to the Recipient. No payment is required after the period of time specified in A. above. 11. PROCUREMENT The Subrecipient shall be responsible for procurement of all supplies, equipment, services, and construction necessary for implementation of its activity /ies. Procurement shall be carried out in accordance with the "Common Rule" Administrative Requirements in 24 CFR 85 and all provisions of the CDBG Regulations in 24 CFR 570 (the most restrictive of which will take precedence) . The Subrecipient shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, all advertisements, negotiations, notices, and documents; enter into all contracts; and conduct all meetings, conferences, and interviews as necessary to ensure compliance with the above described procurement requirements. The Recipient shall provide advice and staff assistance to the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG- funded activity /ies. 12. ACQUISITION, RELOCATION AND DISPLACEMENT A. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for carrying out all acquisitions of real property necessary for implementation of the activity /ies. The Subrecipient shall conduct all such acquisitions in its name, or in the name of any of its public, governmental, nonprofit agencies as authorized by its governing body, which shall hold title to all real property purchased. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for preparation of all notices, appraisals, and documentation required in conducting acquisition under the latest applicable regulations of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 and of the CDBG Program. The Subrecipient shall also be responsible for providing all relocation notices, counseling, and services required by said regulations. The Recipient shall provide advice and staff assistance to the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG - funded activity /ies. B. The Subrecipient shall comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as required under 24 CFR 570.606(a) and HUD implementing regulations at 24 CFR 42; the requirements in 24 CFR 570.606(b) governing the residential antidisplacement and relocation assistance plan under section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (the Act); the relocation requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(c) governing displacement subject to section 104(k) of the Act; and the requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(d) governing optional relocation assistance under section 105(a)(11) of the Act. 13. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Recipient shall determine the level of environmental review required under 24 CFR Part 58 and maintain the environmental review record on all activities. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for providing necessary information, relevant documents, and public notices to the Recipient to accomplish this task. 14, LABOR STANDARDS, EMPLOYMENT, AND CONTRACTING The Recipient shall be responsible for the preparation of all requests for HUD for wage rate determinations on CDBG activities undertaken by the Subrecipient. The Subrecipient shall notify the Recipient prior to initiating any activity, including advertising for contractual services which will include costs likely to be subject to the provisions on Federal Labor Standards and Equal Employment Opportunity and related implementing regulations. The Recipient will provide technical assistance to the Subrecipient to ensure compliance with these requirements. 15. PROGRAM INCOME If the Subrecipient generated any program income as a result of the expenditure of CDBG funds, the provisions of 24 CFR 570.504 shall apply, as well as the following specific stipulations: A. The Subrecipient will notify the Recipient of any program income within ten (10) days of the date such program income is generated. When program income is generated by an activity only partially assisted with CDBG funds, the income shall be prorated to reflect the percentage of CDBG funds used. B. That any such program income must be paid to the Recipient by the Subrecipient as soon as practicable after such program income is generated unless the Statement of Work in Exhibit 1 specifically permits the Subrecipient to retain program income. C. The Subrecipient further recognizes that the Recipient has the responsibility for monitoring and reporting to HUD on the use of any such program income. The responsibility for appropriate recordkeeping by the Subrecipient and reporting to the Recipient by the Subrecipient on the use of such program income is hereby recognized by the Subrecipient. The Recipient agrees to provide technical assistance to the Subrecipient in establishing an appropriate and proper recordkeeping and reporting system, as required by HUD. D. That in the event of close -out or change in status of the Subrecipient, any program income that is on hand or received subsequent to the close -out or change in status shall be paid to Recipient as soon as practicable after the income is received. The Recipient agrees to notify the Subrecipient, should close -out or change in status of the Subrecipient occur. 16. USE OF REAL PROPERTY The following standards shall apply to real property under the control of the Subrecipient that was acquired or improved, in whole or in part, using CDBG funds: A. The Subrecipient shall inform the Recipient at least thirty (30) days prior to any modification or change in the use of the real property from that planned at the time of acquisition or improvements including disposition. The Subrecipient will comply with the requirements of 24 CFR 570.505 to provide affected citizens the opportunity to comment on any proposed change and to consult with affected citizens. B. The Subrecipient shall reimburse the Recipient in an amount equal to the current fair market value (less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non -CDBG funds) of property acquired or improved with CDBG funds that is sold or transferred for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG regulations. Said reimbursement shall be provided to the Recipient at the time of sale or transfer of the property referenced herein. Such reimbursement shall not be required if the conditions of 24 CFR 570.503(b)(8)(i) are met and satisfied. Fair market value shall be established by a current written appraisal by a qualified appraiser. The Recipient will have the option of requiring a second appraisal after review of the initial appraisal. C. Any program income generated from the disposition or transfer of real property prior to or subsequent to the close -out, change of status or termination of the Joint Cooperation Agreement between the Recipient and the Subrecipient shall be repaid to the Recipient at the time of disposition or transfer of the property. 17. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS The uniform administrative requirements delineated in 24 CFR 570.502 and any and all administrative requirements or guidelines promulgated by the Recipient shall apply to all activities undertaken by the Subrecipient provided for in this Agreement and to any program income generated therefrom. 18. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY A. During the performance of this Agreement, the Subrecipient agrees to the following: In accordance with the Hennepin County Affirmative Action Policy and the County Commissioners' Policies Against Discrimination, no person shall be excluded from full employment rights or participation in, or the benefits of, any program, service or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, affectional /sexual preference, public assistance status, ex- offender status, or national origin; and no person who is protected by applicable federal or state laws against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination. B. The Subrecipient will furnish all information and reports required to comply with the provisions of 24 CFR Part 570 and all applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to discrimination and equal opportunity. 19. NON- DISCRIMINATION BASED ON DISABILITY A. The Subrecipient shall comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, to ensure that no otherwise qualified individual with a handicap, as defined in Section 504, shall, solely by reason of his or her handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination by the Subrecipient receiving assistance from the Recipient under Section 106 and /or Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. B. When and where applicable, the Subrecipient shall comply with, and make best efforts to have its third party providers comply with, Public Law 101 -336 Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Title I "Employment," Title II "Public Services" - Subtitle A, and Title III "Public Accomodations and Services Operated By Private Entities" and all ensuing federal regulations implementing said Act. 20. LEAD -BASED PAINT The Subrecipient shall comply with the Lead -Based Paint notification, inspection, testing and abatement procedures established in 24 CFR 570.608. 21. FAIR HOUSING The Subrecipient shall be prohibited from receiving CDBG funds for activity /ies subject to this Agreement should it not affirmatively further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or impede action taken by Recipient to comply with the fair housing certification. 22. LOBBYING A. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the Subrecipient, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal Grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. B. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement Subrecipient will complete and submit Standard Form -LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. 23. USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES Subrecipient has adopted and is enforcing a policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non - violent civil rights demonstrations; and a policy of enforcing applicable state and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such non - violent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction. 24. OTHER CDBG POLICIES The Subrecipient shall comply with the applicable section of 24 CFR 570.200, particularly sections (b) (Special Policies Governing Facilities); (c) (Special Assessments) ; (f) (Means of Carrying Out Eligible Activities) ; and (j) (Constitutional prohibitions Concerning Church /State Activities). 25. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE The Recipient agrees to provide technical assistance to the Subrecipient P g P ipient in the form of oral and /or written guidance and on -site assistance regarding CDBG procedures and project management. This assistance will be provided as requested by the Subrecipient, and at other times at the initiative of the Recipient when new or updated information concerning the CDBG Program is received by the Recipient and deemed necessary to be provided to the Subrecipient. 26. RECORDKEEPING The Subrecipient shall maintain records of the receipt and expenditure of all CDBG funds, such records to be maintained in accordance with OMB Circulars A -87 and the "Common Rule" Administrative Requirements in 24 CFR 85 and in accordance with OMB Circular A -110 and A -122, as applicable. All records shall be made available upon request of the Recipient for inspection /s and audit /s by the Recipient or its representatives. If a financial audit /s determines that the Subrecipient has improperly expended CDBG funds, resulting in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) disallowing such expenditures, the Recipient reserves the right to recover from the Subrecipient such disallowed expenditures from non -CDBG sources. Audit procedures are specified below in Section 22 of this Agreement. 27. ACCESS TO RECORDS The Recipient shall have authority o review an and all procedures and all Y y P materials, notices, documents, etc., prepared by the Subrecipient in implementation of this Agreement, and the Subrecipient agrees to provide all information required by any person authorized by the Recipient to request such information from the Subrecipient for the purpose of reviewing the same. 28. AUDIT The Subrecipient agrees to provide Recipient with an annual audit consistent with the Single Audit Act of 1984, (U.S. Public Law 98 -502) and the implementing p g requirements of OMB Circular A -128, Audits of State and Local Governments, and, as applicable, OMB Circular A -110, Uniform Requirements for Grants to Universities, Hospitals and Non - Profit Organizations. A. The audit is to be provided to Recipient on July 1 of each year this Agreement is in effect and any findings of noncompliance affecting the use of CDBG funds shall be satisfied by Subrecipient within six (6) months of the provision date. B. The audit is not required, however, in those instances where less than $25,000 in assistance is received from a Federal o 11 F 1 s urces in any one fiscal year. C. The cost of the audit is not reimburseable from CDBG funds. D. The Recipient reserves the right to recover from the Subrecipient's non -CDBG funds any CDBG expenses which are disallowed by an audit. SUBRECIPIENT having signed this Agreement, and the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on , 19 , and pursuant to such approval and the proper County officials having signed this Agreement, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. Upon proper execution, this COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, Agreement will be legally STATE OF MINNESOTA valid and binding. By: Chairman of its County Board Assistant Coun y Attorney And: Deputy /Associate County Administrator Date: Attest: Deputy /Clerk of the County Board APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: SUBRECIPIENT: CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Assistant County Attorney Date: B Its: Mayor And: Its: City Manager Attest: Title: The City is organized pursuant to: _ Plan A _ Plan B X Charter III Contract No. A09392 SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM EXHIBIT 1 STATEMENT OF WORK The following activity /ies shall be carried out by the City of Brooklyn Center under the terms of this Agreement and the details and processes set forth below. Up to $217,491 are to be provided in Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds to the City of Brooklyn Center to assist in the funding of the following activities in the amount and under the stipulations individually specified: Attachment A. #001 H.O.M.E. $ 12,000 Attachment B. #002 Rehab of Private Property 130,491 Attachment C. #003 Scattered Site Redevelopment 75,000 Total $217,491 CDBG YEAR XVIII SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT A TO STATEMENT OF WORK 1. ACTIVITY: Household & Outside Maintenance for Elderly (H.O.M.E.) 2. LOCATION: ADDRESS: Citywide CENSUS TRACT: 3. NUMBER: 001 4. BUDGET: $12,000 5. BENEFIT: L/M (Limited Clientele) 6. DESCRIPTION: Funding for the HOME program to provide increased routine home maintenance /repairs and homemaker services to the elderly and handicapped residing in Brooklyn Center, Chanhassen, Eden Prairie, Edina, Minnetonka and Richfield. The HOME program is provided through and operated by the South Hennepin Human Services Council. 7. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this agreement. [X] Supplemental Agreement Type: [X] Non - Profit Agency SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES [ J Public Agency [ ] Other An agreement must be executed between subrecipient and any other agency providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of subrecipient. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as are identified herein. [X] Schedule Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December 31, 1993. [X] - Environmental Review Record Per 24 CFR Part 58 Subpart E the environmental review status for this activity has been determined as follows: (X] Exempt (EX) ( J Categorically Excluded (CE) (J Categorically Excluded /Exempt (CE /EX) ( J Assessment Required (AR) ( ) Funds Released (FR) Date: [ ] Labor Standards /Equal Employment Opportunity All construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis -Bacon Act (prevailing wage) , the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act and the Copeland (Anti- Kickback) Act. All federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcontracts of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended by Executive Order 12086, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto in 41 CFR Part 60. [ J Procurement Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by one of the following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate. - Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. - Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when the purchase /s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed -price contract is to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is preferred for soliciting construction bids. - Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than one source submits an offer, and either a fixed -price or cost - reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically used for procuring professional services. [ ] Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 In connection with the planning and implementation of any project assisted under the Act, to the greatest extent feasible, opportunities for training and employment be given to low and moderate income persons residing within the unit of local government or the metropolitan area in which the project is located, and that contracts for work in connection with the project be awarded to eligible business concerns which are located in, or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the same metropolitan area as the project. Contracts for work may include, but are not limited to, contracts for supply of goods and /or services. [ J Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property_ Acquisition The standards described in 24 CFR 570.606 shall apply to activity that involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons, including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition. [ ] Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance All occupied and vacant occupiable low- moderate income dwelling units demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each displaced low- moderate income household in accordance with the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Ant' - g i displacement and Relocation Assistance Policy pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and the provisions in 24 CFR 570.606. [ ] Property Management The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply to all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in part using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a period of five (5) years after the termination of this agreement. [ J Land Disposition Agreement I This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subrecipient community, contains the terms under which the community can acquire and hold land for a specified use and time period. [X] Low and Moderate Income Using the applicable Section 8 income limits established by HUD, it shall be demonstrated that a low- and moderate- income activity so indicated in 5. Benefit, above, meets one of the four criteria of 24 CFR Part 570.208 relating to: [ ] Area Benefit [X] Limited Clientele [ ] Housing [ ] Job Creation or Retention [ ] Prevention or Elimination of Slums and Blight It shall be demonstrated that a slum and blight activity so indicated in 5. Benefit, above, meets one of the following criteria: [ ] Area Determination. The boundaries of the slum or blighted area must be defined and meet the requirements of 24 CFR Part 570.208(b)(1). ( ] Spot Basis. The specific conditions of blight or physical decay not located in a slum or blighted area must be described. [ ] Urgent Community Need It shall be demonstrated that an urgent need activity, so indicated in 5. Benefit. above, is designed to alleviate a recent (within 18 months) condition which poses a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community. [ J Other Requirements CDBG YEAR XVIII SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT B TO STATEMENT OF WORK 1. ACTIVITY: Rehabilitation of Private Property P y 2. LOCATION: ADDRESS: Citywide CENSUS TRACT: 3. NUMBER: 002 4. BUDGET: $130,491 5. BENEFIT: L/M (Housing) 6. DESCRIPTION: This locally administered program provides grants to eligible low /moderate income homeowners for improvements to their homes consistent with the Urban Hennepin County Procedural Guides for Housing Rehabilitation. 7. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this agreement. [X] Supplemental Agreement Type: [ ] Non - Profit Agency [X] Public Agency METROPOLITAN COUNCIL [ ] Other An agreement must be executed between subrecipient and any other agency providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of subrecipient. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as are identified herein. [X] Schedule Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December 31, 1993. [X] Environmental Review Record Per 24 CFR Part 58 Subpart E the environmental review status for this activity has been determined as follows: [ ] Exempt (EX) [ J Categorically Excluded (CE) [X] Categorically Excluded /Exempt (CE /EX) [ J Assessment Required (AR) [ ] Funds Released (FR) Date: t [ ] Labor Standards /Equal Employment Opportunity All construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis -Bacon Act (prevailing wage) , the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act and the Copeland (Anti- Kickback) Act. All federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcontracts of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended by Executive Order 12086, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto in 41 CFR Part 60. [ J Procurement Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by one of the following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate. - Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. - Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when the purchase /s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed -price contract is to be awarded to w the lowest responsible bidder. This method is preferred for soliciting construction bids. - Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than one source submits an offer, and either a fixed-price or cost- st - reimbursement type contract w is awarded. This method is typically use d YP YP Y for rocu " p rig professional rofessional services. ] Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 In connection with the planning and implementation of any project assisted under the Act, to the greatest extent feasible, opportunities for training and employment be given to low and moderate income persons residing within the unit of local government or the metropolitan area in which the project is located, and that contracts for work in connection with the project be awarded to eligible business concerns which are located in, or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the same metropolitan area as the project. Contracts for work may include, but are not limited to, contracts for supply of goods and /or services. [ ] Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition The standards described in 24 CFR 570.606 shall apply to activity that involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons, including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition. ( ] Residential AntidisRIacement and Relocation Assistance All occupied and vacant occupiable low- moderate income dwelling units demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each displaced low- moderate income household in accordance with the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Anti - displacement and Relocation Assistance Policy pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and the provisions in 24 CFR 570.606. [ ] Property Management The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply to all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in part using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a period of five (5) years after the termination of this agreement. [ J Land Disposition Agreement This agreement, executed between Hennepin. County and the subrecipient community, contains the terms under which the community can acquire and hold land for a specified use and time period. [X] Low and Moderate Income Using the applicable Section 8 income limits established by HUD, it shall be demonstrated that a low- and moderate - income activity so indicated in 5. Benefit, above, meets one of the four criteria of 24 CFR Part 570.208, relating to: [ ] Area Benefit [ ] Limited Clientele [X] Housing [ ] Job Creation or Retention [ ] Prevention or Elimination of Slums and Blight It shall be demonstrated that a slum and blight activity so indicated in 5. Benefit, above, meets one of the following criteria: [ ] Area Determination. The boundaries of the slum or blighted area must be defined and meet the requirements of 24 CFR Part 570.208(b)(1). [ ] Spot Basis. The specific conditions of blight or physical decay not located in a slum or blighted area must be described. [ ] Urgent Community Need It shall be demonstrated that an urgent need activity, so indicated in 5. Benefit. above, is designed to alleviate a recent (within 18 months) condition which poses a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community. [ ] Other Requirements i_ CDBG YEAR %VIII SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT C TO STATEMENT OF WORK 1. ACTIVITY: Scattered Site Redevelopment 2. LOCATION: ADDRESS: Citywide CENSUS TRACT: 3. NUMBER: 003 4. BUDGET: $75,000 5. BENEFIT: Slum /Blight (Spot Basis) 6. DESCRIPTION: Acquire on a voluntary basis properties from a city developed list of substandard housing units. The substandard units will be cleared for redevelopment of the sites. Funds generated by resale of the cleared sites will be used to establish a revolving fund to continue the activity. This is a multi -year activity. 7. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this agreement. [X] Supplemental Agreement Type: [ ] Non - Profit Agency [X] Public Agency BROOKLYN CENTER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [ ] Other An agreement must be executed between subrecipient and any other agency providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of subrecipient. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as are identified herein. [X] Schedule Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December 31, 1993. [X] Environmental Review Record Per 24 CFR Part 58 Subpart E the environmental review status for this activity has been determined as follows: [ ] Exempt (EX) [ J Categorically Excluded (CE) ] Categorically Excluded /Exempt (CE /EX) [X] Assessment Required (AR) J Funds Released (FR) Date: ( J Labor Standards /Equal Employment Opportunity All construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis -Bacon Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act and the Copeland (Anti- Kickback) Act. All federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcontracts of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended by Executive Order 12086, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto in 41 CFR Part 60. [X] Procurement Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by one of the following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and contracts shall contain standard conditions i ns as appropriate. - Small Pur chase. Informal Method To be w ( ) followed for the purchase of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. - Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when the purchase /s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed -price contract is to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is preferred for soliciting construction bids. - Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than one source submits an offer, and either a fixed -price or cost - reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically used for procuring professional services. [X] Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 In connection with the planning and implementation of any project assisted under the Act, to the greatest extent feasible, opportunities for training and employment be given to low and moderate income persons residing within the unit of local government or the metropolitan area in which the project is located, and that contracts for work in connection with the project be awarded to eligible business concerns which are located in, or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the same metropolitan area as the project. Contracts for work may include, but are not limited to, contracts for supply 0 or services. pp f nods and Y g / [X] Uniform_ Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition The standards described in 24 CFR 570.606 shall apply to activity that involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons, including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition. , [X] Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance All occupied and vacant occupiable low- moderate income dwelling units demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each displaced low- moderate income household in accordance with the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Anti - displacement and Relocation Assistance Policy pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and the provisions in 24 CFR 570.606. [ ] Property Management The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply to all P a PP Y real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in art u q P sin . P g CDBG i. funds n excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a period of five (5) years after the termination of this agreement. [ ] Land Disposition Agreement This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subrecipient community, contains the terms under which the community can acquire and hold land for a specified use and time period. [ J Low and Moderate Income Using the applicable Section 8 income limits established by HUD, it shall be demonstrated that a low- and moderate - income activity so indicated in 5. Benefit, above, meets one of the four criteria of 24 CFR Part 570.208, relating to: [ ] Area Benefit [ ] Limited Clientele [ ] Housing ( ) Job Creation or Retention [X] Prevention or Elimination of Slums and Blight It shall be demonstrated that a slum and blight activity so indicated in 5. Benefit, above, meets one of the following criteria: [ ] Area Determination. The boundaries of the slum or blighted area must be defined and meet the requirements of 24 CFR Part 570.208(b)(1). [X] Spot Basis. The specific conditions of blight or physical decay not located in a slum or blighted area must be described. [ J Urgent Community Need It shall be demonstrated that an urgent need activity, so indicated in 5. Benefit. above, is designed to alleviate a recent (within 18 months) condition which oses a serious and immediate threat at to the health or welfare of the community. ( ] Other Requirements CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date July 27, 1992 Agenda Item Number // 6 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: 1982 MORTGAGE REVENUE BOND REFUNDING DEPT. APPROVAL: Brad Hoffman, EDA Coordinator MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOnDIENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SU MLARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • Attached is a memorandum from Springsted outlining a proposal to do a refunding of our 1982 mortgage bonds that were jointly issued with Robbinsdale, Columbia Heights and Moorhead. As you will note the original issue was designed to accumulate assets that would revert back to the original issues. Because of the current low interest rates, the four (4) cities have an opportunity to reissue these bonds and capture the assets for use now. If we proceed with the refunding, Brooklyn Center would receive an estimated $400,000 in November. The money could be used for the acquisition of some of our problem apartments, although this would be the subject of discussion at the next EDA workshop. The last page of the Springsted memo lists requested action. The resolution before the Council authorizes Springsted, Miller and Schroeder to proceed with structuring of a bond sale. A representative of Springsted will be at Monday's meeting. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS TO REFUND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, CITY OF MOORHEAD AND THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF ROBBINSDALE, MINNESOTA, SINGLE - FAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1982 WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center, the City of Columbia Heights, the City of Moorhead and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Robbinsdale, Minnesota (together, the "Issuers ") have jointly issued their Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bonds Series 1982 (the 11 1982 Bonds ") for the purpose of financing the acquisition of home mortgages for low and moderate income first time homebuyers; and WHEREAS, proposals have been made to the Issuers which indicate that the issuance by the Issuers of revenue refunding bonds ( "Refunding Bonds ") for the purpose of refunding of the 1982 Bonds will release significant cash to the Issuers; NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota ( the "City ") as follows: 1. The City hereby finds and determines that it is in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare of the City of Brooklyn Center that the City, together with the other entities which constitute the Issuer, jointly issue their Refunding Bonds to refund the outstanding principal amount of the 1982 Bonds, and the City hereby preliminarily approves the issuance of such Refunding Bonds. Such approval is subject to the mutual agreement of the Issuers of the terms and conditions of the Refunding Bonds and provisions for their payment. In any event it is understood that the Refunding Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance legal or equitable upon any property of the City except the trust estate pledged thereto. 2. Miller & Schroeder, Financial, Inc., is hereby authorized to act as the underwriter for the Refunding Bonds. The law firm of Holmes and Graven, Chartered, is hereby authorized to act as bond counsel, and to assist in the preparation and review of necessary documents relating to the Refunding Bonds. Springsted, Inc. , is hereby authorized to act as fiscal consultant with respect to the issuance of the Bonds. The City officers and staff are hereby authorized to assist the working group in the preparation of documents. 3. The adoption of this resolution does not constitute a guarantee or firm commitment that the City will approve the issuance of the Refunding Bonds. The City retains the right in its sole discretion to withdraw from participation and not to issue the Refunding Bonds if the City should determine at any time prior to issuance thereof that it is not in the best interest of the City to issue the Refunding Bonds. 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. SPRINGSTED 222 South Ninth Street PUBLIC FINANCE ADVISORS Suite 2825 Minneapolis, MN 55402 -3368 (612) 333 -9177 Home Office Fax: (612) 333 -2363 85 East Seventh Place 16655 West Bluemound Road Suite 100 Suite 290 Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2143 Brookfield, WI 53005 -5935 (612) 223 -3000 (414) 782 -8222 Fax: (612) 223 -3002 Fax: (414) 782 -2904 6800 College Boulevard Suite 600 Overland Park, KS 66211 -1533 (913) 345 -8062 Fax: (913) 345 -1770 1800 K Street NW Suite 831 Washington, DC 20006 -2200 (202) 466 -3344 Fax: (202) 223 -1362 MEMORANDUM TO: City, of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota City of Moorhead, Minnesota Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Robbinsdale, Minnesota FROM: Springsted Inc., Kathleen Aho DATE: July 9, 1992 SUBJECT: $31,758,000 Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bonds Series 1982 In December, 1982, the Cities and the then Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Robbinsdale (the "Issuers ") sold the above - mentioned bonds to fund single family mortgages within their respective jurisdictions. Over the years since the bonds were issued, extra assets have accumulated within the program. These extra assets will accumulate within the program and ultimately be paid out to the Issuers when the bonds are retired. Alternatively, market conditions are such that the Issuers have the option of restructuring the program to advance the release of these assets. This memorandum presents background information and discusses the two options in further detail. The Program The majority of bond proceeds from the 1982 bonds were used to originate mortgages that range in interest rate from 10.90% to 11.65 %. As the mortgages repay, the income is used to pay interest and scheduled principal on the bonds and any excess income is used to redeem additional principal on the bonds. The interest rates on the remaining bonds range from 10.00% to 10.75 %. Over the years, the higher interest rates on the mortgages have provided for the ongoing costs (primarily trustee and insurance fees) and also resulted in a continual July 9,1992 Page 2 reduction of bond principal at a faster rate than the reduction on mortgage principal. By applying the extra interest earned to reduction of bond principal, the total of cash and outstanding mortgage principal currently held by the trustee exceed the outstanding bonds by over $1.5 million. The bond program has several unique features incorporated into it. One is mortgage forgiveness. If the program is permitted to run to completion, outstanding principal on any remaining mortgages is 'forgiven" on the later of June 1, 2003 or when the bonds are retired. Mortgage forgiveness was incorporated to enable the bond program to comply with federal regulations relating to investment yield restrictions that control such programs. A second unique feature is a 2.00% participation fee due upon final payment of any mortgage, whether the mortgage runs to its schedule term, is forgiven, or is prepaid. The participation fee is based on the original amount of the mortgage. There is general awareness among participants in the program that the forgiveness provisions exist even though they are not included in actual mortgage documents, but appear instead in the bond related documents. The options discussed in this memorandum all incorporate the honoring of mortgage forgiveness. The examples discussed either incorporate forgiveness as originally contemplated by the bond documents, or in the case of the restructuring option, may include the equivalent of forgiveness for the mortgagor in a slightly modified form. Program Residuals The value that the Issuers will receive from the program is generated by the interest rate spread between the mortgages and the bonds. As such, the magnitude of the excess assets, or program residuals, depends in part on whether the mortgages prepay or run to maturity since they generate more interest spread the longer they remain outstanding. In the bond program, mortgage forgiveness causes some distortion of this otherwise simple principal as will be seen in the numbers presented later. We have constructed a model which projects the cash flow from the bond program under various mortgage prepayment scenarios. The industry uses prepayment standards referred to as PSA levels of prepayment. A 100% PSA prepayment speed is the equivalent of a constant annual prepayment rate of 6 %. Similarly, a 250% PSA prepayment speed is the equivalent of a constant annual prepayment rate of 15 %. The Issuers' bond program mortgages have been prepaying at a speed of 220% since origination. Over the more current six to twelve month period, they have prepaid at a rate in excess of 400 %. Obviously, the current market rates are driving much of the current prepayment activity, however, the reasons for mortgage prepayment are many and varied and future prepayment speeds can't be predicted with any confidence. For this reason and the effect that prepayments have on ultimate program residuals, we have run the program out at three prepayment levels: 250% PSA, 400% PSA, and 550% PSA. The final example, 550% PSA, was run to determine if there is a pattern to the program results as the prepayment rate increases as opposed to an expectation that mortgages will prepay at 550% PSA. Because bonds are redeemed from excess earnings and from mortgage prepayments, the bond issue is retired earlier as the mortgage prepayment speed increases. The following table illustrates the residuals available to the Issuers at the three prepayment speeds identified above. July 9,1992 Page 3 ESTIMATED MORTGAGE RESIDUALS ---- - - - - -- Mortgage Prepayment Rate - - - - - -� 250% 400% 550% PSA PSA PSA Residuals Beginning 12/1/991 12/1/971 12/1/961 Residuals Ending 03 6 1 03 6 1 03 . 6 1 g / / / Future Value of Residuals $2,171,800 $2,218,600 $1,990,9051 Present Value @ 4.0% $1,515,900 $1,648,300 1 $1,556,860 j Present Value @ 5.0% $1,387,500 $1,532,500 $1,465,8001 Present Value @ 6.0% $1,270,6001 $1,425,600 $1,380,700 Mortgage Forgiveness Date 1 6/1/031 6/1 /03 6/1/03 Forgiveness Amount 1 $1,082,600 1 $313,2001 $91,300 If the program runs to maturity, the Issuers will receive any funds the trustee has remaining after the bonds are retired plus any remaining payments from the mortgages that are still outstanding until the forgiveness date, June 1, 2003. The first row of the table above indicates when the Issuers.will begin to receive their first cash payments from the program. The second row indicates when the final payment will be received. Because in each case, the bonds are retired in advance of the forgiveness date, the final residual payment will be received in June 2003. The third row in the column, titled "Future Value of Residuals" indicates the estimated total of the payments that the Issuers will receive without regard to when the payments are received. To provide an accurate method of comparison, the following three rows show the present value of those future residuals. The 4.0% reflects current short-term investment rates. The 6.0% reflects a longer term, fixed -rate borrowing cost for the Issuers. As you can see, the selection of a present value rate has a significant impact on the value the residuals have in present value terms. The final two rows of the table show when forgiveness will occur and how much mortgage principal is forgiven under each prepayment assumption. As mentioned earlier, the mortgagors are also responsible for a program participation fee to be paid when the mortgage is retired. Calculation of the precise amount of fees yet to be paid relies on detailed mortgage information that is not readily available, however, we have calculated a responsible estimate of those fees under each of the three prepayment assumptions. The future value and present value of the participation fees are outlined in the following table. July 9,1992 Page 4 ESTIMATED PARTICIPATION FEES --- - - - - -- Mortgage Prepayment Rate - - - - -- 250% 400% 550% PSA PSA PSA Future Value $182,1001 $182,100 $182,100 Present Value @ 4.0% $146,400 ~ $158,700 $165,3001 Present Value @ 5.0% $139,5001 $153,8001 $161,600 Present Value @ 6.0% $133,2001 $149,2001 $158,000 The value of the program if left to run to maturity is summarized below for each of the prepayment and present value assumptions. It is the total of the mortgage residuals and the participations fees. The Issuers do not need to take any action to receive these amounts. Please remember that the value shown is the total to be shared among the Issuers, not a total per Issuer. 1982 TOTAL BOND PROGRAM VALUE --- - - - - -- Mortgage Pre a Prepayment Rate - - - - -- I pY I 250% 400% 550% PSA PSA PSA Future Value $2,353,900 $2,400,700 $2,173,005 Present Value @ 4.0% $1,662,300 $1,807,000 $1,722,160 Present Value @ 5.0% $1,527,000 $1,686,300 $1,627,400 Present Value @ 6.0% $1,403,800 $1,574,800 $1,538,700 Bond Program Restructuring Current market conditions are such that the bond program can be restructured to release accumulated assets today as opposed to releasing them when the bonds are retired. This is accomplished by using the program assets of cash and mortgages, to create cash through the outright sale of mortgages or by using the mortgages as security for a new bond issue. In either case, the money is used to redeem the bonds at their next call date, December 1, 1992. Proposals were solicited from interested underwriting firms to determine the potential offered by such a restructuring. The responses indicate that $1,800,000 to $1,900,000 can be released from the program under a restructuring. The estimates rely on many factors including the status of the mortgage portfolio (which can be accurately determined only after an exhaustive, in -depth review), the amount of mortgages outstanding at the time of the restructuring, extension of certain federal law provisions relating to tax- exempt mortgage bonds (versions of which have been passed separately by the House Ways and Means and the Senate and must now be reconciled), certain federal law provisions requiring that transactions of this type be July 9,1992 Page 5 done within 90 days of the December 1 redemption date, and prevailing market conditions at the time of the restructuring. Proposers were asked to incorporate the forgiveness concept in their responses. As a result of the proposals received, interviews with the proposing underwriters, and follow -up analysis, staff representatives from each of the four Issuers concluded with our agreement that the Miller & Schroeder proposal was the most advantageous should a restructuring be pursued. Requested Action The bond program was issued jointly by the four separate issuers. We suggest that in considering the option of restructuring the bond program that the Issuers first agree to abide by the determination of the majority of the separate Issuers with each Issuer having one vote. Participation in the program originally and currently as represented by mortgages outstanding ranges from 20% to 28% per Issuer indicating a roughly equivalent interest in any financial benefit to be gained. Each participant should then consider whether they feel it to be to their advantage to restructure the issue at this time or to let it continue as originally structured. If your conclusion is to restructure to release assets at this time, we ask that ou instruct staff to pursue this Y P option i with Miller &Schroeder as underwriter. Additional action will be re on further required u q P development of the proposed financing. A separate resolution has been prepared by Holmes & Graven as bond counsel to facilitate the Issuers in 9ovidin guidance to staff at this time. p mmc cc: Ms. Barbara L. Portwood, Holmes & Graven CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date m127/92 Agenda Item Number / REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR COMMUNITY CENTER WATER SLIDE, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -24, CONTRACT 1991 -R DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, 15irector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOAAIENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUNDIARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached No Improvement Project No. 1990 -24, Community Center Water Slide, has been completed by the two contractors, Alltech Engineering Corp. and Geo. W. Olsen Construction Co. The City Council accepted their proposals per Resolution 91 -284 and contracts were subsequently executed. The actual value of work performed is $1,494 more than the original contract. Staff recommends acceptance of the work performed and authorization to make final payments to Alltech and Geo. W. Olsen. When the project was established, no administrative or legal costs were established as components of the overall cost. The City has incurred legal costs associated with award of the contracts, and also obtaining a permit for the water slide from the state. Administrative costs have been incurred by Building Maintenance staff, who provided oversight, and maintenance, repair, and custodial activities. It is recommended that both legal and administrative costs be reimbursed at the usual rate of one percent of total contract costs each. The original estimate for construction of the water slide (not including other, separate projects) was $200,000. The project cost, as per low bid was estimated at $218,355. The final cost was $217,630.86, or about $724 under budget. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION • A resolution accepting work performed and authorizing final payments is included for Council approval. Ile, Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR COMMUNITY CENTER WATER SLIDE, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -24, CONTRACT 1991 -R WHEREAS, pursuant to written contracts signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Alltech Engineering Corp. and Geo. W. Olsen Construction Co. have satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contracts: IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -24, COMMUNITY CENTER WATER SLIDE CONTRACT 1991 -R NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: As Amended As Established Per Low Bid Final Amount Contract: Alltech $ $ 71,135 $ 71,135 Contract: Geo. Olsen 119.200 120.694 TOTAL $200,000 $190,335 $ 191,829 2. The actual value of work erfor e 1 494 m m d is ore than t he P $ original contract value, due to an underestimation of quantities. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contracts, taking the Contractors' receipts in full. The total amount to be paid Alltech Engineering Corp. for said improvement under said contract shall be $71,135. The total amount to be paid Geo. W. Olsen Construction Co. under said contract shall be $120,694. 4. Project No. 1990 -24 is final and is accepted and approved according to the following schedules: RESOLUTION NO. As Amended As Established Per Low Bid As Final Contract: Alltech $ $ 71,135 $ 71,135.00 Contract: Geo Olsen 119,200 120,694.00 Contingency $ $ 9.520 $ -- Subtotal Constr. $ 200,000 $199,855 $ 191,829.00 Miscellaneous $ $ -- $ 4,465.28 Prof. Services $ $ 18,500 $ 17,500.00 Admin. & Legal (2%) $ $ -- 1 3.836.58 Total Project Cost $ 200,000 $218,355 $ 217,630.86 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 07127i92 Agenda Itcm Number �! REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR POOL FILTER RENOVATION, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -26, CONTRACT 1991 -U DEPT. APPROVAL: -- 14 ;40'v� Sy Knapp, D6ector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIERECOABIENDATION: O t l W/ No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUNEVIARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached No 1 Improvement Project No. 1991 -26, Pool Filter Renovation, has been completed by the contractor, Valley View Associates. The City Council accepted their proposal per Resolution 91 -.288 and a contract was subsequently executed. The actual value of work performed is $1,506 more than the original contract, as per Change Order Ji1, Remove and Replace Gate Valve. Staff recommends acceptance of the work performed and authorization to make final payment to Valley View Associates. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution accepting work performed and authorizing final payment is included for Council approval. r Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR POOL FILTER RENOVATION, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -26, CONTRACT 1991 -U WHEREAS, pursuant to written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Valley View Associates has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -26, POOL FILTER RENOVATION CONTRACT 1991 -U NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: As Amended: As Established Per Low Bid Final Amount Contract $ 21,840 $13,690 $ 13,690 Change Order #1 1.506 TOTAL $ 21,840 $13,690 $ 15,196 2. The actual value of work performed is $1,506 more than the original contract value, due to an underestimation of quantities. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $15,196. 4. Project No. 1991 -26 is final and is accepted and approved according to the following schedules: As Amended As Established Per Low Bid As Final Contract $ 21,840 $ 13,690 $ 15,196.00 Contingency $ $ $ Subtotal Constr $ $ 13,690 $ 15,196.00 Prof. Services $ $ 1,960 $ 2,037.50 Admin. & Legal (2%) $ $ -- $ -- Total Project Cost $ 21,840 $ 15,650 $ 17,233.50 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 07/27/92 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR REMODELLING COMMUNITY CENTER CONCESSION STAND, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -28, CONTRACT 1991 -W DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Nrector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMIVIENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached No ) Improvement Project No. 1991 -28, Remodelling Community Center Concession Stand, has been completed by the contractors, Nelson Brothers Construction, Collins Electric Co., Marsh Plumbing, and Johnson Equipment Co. The City Council accepted their proposals per Resolution 91 -285 and contracts were subsequently executed. The actual value of work performed is $1,190.80 more than the original contract, due to additional work performed. Staff recommends acceptance of the work performed and authorization to make final payment to the respective contractors. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution accepting work performed and authorizing final payments is included for Council approval. tt� Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR REMODELLING COMMUNITY CENTER CONCESSION STAND, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -28, CONTRACT 1991 -W WHEREAS, pursuant to written contracts signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Nelson Brothers Construction, Collins Electric Co., Marsh Plumbing, and Johnson Equipment Co. have satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contracts: IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -28, REMODELLING COMMUNITY CENTER CONCESSION STAND, CONTRACT 1991 -W NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: As Amended As Established Per Low Bid Final Amount Contract $ 15,000 $ $ Gen Constr: Nelson Bros. $ 7,923 $ 9,025.00 Electrical: Collins $ 2,250 $ 2,338.80 Plumbing: Marsh $ 1,975 $ 1,975.00 Sink: Johnson Equip. $ 815 $ 815.00 TOTAL $ 15,000 $12,963 $ 14,153.80 2. The actual value of work performed is $1,190.80 more than the original contract value, due to an underestimation of quantities. 3. It is hereby directed that final payments be made on said contract, taking the Contractors' receipts in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $14,153.80. 4. Project No. 1991 -28 is final and is accepted and approved according to the following schedules: Y RESOLUTION NO. As Amended As Established Per Low Bid As Final Contract $ 15,000 $ 12,963 $ 14,153.80 Contingency $ $ 1,000 $ Subtotal Constr $ $ 13,963 $ 14,153.80 Prof Services $ $ 800 $ - Miscellaneous $ $ -- $ 237.46 Total Project Cost $ 15,000 $ 14,763 $ 14,391.26 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 gate 07/27/92 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR SECURITY IMPROVEMENT AT POLICE DEPARTMENT RECEPTION COUNTER, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -07, CONTRACT 1992 -F KKkKkkkkKkkkkKKk? KkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkickKkkk> FkkkkkkkKkFKkkkkkKKkkkKkKkkkkkkkkkkKMk DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached No) Improvement Project No. 1992 -07, Security Improvement at the Police Department Reception Counter, has been completed. The project was established by Resolution No. 92 -69, and a contract was subsequently executed. The actual value of work performed equals the original contract. Staff recommends acceptance of the work performed and authorization to make final payment to W.H.Cates Construction Co. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution accepting work performed and authorizing final payment to the contractor is included for Council consideration. t /11cr Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR SECURITY IMPROVEMENT AT POLICE DEPARTMENT RECEPTION COUNTER, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -07, CONTRACT 1992 -F WHEREAS, pursuant to written contracts signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, W. H. Cates Construction Co. has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -07, SECURITY IMPROVEMENT AT POLICE DEPARTMENT RECEPTION COUNTER, CONTRACT 1992 -F NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: As Established Final Amount Contract $ 2,656.00 $ 2,656.00 Contingency $ 134.00 $ -- . Subtotal $ 2,790.00 $ 2,656.00 2. The actual value of work performed equals the original contract value. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $2,656.00. 4. Project No. 1992 -07 is final and is accepted and approved according to the following schedules: As Established Final Amount Contract $ 2,656.00 $ 2,656.00 Contingency $ 134.00 $ -- Subtotal $ 2,790.00 $ 2,656.00 Prof Services $ 700.00 $ 607.00 Alarm 200.00 $ 513.86 Miscellaneous 92.66 TOTAL $ 3,690.00 $ 3,869.52 RESOLUTION N0. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CEN'T'ER Council Meeting Date 07127i92 • Agenda Item Numbcr_�(�� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR LIGHTING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -08 DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Dir or of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONEVIENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUAW ARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached No ) Improvement Project No. 1992 -08, Lighting System Improvements in the City Council Chambers, has been completed by the contractors, Collisys and Energy Saving Devices Inc. The City Council accepted their proposals per Resolution 92 -48 and contracts were subsequently executed. The actual value of work performed equals the original contract. Staff recommends acceptance of the work performed and authorization to make final payment to the respective contractors. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution accepting work performed and authorizing final payments is included for Council approval. I� V ; Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR LIGHTING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -08 WHEREAS, pursuant to written contracts signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Collisys and Energy Saving Devices Inc. have satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contracts: IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -08, LIGHTING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said contracts is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: As Established Final Amount Collisys $ 3,145.00 $ 3,145.00 Energy Saving $ 2,021.80 $ 2,134.00 Devices (plus freight) TOTAL $ 5,166.80 $ 5,279.00 2. The actual value of work performed equals the original contract value, plus shipping charges. 3. It is hereby directed that final payments be made on said contracts, taking the Contractors' receipts in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $5,279.00. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7/27/92 Agenda Item Number // I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL COSTS, DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIR ACCOUNTS, DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS, AND DELINQUENT WEED REMOVAL COSTS DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Di ector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION- No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attache SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes • The purpose of this resolution is to order a public hearing on Monday, September 14, 1992, at 8:00 p.m. local time, to hear and pass upon all objections, if any, to the proposed special assessments for tree removal costs, delinquent public utility repair accounts, delinquent public utility service accounts, and delinquent weed removal accounts. All trees have been declared a public nuisance in past City Council resolutions, and the trees have been removed by the City's tree contractor in accordance with established policy. The property owners with delinquent public utility repair costs were notified of the need under city ordinances to conduct service line repairs as required, and the estimated cost should they not effect the repair and the city orders it done by a private contractor or city forces. The property owners have been invoiced for the City's cost, and those invoices remain unpaid. Property owners with delinquent public utilities service accounts have received notice of delinquent account in accordance with the established collection policy and have not made payment. Delinquent weed destruction account property owners have received notice of delinquent account in accordance with the established collection policy and have not made payment. Future council actions include the public hearing at the specified date and adoption of the resolution to certify the special assessment levy rolls with Hennepin County. • RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION It is hereby recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution to hold a public hearing on these special assessments. r Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL COSTS, DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIR ACCOUNTS, DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS, AND DELINQUENT WEED REMOVAL COSTS BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that 1. A hearing shall be held on the 14th day of September, 1992 in the City Hall at 8:00 p.m. to pass upon the proposed assessments for the following charges: Diseased Shade Tree Removal Costs Delinquent Public Utility Repair q y p Accounts Delinquent Public Utility Service Accounts Delinquent Weed Removal Accounts 2. The City Clerk with the assistance of the Director of Public Works shall forthwith prepare assessment rolls for the above charges, and shall keep them on file and open to inspection by any interested persons. 3. The City Clerk is directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing. 4. The City Clerk shall cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in such assessment rolls not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolu ' P 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. S 0 0 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL July 27, 1992 PROJECT INFORMATION LEVY INFORMATION D Improvement Project No.: N/A Levy No.: Description: Weed Removal Costs Fund /Code No.: Levy Description: WEED DESTRUCTION 92 Levy runs one (1) year at an interest rate of ten Location: Various City Locations (10) percent. First payment, with property taxes payable in 1993 Improvement Hearing Date: N/A shall include fifteen (15) whole months' interest. Improvement Ordered On: N/A Date of Assessment Hearing September 14, 1992 By Resolution No.: N/A Adopted On: Assessment District: N/A By Resolution No.: Method of Apportionment: Direct cost and administrative costs Corrections. Deletions, Or Deferments: Cost Summary From N/A Resolution No: TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COST: N/A Less Direct City Share: Less Other Payments: TOTAL TO BE ASSESSED: $ 1,545.00 City Property: Other Public Property: Private Property: $ 1,545.00 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLL WEED DESTRUCTION 92 MUNICIPAL CODE NO. 22 PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATION LEVY PROPERTY ADDN. Address Narne Name NO. IDENTIFICATION NO. NO. AMOUNT Legal Description Mailing Address Mailing Address 01- 118 -21 -22 -0001 89955 $75.00 5951 Dupont Ave N SEC OF HSG & URBAN DEV Block 1, Lot 1 DEPT. OF HSG ANDREW ROCK'S ADDITION 220 2ND ST S MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 02- 118 -21 -21 -0016 01383 $145.00 5927 Shingle Creek Pkwy BIMB INC REG. LAND SURVEY #1543 801 NICOLLET MALL STE 1410 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 02- 118 -21 -31 -0029 90002 $50.00 2319 Brookview Dr MCGLYNN STEVEN C Block 2, Lot 2 2319 Brookview Dr. RYDEN'S THIRD ADDITION Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 03- 118 -21 -23 -0006 89102 $50.00 5735 Major Ave N FLOMER ROBERT E Lot 20, AUDITOR'S 5735 Major Ave N SUBDIVISION NO. 216 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 28- 119 -21 -41 -0210 01534 $217.50 7223 Brooklyn Blvd HANSEN DENNIS R Block 1, Lot 1 5222 Minnaqua Dr. RED LOBSTER ADDITION Minneapolis, MN 55422 I 33- 119 -21 -41 -0067 89342 $50.00 6431 Perry Ave N EVANS ALICE J Block 1, Lot 4 6431 Perry Ave N DONNAYS BROOKLYN GARDENS Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 34- 119 -21 -11 -0056 89355 $75.00 3313 68TH Ave N GROMMES RICHARD J Block 4, Lot 3 5065 Johnson St NE ELSEN'S CITY VIEW Columbia Heights, MN 55421 34- 119 -21 -13 -0009 89100 $200.00 6520 Brooklyn Blvd OWENS PHYLLIS A Lot 8, AUDITORS SUBDIVISION 6520 Brooklyn Blvd. NO. 025 Brooklyn Center, Mn 55429 34- 119 -21 -31 -0100 89635 $50.00 6300 Indiana Ave N WAZWAZ ZIAD & MAGEDA Block 10, Lot 22 6300 Indiana Ave N NORTHGATE lBrooklyn Center, MN 55429 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLL WEED DESTRUCTION 92 MUNICIPAL CODE NO. 22 PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATION LEVY PROPERTY ADDN. Address Name Name NO. IDENTIFICATION NO. NO. AMOUNT Legal Description Mailing Address Mailing Address 35- 119 -21 -11 -0015 00257 $92.50 6637 Humboldt Ave N ZAPPA DEVELOPMENT, INC REGISTERED LAND SURVEY 6241 Dallas Ct. NO. 1486 Maple Grove, MN 55369 36- 119 -21 -12 -0038 89105 $127.50 West of 507 69th Ave N EVANSON DAVID G Lot 30, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION 2208 73rd Ave N NO. 310 Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 36- 119 -21 -13 -0110 04268 $252.50 413 66th Ave N MILES & SHIRLEY FITERMAN Block 1, Lot 2 5217 Wayzata Blvd. #212 SUPERAMERICA St. Louis Park, MN 55416 36- 119 -21 -31 -0039 89462 $50.00 6430 Dupont Ave N YOUNG DENISE E Block 1, Lot 7 3105 65th Ave N HOHENSTEIN'S 3RD ADDITION Long Lake, MN 55356 36- 119 -21 -32 -0089 89951 $110.00 6436 Fremont Ave N SPICER WILLIE Block 1, Lot 7 6436 Fremont Ave N REIMER'S FIRST ADDITION Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 $1,545.00 9 0 0 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL July 27, 1992 PROJECT INFORMATION LEVY INFORMATION Improvement Project No.: 1991 -06 Levy No.: Description: Cost of diseased tree removal to Fund /Code No.: those tracts or parcels where trees were removed in 1991, by written Levy Description: TREE REMOVAL 92 -3 agreement with the property owner or by order of the City Tree Inspector, at a total cost of less than $300 Levy runs three (3) years at an interest rate of ten Location: Various City Locations (10) percent. First payment, with property taxes payable in 1993 Improvement Hearing Date: N/A shall include fifteen (15) whole months' interest. Improvement Ordered On: May 13, 1991 Date of Assessment Hearing September 14, 1992 By Resolution No.: 91 -135 Adopted On: Assessment District: N/A By Resolution No.: Method of Apportionment: Direct cost, interest, and administrative costs Corrections. Deletions, Or Deferments: Cost Summary From N/A Resolution No: TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COST: N/A Less Direct City Share: Less Other Payments: TOTAL TO BE ASSESSED: $ 2,676.65 City Property: Other Public Property: Private Property: $ 2,676.65 CITY OF BRON CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLL TREE REMOVAL 92 -3 MUNICIPAL CODE NO. 22 PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATION F IND. EVY PROPERTY ADDN. Address Name Name IDENTIFICATION NO. NO. AMOUNT Legal Description Mailing Address Mailin Address 02- 118 -21 -42 -0062 90001 $285.00 5500 Oliver Ave N BREDESON MARLENE A Block 1, Lot 7 5500 Oliver Ave N RYDENS' SECOND ADDITION Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 03- 118 -21 -11 -0089 89440 $101.65 5930 Abbott Ave N JOHNSON RUDOLPH L Block 7, Lot 15 5930 Abbott Ave N HIPP'S 3RD ADDITION Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 03- 118 -21 -24 -0043 89665 $285.00 3813 France Place STAND DOUGLAS & KELLY Block 2, Lot 3, PEARSON'S 3813 France PI NORTHPORT 1ST ADDITION Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 10- 118 -21 -21 -0035 90080 $235.00 5261 E. Twin Lake Blvd. WHITE NEIL & TONNIA Block 4, Lot 1 5261 E. Twin Lake Blvd. TWIN LAKE WOODS Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 27- 119 -21-42 -0107 89663 $240.00 3625 Violet Ave KEISLING FRANK & JUDYTH Block 4, Lot 1 PALMER LAKE 3625 Violet Ave N TERRACE 2ND ADDITION Brooklyn Center, Mn 55430 28 -119 -21-43 -0003 69606 $240.00 6925 Regent Ave N JONES JOHN Block 2, Lot 1 MILLER'S 6925 Regent Ave N WILLOW LANE 2ND ADDITION Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 33- 119 -21 -11 -0056 89570 $285.00 6727 Perry Ave N SCHLICK DEBRA L Block 4, Lot 4 Rte 3 Box 2878 MARSTAN PLACE Pine City, MN 55063 I 33- 119 -21 -12 -0033 89348 $285.00 5406 67th Ave N ODEEN JAMES & SANDRA Block 4, Lot 9 DONNAY'S 5406 67th Ave N BROOKL YN GARDENS 5TH Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 33- 119 -21 -12 -0092 89630 $240.00 6825 Regent Ave N LOHR TIMOTHY & MELANIE Block 2, Lot 4 6825 Regent Ave N NORDSTROM'S TERRACE Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 34- 119 -21 -11 -0080 89356 $240.00 3219 68th Ave N HALL PATRICIA A Block 3, Lot 9 ELSEN'S CITY 3219 68th Ave N VIEW 2ND ADDITION Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 34- 119 -21 -31 -0098 89635 $240.00 6312 Indiana Ave N HIGGINS SHERRY L LARSON CHERYEL L Block 10, Lot 20 6312 Indiana Ave 6312 Indiana Ave NORTHGATE Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 $2,676.65 0 0 0 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL July 27, 1992 D PROJECT INFORMATION LEVY INFORMATION Improvement Project No.: 1991 -06 Levy No.: Description: Cost of diseased tree removal to Fund /Code No.: those tracts or parcels where trees were removed in 1991, by written Levy Description: TREE REMOVAL 92 -5 agreement with the property owner or by order of the City Tree Inspector, at a total cost of greater than $300 Levy runs five (5) years at an interest rate of ten Location: Various City Locations (10) percent. First payment, with property taxes payable in 1993 Improvement Hearing Date: N/A shall include fifteen (15) whole months' interest. Improvement Ordered On: May 13, 1991 Date of Assessment Hearing September 14, 1992 By Resolution No.: 91 -135 Adopted On: Assessment District: N/A By Resolution No.: Method of Apportionment: Direct cost, interest, and administrative costs Corrections. Deletions, Or Deferments: Cost Summary From N/A Resolution No: TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COST: N/A Less Direct City Share: Less Other Payments: TOTAL TO BE ASSESSED: $ 9,226.20 City Property: Other Public Property: Private Property: $ 9,226.20 CITY OF BROOKLYONTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLL TREE REMOVAL 92 -5 MUNICIPAL CODE NO. 22 PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER ADDL NOTIFICATION LEVY PROPERTY ADDN. Address Name Name NO. IDENTIFICATION NO. NO. AMOUNT Legal Description Mailing Address Mailing Address 01- 118 -21 -21 -0002 89295 $360.00 5959 CAMDEN AVE N BENSON, CATHERINE G Block 2 Lot 1 5959 Camden Ave N "CAMDEN ACRES" Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 01- 118 -21 -21 -0011 89335 $570.00 6037 COLFAX AVE N GIFFORD, ROGER & CECILIA Block 1 Lot 2 DAHIN- 6037 Colfax Ave N DEN'S 2ND ADDITION Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 01- 118 -21 -23 -0011 89255 $420.00 5715 FREMONT AVE N PIETRZAK , THOMAS F Block 2 Lot 1 BOBEN- 5715 Fremont Ave N DRIER'S ADDITION Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 01- 118 -21 -24 -0066 89405 $570.00 816 - 57TH AVE N RODERICK , GEORGE & KATHRYNE Lot 26 GOULD'S 816 - 67th Ave N RIVERVIEW ADDITION Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 02- 118 -21 -42 -0027 89376 $420.00 5525 MORGAN AVE N CUSTER , CORY & JODY Block 2 Lot 5 FRANZEN'S 5525 Morgan Ave N 2ND ADDITION Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 03- 118 -21 -13 -0057 89665 $550.00 5701 BROOKLYN BLVD BRADLEY, EDWARD & RENEE Block 6 Lot 2 PEARSON'S 5701 Brooklyn Boulevard NORTHPORT 1 ST ADDN Brooklyn Center, MN 56429 03- 118 -21 -24 -0103 89667 $360.00 5807 HALIFAX AVE N YURECKO, WAYNE & BARBARA Block 8 Lot 11 PEARSON'S 5807 Halifax Ave N NORTHPORT 3RD ADDN Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 10- 118 -21 -32 -0035 89495 $420.00 4735 LAKEVIEW AVE WEISS, SUSAN & DAVID Block 3 Lot 6 LAKEBREEZE 4735 Lakeview Ave ADDITION Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 10- 118 -21 -41 -0014 89275 $305.00 3229 - 49TH AVE N RANCOUR, RONALD &LINDA Block 4 Lot 13 BROOKLYN 3229 - 49th Ave N MANOR Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 CITY OF BROOKL*TER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLL TREE REMOVAL 92 -5 MUNICIPAL CODE NO. 22 PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER ADDL NOTIFICATION LEVY PROPERTY ADDN. Address Name Name NO. IDENTIFICATION NO. NO. AMOUNT Legal Description Mailing Address Mailing Address 25- 119 -21 -33 -0048 89642 $1,150.00 1308 - 69TH AVE N CHAZIN NORMAN Block 1 Lot 4 NORTH- 5353 WAYZATA BLVD SUITE 602 BROOK TERRACE MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 27- 119 -21 -31 -0039 89256 $595.00 7107 GRIMES AVE N TOOLEY, LEO & CYNTHIA Block 3, Lot 7 BOBEN- 7107 Grimes Ave N DRIER'S 2ND ADDITION Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 27- 119 -21 -33 -0049 89500 $510.00 6932 JUNE AVE N BICE, MICHAEL R Block 1 Lot 12 LANE'S 6932 June Ave N BROOKYLN CENTER ADDN Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 33- 119 -21 -12 -0023 89348 $510.00 5412 - 68TH AVE N BELLCOUR, RICHARD & THEODORA Block 3 Lot 3 DONNAY'S 5412 - 68th Ave N BROOK LYN GARDENS Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 5TH ADDN 33- 119 -21 -44 -0011 90086 $510.00 4921 - 63RD AVE N SEUFERT, TROY Block 1 Lot 1 WAITE'S 4921 - 63rd Ave N ADDN Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 34- 119 -21 -43 -0049 90090 $570.00 6107 BROOKLYN BLVD WILLIAM J & IRENE S BARTRAM Block 6 Lot 1 WANGSTAD'S 11834 Tapestry Lane BROOKLYN TERRACE Minnetonka, MN 55343 36- 119 -21 -12 -0015 89105 $416.20 6724 WILLOW LANE SCHMICKLE LYLE E Lot 6 AUDITOR'S 6724 Willow Lane SUBD. NO. 310 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 36-119-21-12-0021 89105 $570.00 420 - 67TH AVE N BIROSH, ROBERT & GARNET Lot 22 AUDITOR'S SUBD. 420 - 67th Ave N NO. 310 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 36- 119 -21 -32 -0050 89410 $420.00 6400 GIRARD AVE N BURTON, JAMES & Block 1 Lot 5 GRAND- WUENSCH, ANGELA VIEW MANOR 6400 Girard Ave N Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 $9,226.20 0 0 9 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL July 27, 1992 Q PROJECT INFORMATION LEVY INFORMATION Improvement Project No.: N/A Levy No.: Description: Utility Repair 92 Fund /Code No.: Levy Description: UTILITY REPAIR 92 Levy runs one (1) year at an interest rate of ten Location: Various City Locations (10) percent. First payment, with property taxes payable in 1993 Improvement Hearing Date: N/A shall include fifteen (15) whole months' interest. Improvement Ordered On: N/A Date of Assessment Hearing September 14, 1992 By Resolution No.: N/A Adopted On: Assessment District: N/A By Resolution No.: Method of Apportionment: Direct cost and administrative costs Corrections. Deletions, Or Deferments: Cost Summary From N/A Resolution No: TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COST: N/A Less Direct City Share: Less Other Payments: TOTAL TO BE ASSESSED: $ 2,623.84 City Property: Other Public Property: Private Property: $ 2,623.84 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLL UTILITY REPAIR 92 MUNICIPAL CODE NO. 22 PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATION LEVY PROPERTY ADDN. ,Address Name Name NO. IDENTIFICATION NO. NO. AMOUNT Legal Description Mailing Address Mailing Address 10- 118 -21 -32 -0035 89495 $120.00 4735 LAKEVIEW AVE SUSAN & DAVID WEISS Lot 5 Block 3 LAKE- 4735 Lakeview Drive BREEZE ADDITION Brooklyn Center, MN . 55429 35- 119 -21 -11 -0009 89739 $1,251.92 6715 HUMBOLDT AVE N NELSON S GREGG CO Tract C, RLS # 0993 ex c/o WILLIAM F SHUTTE road 1340 Buchanan Place NE Minneapolis, MN 55421 35- 119 -21 -11 -0010 89739 $1,251.92 6717 HUMBOLDT AVE N WILLIAM & BONNIE SHUTTE Tract D, RLS # 0993 1340 Buchanan Place NE Minneapolis, MN 55421 $2,623.84 0 0 0 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL July 27, 1992 PROJECT INFORMATION LEVY INFORMATION Y Improvement Project No.: N/A Levy No.: Description: Delinquent Public Utility Charges Fund /Code No.: Levy Description: DELINQUENT PUB UTIL 92 Levy runs one (1) year at an interest rate of ten Location: Various City Locations (10) percent. First payment, with property taxes payable in 1993 Improvement Hearing Date: N/A shall include fifteen (15) whole months' interest. Improvement Ordered On: N/A Date of Assessment Hearing September 14, 1992 By Resolution No.: N/A Adopted On: Assessment District: N/A By Resolution No.: Method of Apportionment: Direct cost and administrative costs Corrections Deletions Or Deferments: Cost Summary From N/A Resolution No: TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COST: N/A Less Direct City Share: Less Other Payments: TOTAL TO BE ASSESSED: $ 4,423.42 City Property: Other Public Property: Private Property: $ 4,423.42 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLL DELINQUENT PUB UTIL 92 MUNICIPAL CODE NO. 22 PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATION LEVY PROPERTY ADDN. Address Name Name NO. IDENTIFICATION NO. NO. AMOUNT Legal Description Mailing Address Mailing Address 02- 118 -21 -32 -0008 00204 $1,091.26 1331 BROOKDALE Equitable Real Estate Tract B, RLS # 1469 American Express Tower World Financial Center 200 Vesui Street New York, New York 10285 02- 118 -21 -32 -0010 00204 $135.43 1265 BROOKDALE Equitable Real Estate Tract D, RLS # 1469 American Express Tower World Financial Center 200 Vesui Street New York, New York 10285 02- 118 -21 -32 -0012 04769 $1,872.53 1200 BROOKDALE CPS Realty Partnership Tract B, RLS # 1649 PA Bergner & Co. 331 W. Wisconsin Ave. Milwaukee, WI 53203 10- 118 -21 -41 -0007 89275 $479.53 3135 -49TH AVE N Cropmate Co. Lot 6 Block 4 BROOKLYN One Central Park Plaza MANOR Omaha, NE 68102 27- 119 -21 -34 -0052 89661 $492.07 7031 FRANCE AVE N Scott & Carol Burnes Lot 3 Block 1 PALMER 7031 France Avenue North LAKE TERRACE 4TH Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 ADDITION 35- 119 -21 -23 -0015 01424 $130.02 2812 -67TH AVE N Therese Matthews Tom Green Lot 4 Block 1 EARLE 2812 - 67th Ave N c/o PDI BROWN ESTATES 2ND Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 5030 Bayport Road ADDITION Mound, MN 55364 36- 119 -21 -32 -0066 89410 $148.54 6324 HUMBOLDT AVE N Adeline Quinzon David Quinzon Lot 5 Block 3 GRAND- 6324 Humboldt Ave N 1071 Lake Susan Drive VIEW MANOR Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Chanhasses, MN 55317 36- 119 -21 -42 -0016 01417 $74.04 6357 N. LILAC DR Lynbrook Partners Steve Nelson Lot 2 Block 1 LYNBROOK 850 Decatur Ave N 6355 N. Lilac Drive BOWL ADDITION Golden Valley, MN 55427 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 $4,423.42 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 7/27/92 • Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING RE: SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR WEST RIVER ROAD, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -18 DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, erector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEWRECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attach d SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached No The Council considered and certified special assessments relating to the West River Road improvement project at its September 10, 1990 meeting. At that meeting, the owner of three parcels, Mr. Harold Swanson, objected in writing to the proposed assessments against his properties at 7230 - 7250 West River Road. At that meeting, the Council removed the proposed assessments against the three properties from the levy roll, and moved to reconsider the assessments at a future continued hearing. Since that time, staff have retained a private appraiser to determine the increase in value, if any, to the property which could be attributed to the improvement project. The City Attorney requested Mr. Swanson to provide a release to the City to allow this appraiser access to information gathered by the City Assessor regarding a tax dispute between the City and Mr. Swanson. Mr. Swanson has not provided that release, and no further action has been taken. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Staff recommends that the Council again consider certifying these assessments, which total nearly $20,000, to the tax rolls. A resolution reopening the public hearing regarding certification of these three parcels is provided for Council consideration. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR HEARING RE: SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR WEST RIVER ROAD, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -18 WHEREAS, the City Council on September 10, 1990 delayed consideration of special assessments proposed to be levied against certain properties for Improvement Project 1988 -18 to a continued hearing; and WHEREAS, the Council desires to again consider certification of said proposed special assessments. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City y f Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. A continued hearing shall be held on the 14th day of September, 1992 in the City Hall at 8:00 p.m. to pass upon the proposed assessments for the following charges: es: g WEST RIVER ROAD, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -18 Hennepin County Property ID Numbers: 25- 119 -21 -42 -0042, 25- 119 -21 -42 -0043, 25- 119 -21 -42 -0044 2. The City Clerk with the assistance of the Director of Public Works shall forthwith prepare assessment rolls for the above charges, and shall keep them on file and open to inspection by any interested persons. 3. The City Clerk is directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing. 4. The City Clerk shall cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in such assessment rolls not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL July 27, 1992 0 D d PROJECT INFORMATION LEVY INFORMATION Improvement Project No.: 1988 -18B Levy No.: Description: Reconstruction of West River Road Fund /Code No.: Levy Description: WEST RIVER ROAD (88 -18B) Levy runs twnety (20) years at an interest rate of ten Location: West River Road Between 66th and 73rd Avenues North (10) percent. First payment, with property taxes payable in 1993 Improvement Hearing Date: August 18, 1989 shall include fifteen (15) whole months' interest. Improvement Ordered On: August 18, 1989 Date of Assessment Hearing September 14, 1992 By Resolution No.: 89 -166 Adopted On: Assessment District: 7230, 7249, 7250 West River Road By Resolution No.: Method of Apportionment: R4: $0.3562 /square foot Corrections. Deletions, Or Deferments: Cost Summary From 90 -115 Resolution No: TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COST: $1,552,837.00 Less Direct City Share: $ 817,798.18 Less Other Payments: $ 655,637.00 TOTAL TO BE ASSESSED: $ 19,902.66 City Property: Other Public Property: Private Property: $ 19,902.66 0 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLL WEST RIVER ROAD (88 -18B) MUNICIPAL CODE NO. 22 PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATION LEVY PROPERTY ADDN. Address Name Name NO. IDENTIFICATION NO. NO. AMOUNT Legal Description Mailing Address Mailing Address 25- 119 -21 -42 -0042 90057 $5,360.45 7250 WEST RIVER ROAD HAROLD SWANSON Lot 1 Block 1 SWANSON 8420 Xerxes Ave N ADDITION Brooklyn Park, MN 55444 25- 119 -21 -42 -0043 90057 $9,500.21 7240 WEST RIVER ROAD HAROLD SWANSON Lot 2 Block 1 SWANSON 8420 Xerxes Ave N ADDITION Brooklyn Park, MN 55444 I 25- 119 -21 -42 -0044 90057 $5,042.00 7230 WEST RIVER ROAD HAROLD SWANSON Lot 3 Block 1 SWANSON 8420 Xerxes Ave N ADDITION Brooklyn Park, MN 55444 $19,902.66 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Muting Date 7/27/92 • Agenda Itcm Number / REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION L � ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT 4100 - 51ST AVENUE NORTH, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -12 DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, D rector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONEMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below/attacVed SU M IARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached No Evergreen Land Services has negotiated a purchase agreement with the owner of the property at 4100 -51st Avenue North. This purchase agreement is based on an appraised value of $145,000. The closing date is tentatively scheduled for September 1, 1992, with the owner vacating the property by September 11, 1992. Previous Council Action The Council on April 27, 1992 approved resolution 92 -90, which provided for the negotiated purchase of this property. This resolution authorized the City Manager to negotiate with the owner of the property and directed him to offer to the owner the amount determined by appraisal. This purchase agreement is subject to approval and ratification by the City Council. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION As all parties agree to the sale of the property for its appraised value, a resolution is provided that approves and ratifies the purchase agreement. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT 4100 - 51ST AVENUE NORTH, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -12 WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 92 -90 adopted on April 27, 1992, the City Council established Improvement Project 1992 -12, Purchase of Property at 4100 51st Avenue North; and WHEREAS, by said resolution the Council authorized the City Manager to negotiate the purchase of this property, and directed the City Manager to offer to the property owner the amount determined by appraisal; and WHEREAS, the owner of said property has accepted the City Manager's offer of the appraised value, and has executed a purchase agreement to that effect. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The terms of the purchase agreement are hereby approved. 2. The City Manager is directed to proceed with the purchase of the property. 3. The City Manager is authorized to execute the purchase agreement. 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 07/27/92 i s Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR BUILDING REMOVAL AT 4100 51ST AVENUE NORTH �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�kM�k�k�k�k�k�k�k�kM�k�k�k�k�** �k�k�k�k�k�k�k�kM�N� * * *M�KM�it�IeM *MM *�M�M� DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, pirector of ublic Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below/attache �k�k�: e�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�k�k�k�k�k�k�K�k�k�K�k�k�k�k�k�kyeYe�eae�k�; e�k *�Rxxacye�exieaexx�eac�;e�k3��k SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached The City Council on April 27, 1992 approved Resolution No. 92 -90, which provides for the purchase of the residential property at 4100 - 51st Ave. No. The subsequent conversion of the residential property to Park and Open Space will require the removal of the existing structures. Accordingly, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the removal of the structure(s) at this address. These specifications are essentially the same as those which were recently developed for the house removals along 69th Ave., with additional requirements for the removal of the septic system which is located on the property. Note: The City Council will consider, by separate resolution, action regarding the negotiated agreement for this property. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution approving plans and specifications and directing advertisement for bids is included for Council approval. • i�K Jt 1 . Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR BUILDING REMOVAL AT 4100 51ST AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 92 -90, adopted April 27, 1992, the City Council of Brooklyn Center established Improvement Project No. 1992 -12, Purchase of Property at 4100 51st Avenue North, and WHEREAS, the conversion of this property to Park and Open Space will require the removal of the existing structure(s); and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has developed plans and specifications for removal of said existing structures. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Plans and Specifications for Improvement Project No. 1992 -12, Building Removal at 4100 51st Avenue North, as prepared by the City Engineer, are hereby approved. 2. The Deputy City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish advertisement for bids for this improvement project in accordance with said specifications. The advertisement for bids will be published as required by law. 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 07/27/92 • Agenda Item Number �� L REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO CONTRACT 1992 -B FOR 69TH AVENUE CONSTRUCTION, PHASE II, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, DKrector of ublic Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached • The City Council, by Resolution No. 92 -80, authorized Contract 1992 -B, 69th Avenue North Reconstruction, Improvement Project No. 1990 -10. The consultant for this project, SEH, Inc., has reported to staff a list of items or quantities of work which were beyond the scope of the original contract, as previously approved. The following items represent work authorized by the City and agreed on by the Contractor which is outside of the original contract: Item 1 Add Sanitary Sewer Manholes 9A & 12A $ 3,600.00 - Two additional manholes were added, upon recommendation by the Public Utilities Dept., to facilitate future sewer cleaning and maintenance. Item 2 Remove and Replace Existing 6 and 8 Water Main $ 20,757.50 - The construction activities proposed for 69th Ave. include utility work at the intersections with the north -south streets. The trench limits for this utility work extend north and south such that the existing cast -iron water mains will be exposed and unsupported. Based on a recent experience (i.e. - the water main break which occurred this summer in the middle of the Humboldt Avenue /65th Avenue intersection - one year following reconstruction of that intersection) it is apparent that cast -iron water mains of this type • become brittle, and either break during the new construction, or fail at some point in the future after the trench settles. • To reduce the probability that these mains will fail in the future (and require that the newly paved surfaces be torn up and replaced), staff has recommended that this additional water main work be included in this project. Item 3 Replace 8 Gate Valve $ 550.00 Staff recommends the addition of this pay item to the contract, to allow for the ability to isolate the north -south water mains in the event of water main breaks, shut -offs, etc. and to facilitate annual flushing. Total Value of Change Order No 2 $ 24,907.50 The contractor has agreed to do this work based on unit prices which are established for similar work on the project. The consultant ( SEH Inc.) and City staff agree that these unit prices are fair and reasonable. Accordingly, the total value of work embraced by Change Order No. 2 is $ 24,907.50. Staff estimates that $ 3,600 of that total should be paid for from the Public Utility Sewer Fund, and the remaining $ 21,307.50 be paid for by the Public Utility Water Fund. A copy of the proposed change order is attached for reference. • RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution approving the proposed Change Order is provided for consideration. ® CHANGE ORDER ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS a PLANNERS 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE, ST PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110 612 490-2000 City of Brooklyn Center July 13, 1992 OWNER DATE City Project No 1990 -10 Contract No. 1992 -B 2 OWNERS PROJECT NO. CHANGE ORDER NO 69th Avenue S.A.P. 109 - 125 -06 90277.02 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SEH FILE NO, Grading, Base, Concrete Curb and Gutter, Bituminous Surfacing, Concrete Sidewalk, Storm Drainage, Sanitary Sewer and Watermain on 69th Avenue from Palmer Lake Drive to Brooklyn Boulevard. The following changes shall be made to the contract documents peicnpho❑❑: 1. Acid sanitary manhole 9A and No. 12A. 2. Remove and replace existing 6" watermain on intersecting streets at $23.50/L.F. 3. Remove and replace existing 8" watermain on intersecting streets at $25.00 /L.F. 4. Replace 1 -8" gate valve at $550.00. Purpose of Change Order: To facilitate better access to sanitary sewer for future nainten nce (Item 1, description and cost). Manhole No. 9A (6.44 L.S. $1,600.00 Manhole No. 12A (12.94 L.S. $2,000.00 To replace all cast iron pipe with ductile iron pipe, within the project limits on intersecting streets; to reduce the probability of future watermain breaks within the newly constructed roadways and further reduce the probability for the need to excavate Basis of Cost. ;4- Actual N Estimated and repair ( Items 2 and 3, description and cost) . Attachments (list supporting documents) _ Items 2 and 3 CONTRACT STATUS Time Cost Original Contract $1,499,942.80 Net Change Prior C.O. s 1 to 34.97 Change this C.O. N/A 24, 907.50 Revised Contract $1,524,885.27 Recommended for Approval: SHORT ELLIOTT- HENDRICKSON, INC. By Richard E. Moore, P.E. Agreed to by Contractor. S. M EaItgE13 Approved for Owner: City of 3rockly.: Cait BY BY TITLE QY ' Distribution Contractor 2 Owner 1 Project Representative 1 SEH Office i SHORT ELLIOTT ST PAUL, CHIPPEWA FALLS, HENDRICKSON INC MINNESOTA VJISCONti1N CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER CITY PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 CONTRACT NO. 1992 -B CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 SUPPORTING DATA The following intersecting streets are included: June Avenue North Indiana Avenue North Halifax Avenue North Grimes Avenue North France Avenue North Ewing Avenue North Drew Avenue North Palmer Lake Drive The following estimated footage of 6" and 8" watermain is estimated to replace existing C.I.P. within the limits of the trenching on this project: 745 L.F. 6" DIP @ $23.50/L.F. _ $ 17,507.50 130 L.F. 8" DIP @ $ 25.00 /L.F. = 3,250.00 TOTAL THIS CHANGE ORDER $20,757.50 %lL Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO CONTRACT 1992 -B FOR 69TH AVENUE CONSTRUCTION, PHASE II, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center previously entered into Contract 1992 -B with S.M. Hentges & Sons for the construction of Improvement Project No. 1990 -10; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has recommended that certain additional items and /or quantities of work should be added to the existing contract; and WHEREAS, the contractor, S.M. Hentges & Sons has agreed to the prices and quantities for said additional work; and WHEREAS, the value of this additional work is estimated as $24,907.50. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Change Order No. 2, Contract 1992 -B is hereby approved. 2. The additional costs attributable to this change order shall be financed as follows: Estimated Cost Public Utility Sewer Fund $ 3,600.00 Public Utility Water Fund $21,307.50 Total $24,907.50 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 7/27/92 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Direc 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. i t 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 07/27/92 ) 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 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 ------------------- --- - - - - -- ---- ------------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- TAMMY & PAULA WISKOW 6442 KYLE AVE N 114 JOHN GARDAS 5900 VINCENT AVE N 137 JOHN GARDAS 5901 VINCENT AVE N 138 JOHN GARDAS 5900 VINCENT AVE N 139 DONNA LOGAN 5303 KNOX AVE N 148 CITY OF B.C. 5901 SHINGLE CREEK PKWY 149 CITY OF B.C. 5901 SHINGLE CREEK PKWY 150 CITY OF B.C. 5901 SHINGLE CREEK PKWY 151 MICHAEL BICE 6932 JUNE AVE N 152 ROBERT & DONNA CARLSON 6430 PERRY AVE N 153 CITY OF B.C. 5901 HUMBOLDT AVE N 154 RONDA ZEGAR 5807 EMERSON AVE N 155 WALLACE AMSLER, JR. 3608 66TH AVE N 156 WALLACE AMSLER, JR. 3608 66TH AVE N 157 WALLACE AMSLER, JR. 3608 66TH AVE N 158 NICOLE EWING 3707 66TH AVE N 159 ERNEST & BETH CREELMAN 3612 58TH AVE N 160 5615 BROOKLYN BLVD LTD.PTR 5615 BROOKLYN BLVD 161 5615 BROOKLYN BLVD LTD.PTR 5615 BROOKLYN BLVD 162 JAMES & PATRICIA ORDNER 6039 HALIFAX AVE N 163 IONE PERARO 5612 INDIANA AVE 164 ROBERT & KRISTIN DUNN 3907 56TH AVE N 165 STUART & EMY LOU RAPP 3819 56TH AVE N 166 JOSEPH SANDINO 3834 OAK ST 167 PHYLLIS OWENS 6520 BROOKLYN BLVD 168 WALLACE AMSLER, JR. 3608 66TH AVE N 169 TIMOTHY & RENEE BERCHEM 6437 SCOTT AVE N 170 GENE & MARY RATTEI 5200 65TH AVE N 171 TROY SEUFERT 4921 63RD AVE N 172 RICHARD SUTTON 6001 BRYANT AVE N 173 GUSTAV & JOYCE HOLM 814 62ND AVE N 174 RESOLUTION NO. STEVEN GOLDSMITH 505 61ST AVE N 175 JEROME & NANCY GLENZINSKI 3012 63RD AVE N 176 RICHARD & JEANETTE RUSSELL 6305 BROOKLYN DR 177 DONALD & JEANNE ANDERSON 6330 BROOKLYN DR 178 TIMOTHY & MELANIE LOHR 6825 REGENT AVE N 179 GEORGE STELMACK 6819 SCOTT AVE N 180 CITY OF B.C. GARDEN CITY PARK 181 CITY OF B.C. GARDEN CITY PARK 182 JAROLD & JUDITH MODEEN 5545 BROOKLYN BLVD 183 JAROLD & JUDITH MODEEN 5545 BROOKLYN BLVD 184 MICHAEL GLYNN 5801 LYNDALE AVE N 185 JAMES PERSON 7100 KYLE AVE N 186 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 July 27, 19922 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) COPIER DEPT. APPROVAL: Patricia A. Pa , Deputy City Clerk MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOAMENDATION: 10 IS. No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached • SUNMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) An appropriation of $28,200 was approved in the Unallocated Departmental Expense account for 1992 for the purchase of a new copy machine. The City Council approved specifications for the copy machine on June 22, 1992, and bids were accepted on July 21, 1992. Six bids were received from five vendors. Four of the bids received do not fully meet the specifications as approved. The areas in which these four machines do not meet the specifications are the paper capacity (the Canon and the Kodak both have a paper capacity of 6,100 while the others were all in the area of 3,000 sheets of paper) and the reduction and enlargement ratio's. The other two bids (one from International Office Systems and one from Eastman Kodak) do meet the specifications 100 %. The bid price for the Canon NP -6060 is $17,881.35. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION I recommend approval of the attached resolution accepting the bid from International Office Systems. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) COPIER WHEREAS, an appropriation was approved in the 1992 budget for the purchase of one (1) copier; and WHEREAS, six bids were received as follows: Company Bid Metro Sales $11,970.60 D.C. Hey $12,519.97 Stringer Business Systems $15,549.00 Metro Sales $15,688.52 International Office Systems $17,881.35 Eastman Kodak $21,795.22 WHEREAS, the copiers proposed by Metro Sales, D.C. Hey and Stringer Business Systems do not completely meet the specifications as approved by the City Council on June 22, 1992 and therefore, should be rejected. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the bids submitted by Metro Sales, D.C. Hey and Stringer Business Systems are hereby rejected on the grounds the equipment proposed does not fully meet the specifications. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the purchase of one (1) Canon NP -6060 copier from International Office Systems, in the amount of $17,881.35 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 comc;I Meeting Date L!y z�, 1992 Agenda Item Nu®ber l f REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1992 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO TRANSFER FUNDS IN ORDER TO VACCINATE CERTAIN CITY EMPLOYEES 'AGAINST HEPATITIS B AS REQUIRED BY OSHA DEPT. APPROVAL: Geralyn Barone, Personnel Coordinator MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOAMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUI B ARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Attached is a resolution authorizing the transfer of monies from the contingency fund to the community center budget to cover the cost of hepatitis B vaccinations for some of the City's lifeguards. OSHA regulations require the City to offer the series of three shots to employees identified as at risk" of exposure to the bloodborne disease through their occupation. Resolution No. 91 -50 authorized a program for providing the vaccinations to these employees, including sworn police officers, fire fighters, dispatchers, code enforcement officers, lifeguards, and maintenance workers, and over 100 employees have already participated. There is a group of about 25 lifeguards who had not previously been vaccinated but who have now shown interest in receiving the shots. Because funding is not provided for this in the 1992 budget, the city council is being asked to amend the budget to provide the funds to do so. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Pass a Resolution Amending the 1992 General Fund Budget to Transfer Funds in Order to Vaccinate Certain City Employees Against Hepatitis B as Required by OSHA. • j Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1992 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO TRANSFER FUNDS IN ORDER TO VACCINATE CERTAIN CITY EMPLOYEES AGAINST HEPATITIS B AS REQUIRED BY OSHA WHEREAS, the Minnesota OSHA standards adopted April 4, 1990, require Hepatitis B vaccinations be offered to "at risk" employees; and WHEREAS, "at risk" employees are defined as those considered to be at substantial risk of occupational exposure to bloodborne disease; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has determined it has several groups of employees who meet this definition of "at risk" employees, including sworn police officers, firefighters, dispatchers, code enforcement officers, lifeguards, and maintenance workers; and WHEREAS, City of Brooklyn Center Resolution No. 91 -50 authorizes a program of offering vaccinations to these "at risk" employees; and WHEREAS, City of Brooklyn Center Resolution No. 91 -147 provided funding in 1991 for hepatitis B vaccinations; and WHEREAS, there are approximately 25 "at risk" employees who were not vaccinated during the first series of vaccinations who have now opted to participate in the program authorized by Resolution No. 91 -50; and WHEREAS, Northport Medical Center has provided the hepatitis B vaccinations to "at risk" City of Brooklyn Center employees and continues to offer the vaccinations at a cost of $150.00 per employee; and WHEREAS, the cost of offering these vaccinations to these "at risk" employees is $3,750.00; 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: Resolution No. Increase the appropriation for the following line item: Dept. 167, Community Center Recreation Programs Object No. 4310, Professional Services $3,750.00 Decrease the appropriation for the following line item: Dept 180, Unallocated Department Expense Object No. 4995 $3,750.00 Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. I CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 7 -77 -92 Agenda Item Number !� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN METROPOLITAN CLINIC OF COUNSELING, INC. AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR AN EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM DEPT. APPROVAL: Geralyn .Barone, Personnel Coordinator MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONMIENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUN MARY EXPLANATION: su lemental sheets attached � PP e Y-5) The contract for the City's employee assistance program was due for renewal for the July 1, 1992, to June 30, 1993, period. Attached is a memorandum and supplementary materials describing the program and its use by employees in the past year. The City's utilization of the program in the 1991 -1992 period decreased slightly from last year. The cost per employee for the 1992 -1993 period will increase by $1.50 to $3.00 from the previous contract year depending on the utilization rate. (Note that the per employee fee in 1991 -1992 was $1.00 lower than the . revious contract year). ) RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL TI Resolution AC ON : Pass a Reso ut on xecution of an Agreement g between Metropolitan Clinic of Counseling, Inc. and the City of Brooklyn Center for an Employee Assistance Program. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN METROPOLITAN CLINIC OF COUNSELING, INC. AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR AN EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute an agreement with Metropolitan Clinic of Counseling, Inc. to provide an Employee Assistance Program for permanent full -time City employees and their dependents and household members. 2. The cost of the Employee Assistance Program shall not exceed $2,774 for the 1992 -1993 contract period. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Geralyn R. Barone, Personnel Coordinator DATE: July 23, 1992 SUBJECT: Employee Assistance Program In 1977, the Brooklyn Center City Council adopted a "Statement of Policy for the Employee Assistance Program." The policy (attached) established a program in Brooklyn Center and defines the purpose of the program. The policy established a procedure whereby employees experiencing chemical, financial, marital, or other problems which may affect job performance could voluntarily seek professional diagnostic and referral services. When possible, employee benefits, such as sick leave and hospitalization, can be used for treatment and counseling. All contact with the diagnostic and referral service is confidential. One other option available under the program is a supervisory referral, in contrast to the self referral, under which the employee voluntarily uses the service; under a supervisory referral, a supervisor may refer an employee to the diagnostic and referral service if job performance is affected. The City Council selected the Metropolitan Clinic of Counseling, Inc., to provide diagnostic and referral services under the City's program. The service is provided through an annual contract paid by the City and there is no direct charge to employees. If an employee is referred to some form of treatment and the employee chooses to participate in the recommended treatment, such cost is assumed by the employee or his or her medical insurance coverage. COST OF PROGRAM The Metropolitan Clinic of Counseling, Inc., offers a fee schedule to public sector employers which is based on a utilization rate of the program. Private sector employers are charged a flat rate. Essentially, the cost of a program with a utilization rate increases as usage increases. The past cost of the program and the utilization rates are shown in the attached table. The fee schedule for the 1992 -1993 period will increase because of a rise in rates. The per employee rate has increased by $1.50 -$3.00 from the previous contract year, depending on the utilization rate. (Note that the base retainer fee per employee is just $.50 higher than the 1990- 1991 contract year). The fee schedule is as follows: Base retainer fee $9.50 x 146 = $1,387.00 (0 -3 % utilization) , UTILIZATION FEE S 3.1 - 4% usage $12.67 /employee = $1,849.82 4.1 - 5% usage $15.83 /employee = $2,311.18 5.1 or more = Maximum fee $19.00 /employee = $2,774.00 Maximum cost of the program will not exceed $2,774.00. HOW THE PROGRAM WORKS The services to employees provided by the Employee Assistance Program include an assessment of the problem and its severity, the development of an individualized treatment plan, assistance in obtaining appropriate and effective treatment, and follow up to review the treatment results. If the employee and the employee assistance counselor decide that further professional treatment is advisable, the cost of future treatment will be the responsibility of the employee or his or her insurance provider. A monthly progress report of the 1991 -1992 contract period is attached to this memorandum. Other services offered by Employee g this Em to ee Assistance Program are a series of seminars which can be offered to employees at no charge to the City. Current seminar topics include stress management, physical fitness, building healthy relationships, and nutrition basics. RECOMMENDATION Utilization of the program by employees continues to increase. Staff is recommending renewal of the Employee Assistance Program through Metropolitan Clinic of Counseling, Inc. AGREEMENT Employee Assistance Program This Agreement, effective July 1, 1992, is by and between MCC Managed Behavioral Care, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "MCC ", 11095 Viking Drive, Suite 350, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 and the City of Brooklyn Center, hereinafter referred to as "Employer ", 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430. MCC's Responsibilities MCC has agreed to provide the services set forth in Attachment A. Service Availability. The services as set forth in Attachment A will be available in the service area identified in Attachment B. Employer's Responsibilities Employer agrees to participate in program exposure and employee education of the services available as set forth in Attachment A. mailings to employees shall be at the expense of the Employer. The Employer agrees to provide MCC with a roster of names of employees covered under this Agreement, and a copy of its current, relevant hospitalization and health insurance policies. Employer agrees to pay MCC under the terms identified in Attachment C. Relationship Between The Parties None of the provisions of this Agreement are intended to create nor shall be construed to create an agency, partnership, joint venture, quasi- corporation or any other relationship between the parties other than that of independent parties, contracting hereunder solely for the purpose of implementing the provisions of this Agreement. Indemnification Employer shall indemnify and hold harmless MCC for any losses resulting from the negligent, dishonest, fraudulent, or criminal acts of Employer, its officers, employees, agents, or representatives. MCC shall indemnify and hold harmless Employer for any losses resulting from the negligent, dishonest, fraudulent, or criminal acts of MCC, its officers, directors, or employees. Nothing herein shall be deemed a waiver by Employer of any limitations on liability set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466; and the Employer does not hereby agree to indemnify MCC for any amounts in excess of such limitations as are set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. Amendment This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties, and no modification or amendment hereto shall be valid unless in writing and signed by both parties. Term This Agreement shall remain in effect for an initial period of twelve (12) months from its effective date and shall be renewed thereafter for successive periods of twelve (12) months without further action by either party, unless either party shall, not less than three (3) calendar months prior to any renewal date, notify the other party in writing of its intention not to renew this Agreement. Termination Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time without cause upon the giving of three (3) calendar months prior written notice. Arbitration The parties agree to submit any disputes or claims arising out of or related to this Agreement to binding arbitration pursuant to the commercial rules of the American Arbitration Association and to conduct such an arbitration in the city of Brooklyn Center. There shall be a single arbitrator chosen by both parties within thirty (30) days after notice to arbitrate a claim is received. If the parties are unable to agree upon a single arbitrator in a timely fashion, the arbitrator shall be appointed by the American Arbitration Association in the city where the arbitration is to be held. Judgment may be entered upon the award of the arbitrator. Cost of the arbitration shall be borne equally by the parties unless the arbitrator's award directs otherwise. Confidentiality MCC shall maintain medical, financial, and administrative records, concerning services provided to employees and their dependents pursuant to this Agreement, in accordance with applicable Federal and state laws. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first written above. MCC MANAGED BEHAVIORAL CARE, INC. By: By Its: Its: Date: Date: ATTACHMENT A Employee Assistance Program services PROGRAM SERVICES /Program Development For any additional future locations or divisions and in consultation with Employer management, MCC will prepare a detailed program for Employer outlining the responsibilities, procedures, information, activities (including supervisory orientation and training), schedules, and tasks needed to implement consultative and referral EAP services. PROGRAM SERVICESIOngoing Management Consultation Through MCC, MCC will provide consultation as requested by Employer's management or staff who are considering the referral of an employee to the EAP. In addition, senior consultants involved with MCC will provide, upon request, confidential consultation and assistance for key management officials within Employer. MCC will also provide consultation, as reasonably requested by Employer, to corporate management regarding improvement or alteration to Employer's anti -drug program. PROGRAM SERVICES /Diagnostic- Motivational Counseling MCC will be available to Covered Individuals in three modes: a) Covered Individuals may use the National Service Center or the local EAP Counselor for consultation only; b) Covered Individuals can use the National Service Center EAP telephone number to arrange for EAP assessment services with a local MCC affiliate; or c) Employer management may utilize the National Service Center staff or the local MCC affiliate for consultation regarding management of troubled employees, EAP procedures, or the EAP relationship to any of Employer's personnel policies or procedures. MCC will assure that the local MCC affiliate will be available by appointment on weekdays, evenings, and Saturdays. Emergency requests for service will be accorded prompt attention. Through its MCC, MCC will provide managers access to a 24 -hour toll -free WATS line to the EAP National Service Center which is equipped to provide personnel management consultation to managers for special or sensitive employee situations. The assessment and referral services contemplated by this Agreement shall be provided by MCC personnel or MCC affiliates. No service requiring state licensure shall be provided by MCC, its employees or any person acting as a MCC affiliate whether or not the employee or person is licensed to perform a relevant service. No person acting as a MCC affiliate in assessing the personal problem of an employee shall provide treatment to the employee. PROGRAM SERVICES /Screened and Monitored Referral Service For those Covered Individuals whose personal problems require extended personal counseling or treatment, EAP affiliates or the National Service Center counselors will provide recommendations for referrals to local treatment resources. Fees for services other than those rendered by MCC or EAP affiliates will be the responsibility of the employee. It is expressly understood by MCC and Employer that the identification of, and recommendations for referral to, a local treatment resource does not automatically constitute coverage of such local treatment resource under the provisions of the medical coverage plan applicable to the Covered Individual. Coverage of such provider, clinic, agency or hospital will be determined in accordance with the provisions of the applicable medical plan without regard to the fact that the identification of, and recommendations for referral to, such local treatment resource occurred under the provisions of this Agreement between MCC and Employer. PROGRAM SERVICES /Case Management Services For those Covered Individuals to whom a recommendation for referral to a local treatment resource has been made, MCC staff will maintain contact with the provider of care and the Covered Individual until the Covered Individual has made contact with a provider of care and has expressed satisfaction with the provider to MCC or has indicated to MCC staff that no further services are requested. PROGRAM EVALUATION Through MCC, MCC will provide ongoing analysis of service utilization. Quarterly reports to Employer corporate management representatives will include reporting on the number of employees utilizing MCC affiliates, the types of problems identified, a review of all consultative activities for the quarter, and suggestions for improvements. All reporting will preserve the confidentiality of the Covered Individual. Every individual using the EAP will be given the opportunity to anonymously evaluate the service received. EMPLOYMENT RELATED RESPONSIBILITY MCC assumes no responsibility for employment- related supervision of any employee; such supervision and /or decisions regarding the employee are the sole responsibility of Employer. ATTACHMENT B Service Area Minneapolis /St. Paul Metropolitan Area ATTACHMENT C FEES The base retainer fee for the agreement period is $1,387.00. This fee is based upon the per employee rate of $9.50 for 146 employees). The base retainer fee will cover all assessment and referral services up to a 3.0% annual utilization. The utilization fee will be billed for each one percent (1 %) or portion thereof increase in the utilization above 3.0 %, in accordance with the following schedule: Utilization Rate Price /ee # of employees Total Cost 3.0% $ 9.50 146 employees $1,387.00 3.1 - 4.0% 12.67 146 employees 1,849.82 4.1 - 5.0% 15.83 146 employees 2,311.18 5.1% or > 19.00 146 employees 2,774.00 As utilization increases, the above specified amounts will be added to Employer's account, and will be integrated into subsequent billings. Pro -rata adjustments in the retainer fee will be computed quarterly when deviations occur which are greater than five percent (5 %) of the original number of employees as stated in this Agreement. Payments by Employer shall be sent to MCC at the address listed in this Agreement. Fee Renegotiation The parties shall negotiate the service fees for each successive twelve (12) month period not less than three (3) calendar months prior to any renewal date. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the fees charged by MCC for services hereunder may be modified by separate written agreement of the parties, executed at any time during the existence of this Agreement. Any such modification of fees shall be effective in accordance with the terms of such separate agreement, and shall not affect the validity of any other provisions of this Agreement. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CONTRACT PERIOD COST TO CITY UTILIZATION RATE 1977 -1978 $119 (City information not received a available 90% reim- bursement from State of MN) 1978 -1979 $605 (50% information not reimburse- available ment from State) 1979 -1980 $1,020.00 4.3% 1980 -1981 $1,476.00 7.3% 1981 -1982 $ 868.00 2.4% 1982 -1983 $ 854.00 less than 1% 1983 -1984 $1,457.50 4.8% 1984 -1985 $1,166.25 3.2% 1985 -1986 $1,250.00 3.2% 1986 -1987 $ 937.50 1.6% 1987 -1988 $1,679.58 4.8% 1988 -1989 $2,080.00 7.7% 1989 -1990 $2,278.00 6.2% 1990 -1991 $2,346.00 7.2% 1991 -1992 $1,986.17 4.7% Statement of Policy Employee Assistance Program City of Brooklyn Center The City of Brooklyn Center recognizes that a wide range of problems, not directly associated with an employee's job responsibilities, can affect job performance. In most cases, the employee will overcome such personal problems independently and the employee's job performance will not be affected. In other cases, usual supervisory assistance or discipline will serve to motivate or guide - the employee to solve his or her problems and the employee's job performance will return to an acceptable level. In some instances, neither the efforts and resources of the employee nor - the guidance by the supervisor has the desired effect of resolving - the employee's problems. In such cases, unsatisfactory job performance may persist over a period of time, either on a constant or intermittent basis. The City of Brooklyn Center believes it is in - the best interest of the employee, the employee's family and the City to provide an employee service which deals with such persistent problems. Beginning June 15, 1977 it is the policy of the City of Brooklyn Center to handle such employee problems within the following framework: 1. The City of Brooklyn Center is concerned with the health and well -being of its employees but it has no desire to interfere with employees' private lives. The administration will be concerned with an employee's personal problems only when job performance is adversely affected or when problems reflect dis- credit on the City. 2. This policy applies to all regular full -time employees of the City of Brooklyn Center regardless of their job title or responsibilities. 3. The program is available to families and dependents of employees as well as the employees themselves since it is recognized that problems at home can have an adverse effect on an employee's ability to function while at work. 4. If employees or their dependents. realize that they have personal problems that may benefit from the assistance provided by the Employee Assistance Program, they are encouraged to seek assistance on their own and will be supported in efforts to do so. 5. Participation in the program will not jeopardize an employee's job security, promotional opportunities, or reputation. Page 2 Statement of Policy Employee Assistance Program 6. All records and discussions of personal problems will be handled in a confidential manner as are other medical records. Records will be kept by the diagnostic and referral agency and will not become part of the employee's personnel file. 7. Past experience shows that a significant portion of the problems encountered in such programs are related to problems involving the use of alcohol and /or other drugs . It will be a policy of the City of Brooklyn Center that chemical dependency is generally recognized as a treatable illness and assuming the cooperation of the employee in treatment, will be dealt with as such. 8. When performance problems are not corrected with normal or 1 super- visory attention, employees may be referred to assistance to determine if personal problems are causing unsatisfactory per- formance. If performance problems are corrected, no further action will be taken,. If performance problems persist, the employee will be subject to normal corrective procedures. 9. In cases where it is necessary, employees may be granted sick leave, vacation or unpaid leave of absence for time for treatment or rehabilitation on the same basis as it is granted for health or disability problems. 10. Employee compliance with the program is strictly voluntary. If an employee is referred to the Employee Assistance Program in lieu of other corrective or disciplinary measures and chooses not to participate in the Employee Assistance Program, then normal corrective measures will apply. Refusal to participate cannot be used as evidence to evaluate job performance. 11. There is no charge for the diagnostic and referral services, however, if costs are incurred for rehabilitation services that are not covered by insurance or other benefits, that cost will be the responsibility of the employee. 12. The program is not designed to provide ongoing treatment or counseling, but rather to provide early identification, motivation, and referral to appropriate care- giving resources in order to facilitate the resolution of any serious personal problems the employee might have. 13. This policy does not alter or replace existing administrative policy or contractual agreements, but serves as an adjunct to assist in their utilization. MCC, Managed Behavioral Care, Inc. Employee Assistance Program Monthly Progress Report for City of Brooklyn Center Through June 30, 1992 Month Number of Referred by Self Drug /Alcohol Clients Employees Dependents Supervisor Referral Related Jul 91 0 0, 0 0 0 0 Aug 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sep;91 0 0 0 0 0 0 oct 91 2 2 0 0 2 0 No V 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 t?ec 91 <2 1 o 2 0 Jan s2 1 1 +7 0 1 0 Feb 92 1 1 0 0 1 0 Mar 92 . 1 1 0 0 1 0 or 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 MayI92 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jun 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 Year' —to.— Date 7 6 1' 0 7 0 Please call me if you have any questions. - A oun" - tan g Ilia report is based on information as it is presented by the client's initial telephone call to our office. It ix possible thut this information will change during the assessment Process. "Ihe most complete and accurate data will appear on our detailed statistical report. prepared at die end of your contract year. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7/27/92 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES DEPT. APPROVAL: Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk MANAGER'S REVIEWlRECONEM ENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUNDLARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _) Attached is the list of licenses to be approved by the city council. • RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Approve licenses. * Licenses to be approved by the City Council on July 27, 1992. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Care Heating & Air Conditioning 1211 Old Highway 8 Building Official GENERAL APPROVAL: Ck P. Page, Deputy Clerk t