Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 06-24 CCP Regular Session f CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER CONSTITUTION HALL JUNE 24, 1991 7 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Opening Ceremonies 4. Open Forum 5. Council Reports 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 June 10, 1991 - Regular Session 8. Public Informational Hearing Regarding Improvement of 69th Avenue between Brooklyn Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway -City staff and representatives from SEH, Inc. will present the proposed alignment /geometric layout plan for consideration by the City Council. Copies of the staff recommendation and of the proposed layout plan have been sent to all property owners between Brooklyn Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway, between 68th and 70th Avenues North. It is recommended that following the staff presentation, the hearing be opened for public comments and questions. Following the hearing, it is recommended that the City Council consider adoption of the following resolution: a. Resolution Approving Alignment/ Geometric Layout Plan for the Improvement of 69th Avenue North between Brooklyn Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway, Improvement Project No. 1990 -10 9. Presentation: a. Annual Audited Financial Report - Representatives of the City's independent audit firm Deloitte and Touche will be present. 10. Discussion Items: a. Status Report Regarding Project Development Plan and Cost Estimate for 69th Avenue Improvements CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- June 24, 1991 1. Resolution Amending Estimate of Project Costs and Fund Sources for Reconstruction of 69th Avenue North from Brooklyn Boulevard to Shingle Creek Parkway, Improvement Project No. 1990 -10 2. Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications for 69th Avenue Soil Corrections (Construction Phase I, Improvement No. 1990 -10, Contract 1991 -I) 3. Resolution Establishing Parking Restrictions on 69th Avenue between Brooklyn Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway b. Consideration of the 1991 -2000 Capital Improvement Program -A preliminary copy of this CIP was presented and discussed with the City Council at the June 10, 1991, meeting. City staff will be prepared to discuss the changes which have been included in response to direction from the City Council. Also, the City's bond consultant, Springsted, Inc., will be prepared to review part II - the debt planning study of the CIP. 1. Resolution Approving the 1991 -2000 Capital Improvement Program C. Consideration of $3.0 Million Bond Sale Relating to 69th Avenue Improvement Project No. 1990 -10 1. Resolution Providing for the Issuance and Sale of $3,000,000 General Obligation State Aid Road Bonds, Series 1991B d. Staff Report Regarding 57th Avenue Drainage Problems e. Staff Report Regarding Concept Designs for Trailway Past Humboldt Square f. Staff Recommendation Regarding Remodeling of Park Shelter Building at Twin Lake Beach 1. Resolution Amending the General Fund Budget, Appropriating Funds, and Authorizing Remodeling of Park Shelter Building at Twin Lake Beach g. Regional Meetings for 1992 Metropolitan Council Budget 11. Resolutions: a. Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Water Distribution System Improvement, Improvement Project No. 1990 -03, Contract 1991 -C (Water Main Construction in the Vicinity of 69th Avenue and Dupont Avenue at Water Tower #2) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- June 24, 1991 *b. Accepting Proposal and Awardin g Contract for Motor Fuel Dispensing Control and Data Acquisition System Upgrade, Improvement No. 1991 -15 *c. Approving Plans and Specifications and Directing Advertisement for Bids for Trail Improvement, Improvement Project No. 1991 -07 (Replacement of a Portion of Trail in Central Park, and Surfacing of Trail on 53rd Avenue Extension South of Centerbrook Golf Course) *d. Accepting Work Performed under Contract 1990 -D, Street Reconstruction on Freeway Boulevard /65th Avenue /66th Avenue from Shingle Creek to T.H. 252, and on Humboldt Avenue North between 65th and 69th Avenues North *e. Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Diseased Shade Trees (Order No. DST 06/24/91) *f. Establishing Policy Regarding the Use of Recycled Building Materials in Municipally- Funded Construction and Remodeling Projects *g. Acknowledging Gift from the Rotary Club of Brooklyn Center -$500 for Entertainment in the Parks and $300 for Central Park flowers. h. Supporting Concept of an MTC Opting -In Program and Offering Brooklyn Center as a Pilot -City *12. Licenses 13. Adjournment 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 JUNE 10, 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Todd Paulson at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Todd Paulson, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Jerry Pedlar, Dave Rosene, and Philip Cohen. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, City Engineer Mark Maloney, Public Works Coordinator Diane Spector, Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone, and Council Secretary Ann Odden. Assistant EDA Coordinator Tom BubIitz arrived at 8:12 p.m. OPENING CEREMONIES Robert Cilke offered the invocation. OPEN FORUM Mayor Paulson noted the Council had not received any requests to use the open forum session this evening. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular agenda items. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Pedlar indicated Donn Escher, who had been nominated as chairperson of the Financial Task Force, was unable to serve. The nominated vice chairperson, Pat Boran, was unable to commit to being the new chairperson and preferred to remain as vice chairperson. Councilmember Pedlar felt Dennis Kelly would be an excellent candidate for chairperson and suggested he be nominated for the position. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Cohen nominating Dennis Kelly as chairperson of the Financial Task Force and Pat Boran as vice chairperson. The motion passed unanimously. 6110191 _ 1 _ Councilmember Pedlar indicated a work session was scheduled for June 17, 1991, which he felt would be a good opportunity for the Financial Task Force and any available Councilmembers to attend. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Paulson inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items be removed from the consent agenda. Councilmember Pedlar requested item 12b be removed from the consent agenda. APPROV AL OF MINUTES APRIL 29, 1991 - BOARD OF EQUALIZATION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the minutes of April 29, 1991, Board of Equalization as printed. The motion passed unanimously. MAY 13. 1991 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the minutes of May 13, 1991 regular session as printed. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING SURPLUS PROPERTY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -142 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1991 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM DRUG FORFEITURE MONIES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. 6/10/91 -2- 2 RESOLUTION NO. 91 -343 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN METROPOLITAN CLINIC OF COUNSELING, INC. AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR AN EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -144 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF RUBBER FLOORING FOR PARK BUILDINGS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the following list of licenses: AMUSEMENT DEVICES -OPERATOR Brookdale East Cinema 5801 John Martin Dr. Children's Palace 5900 Shingle Crk. Pky. Days Inn 1501 Freeway BIvd. Ground Round, Inc. 2545 Co. Rd. 10 La Casita Restaurant 2101 Freeway Blvd. T. Wright's 5800 Shingle Crk. Pky. United Artists Theatre Circuit 5810 Shingle Crk. Pky. AMUSEMENT DEVICES - VENDOR B & K Music & Sales 133 Spring Valley Cir. Carousel International Corp. P.O. Box 307 D.V.M. Inc. DB /A Dahlco 296 North Pascal Theisen Vending Co. 3504 Nicollet Ave. N. CATERING FOOD VEHICLE Fleck Concessions 16936 Eveleth St. NE 6/10/91 -3- ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Betsy Medley 1762 Canyon Lane Brooklyn Center Lioness 5405 Queen Ave. N. Brooklyn Center Park and Rec. 6301 Shingle Crk. Pky. Brooklyn Center Park and Rec. 6301 Shingle Crk. Pky. Brooklyn Center Park and Rec. 6301 Shingle Crk. Pky. Lakes Hawaiian Ice 9784 210th St. N. Mama's Munchies 525 North Shore Drive Multiple Sclerosis 2344 Nicollet Ave. Northland DeLite 3040 LaBore Road Straight's Concessions 3110 Idaho Ave. N. Straight's Concessions 3110 Idaho Ave. N. Straight's Concessions 3110 Idaho Ave. N. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Allan Mechanical, Inc. 6020 Culligan Way Construction Mechanical Services 1307 Sylvan Street Thermex Corporation 4850 Park Glen Road United Heating and A/C 7909 30th Ave. N. RENTAL DWELLING Renewal: Shingle Creek Tower 6221 Shingle Crk. Pky. Gerald L. McGuire The Village at River West Carlin Shefveland 5308 Emerson Ave. N. Jack and Nancy Wold 5907 -5909 June Ave. N. Richard M. Schurman 4204 Lakebreeze Ave. N. James and Bobbie Simons 4210 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Norwest Bank MN, Trustee 7002 Quail Circle West Richard and Elfreda Ploof 5319 Queen Ave. N. Robert and Catherine Lorvick 5205 E. Twin Lake Blvd. Neil and Susan Grindheim 801 Woodbine Lane T.W. Thorbus 4300 - 63rd Ave. N. SIGN HANGER Sign Art, Co. 2535 Pilot Knob Rd. #121 SWIMMING POOL Fun Services 3701 50th Ave. N. Twin Lake North Apts. 4539 58th Ave. N. The motion passed unanimously. 6110191 _ 4- i PROCLAMATION DECLARING JUNE 27 1991 AS SOCM DAY There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve a Proclamation Declaring June 27, 1991, as SOCM Day. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 91006 SUBMITTED BY SUNLITE PROPERTIES—REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 15' BUFFER STRIP BETWEEN ITS PARKING LOT AT 1601 67TH AVENUE NORTH AND THE BEREAN EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH PROPERTY TO THE EAST The City Manager briefly reviewed the staff report on this item. The Director of Planning and Inspection presented details of the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of the variance. The basis for the recommendation was the standards of variance were not met. The Planning Commission, however, recommended approval of an ordinance amendment which would allow a lesser buffer where an industrial use abuts an institutional use in an R1 zoning district. The Director of Planning and Inspection indicated staff had worked with the applicant o PP n other possible options, such as purchasing more land from the church, but that had not been able to be accomplished. In response to Councilmember Cohen's question, he stated the parking area was located approximately 100 -150 feet from the church building. He noted the proposed ordinance amendment would have the same result as the requested variance, but would be a more efficient way to deal with the situation and would not set an adverse precedence. He was not aware of any similar situations in existence in the City. Councilmember Pedlar suggested the word "institutional" be narrowly defined by the Planning Commission, and the Director of Planning and Inspection concurred. In response to Councilmember Rosene's question, the Director of Planning and Inspection stated the proposed action would not adversely affect the play area for a nearby daycare. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 91006 at 7:28 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 Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to close the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. 6/10/91 _ S _ There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Rosen to deny the variance requested in Planning Commission Application No. 91006 submitted"" by Sunlite Properties to allow a 15' buffer strip between a parking lot and a nearby church. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE The City Manager presented an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Allow a Lesser Buffer Where an Industrial Use Abuts an Institutional Use. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to approve for first reading an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the Brooklyn Center Code of Ordinances and setting a public hearing date of July 8, 1991, at 7:15 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 91007 SUBMITTED BY REAL ESTATE FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS INC. AND IVAN AND HAZEL VETTERICK RE UESTING APPROVAL TO REZONE FROM C1 SERVICE OFFICE TO R5 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) AN APPROXIMATE 30' X 100' STRIP_ OF LAND ALONG THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY AT 6501 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD The City Manager briefly reviewed the staff report on this item. The Director of Planning and Inspection presented the details of the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the rezoning. The rezoning and conveyance of this 30'x 100' strip of land so MV that it would become a part of 401065th Avenue North would rectify a longstanding problem with the property. A legitimate four plex would result, which should have been the case when the property was developed in 1982. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 91007 at 7:40 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 Pedlar to close the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -145 Member Dave Rosene introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 91007 SUBMITTED BY IVAN AND HAZEL VETTERICK AND REAL ESTATE FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC. 6/10/91 -6- The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE The City Manager presented an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land (Hamm's Second Addition). There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to approve for first reading an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the Brooklyn Center Code of Ordinances and setting a public hearing date of July 8, 1991, at 7:15 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO.91009 SUBMITTED BY THE EARLE BROWN BOWL RE UESTING SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A TEMPORARY, SEASONAL DECK CAPABLE OF SEATING 50 IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE EXISTING EARLE BROWN BOWL AND ALSO TO OPERATE TWO VOLLEYBALL COURTS ON A SEASONAL BASIS IN THE SOUTH PARKING LOT OF THE BOWLING ALLEY PROPERTY AT 6440 JAMES CIRCLE The City Manager reviewed the staff report on this item. The Director of Planning and Inspection presented details of the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the application subject to the 11 conditions as stated in the minutes of the May 30, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated the proposed deck and volleyball courts would be seasonal, and would be removed following the summer months. The applicant made the request in part because bowling activities tended to decline during the summer. Although the parking area was at maximum usage, the Director of Planning and Inspection indicated the deck and volleyball courts could be allowed on the basis that the bowling business declined during that time period. He indicated the applicant had made plans to address concerns such as parking area drainage, sanitation, and noise. In response to Councilmember Scott's question, the Director of Planning and Inspection indicated the outdoor deck would have suitable access for the handicapped, and construction of the deck would not hinder the existing access available. Councilmember Cohen commented on the lack of lighting on the deck, which was scheduled to be open until 10:30 p.m. The Director of Planning and Inspection did not feel this was a problem, due to the fact parking lot lighting would shine onto the area, and the deck would be no more dimly lit than many lounges. The Council generally concurred that the request was a good opportunity to expand outdoor dining in the City. Some concern was expressed about the proximity of the volleyball courts to nearby motels. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated the 6/10/91 -7- manager of the nearby Budgetel felt some problems might arise due to noise. A condition 0 of approval addressing the issue of noise had been included in the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 91009 at 8:03 p.m. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. Mark Bruer of Earle Brown Bowl was present to answer Council questions on the matter. In response to Mayor Paulson's question, he indicated other possible configurations of the volleyball courts had been considered and then rejected. Mr. Bruer felt placement of the courts near the parking lot island would provide a barrier to prevent cars from driving on or near the courts, enhancing the safety of the courts and preventing possible damage. Also, the parking flow would be less disrupted with the requested configuration and the existing outdoor lighting could be utilized. He stated the outdoor deck would have a visual view of the volleyball courts, although he did not feel the volleyball area would attract many spectators. The City Attorney expressed concern about issuing a special use permit on a one -year trial basis, and indicated it might be difficult for the City to terminate if they wished. He suggested approval should be conditioned on the addition of the following verbiage to the list of conditions: In paragraph 3, after "... Labor Day of each year." Add: "This permit shall be in effect only as long as the property is used as a bowling alley." In paragraph 8, after ". . . use permit." Add: Specifically, but without limiting the foregoing, this permit may be terminated or modified if the use proposed creates noise which, in the discretion of the Council, is deemed to be unreasonable or undesirable, or results in a shortage of available on -site parking. The applicant has requested and agreed that this permit be granted on an experimental or trial basis for one summer only and shall be terminated no later than Labor Day, 1991, unless the permit is extended by the Council. But for this agreement, this permit would not be granted by the Council." Mr. Bruer agreed to the addition as proposed by the City Attorney. In response to Councilmember Pedlar's question, Mr. Bruer indicated there had been no problems with a similar situation located in Woodbury, and there had been no problems resulting from liquor being served in an outdoor setting. No one else appeared to speak, and Mayor Paulson entertained a motion to close the public hearing. 6109 There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to close the public hearing at 8:13 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Pedlar indicated he supported the idea of the outdoor activity but was concerned about possible enforcement problems. He felt the Council should grant a special use permit on a trial basis. Mayor Paulson concurred, and felt a different configuration of the volleyball court should be considered at the next reviewal. Councilmember Scott supported the application, but disagreed with Mayor Paulson's views in regard to possible relocation of the volleyball courts. She felt moving the courts closer could result in elderly and handicapped persons having to park further away. She suggested having the Planning Commission review possible configurations prior to the one - year reviewal. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve Planning Commission Application No. 91009 submitted by the Earle Brown Bowl subject to the following conditions: 1. Construction plans for the deck are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Seating on the deck shall be limited to 50 seats and service shall terminate not later than 10:30 p.m. 3. The outside deck and the volleyball courts may operate during the seasonal period when bowling leagues are not functioning between May 1 and Labor Day of each year. This permit shall be in effect only as long as the property is used as a bowling alley. 4. Volleyball play shall cease not later than 10:30 p.m. 5. The applicant shall sweep the parking lot near the volleyball courts on a weekly basis to minimize the flow of sand into the storm sewer system. 6. The volleyball courts shall be placed on the site in a manner to minimize any disruption of parking and to avoid proximity to catch basins. 7. The applicant shall employ on the premises security personnel whose responsibility it shall be to prevent the consumption of food or liquor at the volleyball courts and to respond promptly to any noise complaints. 8. City staff shall monitor any complaints pertaining to the operation of the outside deck and /or volleyball courts during the first summer of operation. A report on such complaints and on any parking, drainage, noise or sanitation problems associated with either outdoor activity shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration not later than April 1, 1992. If the Council finds that any .aspects of these outdoor activities constitutes a nuisance, it may terminate or modify this special use permit. Specifically, but without limiting the foregoing, this permit may be terminated or modified if the use proposed creates noise which, in the discretion of the Council, is deemed to be 6/10/91 -9- unreasonable or undesirable, or results in a shortage of available on -site parking. The applicant has requested and agreed that this permit be granted on an 0 experimental or trial basis for one summer only and shall be terminated no later than Labor Day, 1991, unless the permit is extended by the Council. But for this agreement, this permit would not be granted by the Council." 9. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. Any violation thereof shall be rounds for revocation. . 10. Alcoholic beverages may not be sold or consumed Y outside with the exception p n of the deck area. Consumption of alcoholic beverages is subject to regulations established by the Chief of Police, consistent with the provisions of Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances. 11. Any noise coming from the deck or volleyball area constituting a nuisance shall be prohibited. The applicant and his representatives shall cooperate fully in complying with this directive and any others given by police or code enforcement personnel. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 91010 SUBMITTED BY MARQUETTE BANK BROOKDALE REQUESTING SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 5,700 SO FT ADDITION TO THE MAR_ QUETTE BANK BROOKDALE AT 5620 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD The City Manager briefly reviewed the staff report on this item. The Director of Planning and Inspection presented details of the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the site and building plan subject to 11 conditions as stated in their May 30, 1991 meeting minutes. The Director of Planning and Inspection indicated the addition would nearly double the available space on the bank's main floor. He stated the application included a generous landscape plan with about twice the amount of landscaping which would normally be required by the City. Frank Slawson representing the Marquette Bank Brookdale was present to answer Council questions on the matter. Councilmember Rosene commended Mr. Slawson for the generous landscaping provided in the plan. Councilmember Cohen concurred, and wished to publicly thank the bank for being excellent corporate citizens. Mayor Paulson thanked the Planning Commission for their efforts also. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve Planning Commission Application No. 91010 submitted by Marquette Bank Brookdale subject to the following conditions: b /10/91 - 10- 1. Building plans are g p subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas, except along the north side of the Iot as recommended by the City Engineer. 9. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the performance guarantee for this project. 10. The property owner shall enter into an Easement and Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems, prior to the issuance of permits. 11. The plans shall be modified, prior to the issuance of permits, to indicate the following: a. Not greater than a 5% slope at or leading to the access onto 56th Avenue North. b. Existing and proposed site utilities. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:42 p.m. and reconvened at 8 :58 p.m. ORDINANCES The City Manager presented a proposed Ordinance Vacating Water Main Easement in Twin View Meadows. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve for first reading an Ordinance Vacating A Water Main Easement in Twin View Meadows and setting a public hearing date of July 8, 1991, at 7:15 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. 6/10/91 _ 11 The City Manager presented a proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the Ci Ordinances Regarding Public Nuisances. Councilmember Scott thanked the City Attorney for his efforts to gather information for the proposed ordinance. The Council discussed whether or not the proposed ordinance was specific enough to stand up to challenges in court based upon previous experiences by the schools. Paul Durand, associate principal of Brooklyn Center High School, was present and urged the Council to pass the ordinance. The City Attorney explained the draft contained a policy in regard to trespassing that should address the problem. The Council concurred that posting notices and public awareness of the issue should help. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to approve for first reading an alternate Ordinance drafted by the City Attorney and dated June 10, 1991, which Amended Chapter 19 of the Brooklyn Center Code of Ordinances Regarding Public Nuisances and setting a public hearing date of July S, 1991, at 7:15 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS REQUEST FROM UPPER TWIN LAKE ASSOCIATION FOR ALGAE TREATMENT The City Manager reviewed this item and indicated residents of the area requested three 0 treatments per year at a total cost of $2,000. Kristen Mann, Chairperson of the Twin Lake Association, presented recent samples of the lake water to the Council. She indicated there are 72 homes bordering the lake. Previously, treatments had been done and approximately half of the homes had contributed toward paying the fee. She felt the lake was an important amenity to the City and requested help from the City to pay for treatments. Councilmember Cohen questioned whether or not a special assessment district could be set up for the area. The City Manager commented it could be expensive to administer a new district. The City Attorney explained that doing so would be difficult, but setting up a special storm sewer taxing district would serve the same function and be more feasible. He indicated if Council felt the area of benefit should be enlarged because of the public access to the area, that could also be a consideration. Councilmember Cohen felt the lake was an important amenity that needed to be protected and suggested the Council explore the most cost - effective way. 5/10/91 - 12- Councilmember Scott suggested the Council authorize the City of Brooklyn Center to perform the treatments for 1991, and have the Joint Powers Committee review prior to the 1992 season. The City Manager noted the current Joint Powers Agreement deals only with enforcement, and suggested expanding the agreement could include issues such as the algae problem. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott authorizing the City of Brooklyn Center to pay for algae treatments for Twin Lake for 1991, with the funds to be paid from the contingency fund, and directing staff to review the matter and present alternatives prior to the 1992 season. The motion passed unanimously. EARLE BROWN DAYS EVENTS The City Manager reviewed this item, noting the event was scheduled for June 28 & 29, 1991, in the Heritage Center Mall area. He indicated the parking arrangements as recommended by staff had been approved by the Police Chief and Fire Chief. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the Earle Brown Days Events as recommended by staff. The motion passed unanimously. 1991 -2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, REVIEW DRAFT The City Manager indicated no Council action was needed on this item but review and comments were requested. The purpose of the program was to anticipate capital improvements. The City's bond rating could be adversely affected if major projects were not anticipated and budgeted. Councilmember Cohen suggested that due to time constraints, the project on 69th Avenue be put on a future agenda for more refinement. The Director of Public Works reviewed the Capital Improvements Program in detail. In response to Mayor Paulson's question, he indicated proposed water projects were all for the purpose of facilitating water distribution and not water quality. The City Manager estimated City water rates would triple or quadruple if a system of water softening was added. Mayor Paulson commented labels on particular projects should be kept very general so as to provide. the City with as much leeway as possible. In response to Councilmember Cohen's question, the Director of Public Works stated curb and gutter improvements had been included in the plan. Councilmember Cohen suggested a study be prepared to determine the demographics of the population who would be providing the tax dollars to fund the program. 6/10/91 - 13 - The Public Works Coordinator assisted in reviewing the program and indicated the category of streets ac g rY counted for approximately 75% of the capital improvements. The Council concurred to review the program draft further and provide comments. STAFF REPORT RE: 57TH AVENUE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar tabling this item until the June 24, 1991, Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. STAFF REPORT RE: SEWER REPAIR AT LIFT STATION #1 The Director of Public Works presented the staff report on this item. RESOLUTION NO, 91 -146 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING EMERGENCY SEWER REPAIR AT LIFT STATION #1, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1991 -13 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly econded b member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. y Y Mayor Paulson commended all who worked on the project. REQUESTS FOR CITY COUNCIL'S 1992 BUDGET The City Manager requested the Council review this matter and submit ideas. No specific action was needed on this item. MINNEAPOLIS/NO ,TH SUBURBAN FIRE TRAINING FACILITY The City Manager briefly reviewed this item, indicating a joint powers agreement had been formed with the communities of Fridley, Columbia Heights, Blaine and other north suburban communities to develop a Fire Training Facility in Fridley. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar for concept approval of the Fire Training Facility. The motion passed unanimously. PROPOSED LEAGUE OF CITIES CONSTITUTION AMENDMENTS The City Manager briefly reviewed this item em fo Y r the Council. Councilmember Cohen felt it would be in the best interests of the City to oppose an amendment which would allow additional members to the Board of Directors. The Councilmembers concurred. 6/10/91 _ 14 - There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott adopting an official position in opposition to allowing additional members on the Board of Directors and authorizing Mayor Paulson to present this view on behalf of the City. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) Councilmember Pedlar questioned why a high number of employees had elected not to receive Hepatitis B vaccinations. The City Manager responded some felt the risk was small, others had been previously vaccinated, and others feared the shots. _RESOLUTION NO 91 -_147 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS IN ORDER TO VACCINATE CERTAIN CITY EMPLOYEES AGAINST HEPATITIS B AND AMENDING THE 1991 GENERAL FUND BUDGET The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -148 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR HUMBOLDT AVENUE /65TH AVENUE LANDSCAPING, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991- 03, CONTRACT 1991 -D The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager briefly reviewed the bids received on the City's sealcoating program and recommended Option A, which would provide a higher quality of rock. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -149 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR 1991 SEALCOATING PROGRAM, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -05, CONTRACT 1991 -F 6/10/91 -15 - The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. 0 RESOLU_ TION NO. 91 -150 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES (ORDER NO. DST 06/10/91) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -151 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE ONE -HALF CENT OPTIONAL SALES TA.X/LEGISLATIVE UPDATE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager reviewed the staff report and recommendations for amending the 1991 pay plan to reorganize the City Manager's office. He indicated the proposal shifted duties 0 and redefined positions related to the city clerk, administrative aide, licensing secretary, and recording secretary functions. Mayor Paulson explained a memo he had prepared suggesting an alternate form of reorganizing the positions. He favored including a staff position whose title or responsibilities would include Communications Director, Administrative Assistant to the Mayor and Council, Recording Secretary, and Constituent Services Coordinator. Councilmember Cohen felt a Council work session should be scheduled for mid -July to discuss this item and a number of other issues. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Rosene approving a Council and staff retreat for mid -July. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -152 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1991 PAY PLAY TO RECOGNIZE A REORGANIZATION IN THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded b member P g g Y Y Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. 6/10/91 - 16- There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Rosene tabling Mayor Paulson's memo for staff response. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -153 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A BROOKLYN CENTER AD HOC CITY COMMUNICATIONS TASK FORCE AND DEFINING DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar, and seconded by Councilmember Scott to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 11:27 p.m. Deputy Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Ann J. Odden Northern Counties Secretarial Service 6/10/91 - 17- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 6/24/9 Agenda Item Number O W REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING ALIGNMENT GEOMETRIC LAYOUT PLAN FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF 69TH AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN BROOKLYN BOULEVARD AND SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Di ctor of ublic Works MANAGERS REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes On April 22, City staff and representatives from SEH Inc. presented a proposed alignment /geometric layout plan to the City Council for review and discussion. That same plan was also presented and discussed at a public informational meeting held at Constitution Hall on May 1. As a result of input received at those meetings, the following revisions have been included into the proposed plan: • This plan shows construction of a cul -de -sac on June Avenue, just north of 69th Avenue; • This plan shows a number of "potential tree planting areas" on both sides of 69th Avenue and in the center island; and • This plan includes an optional plan for the location of the proposed trail along the north side of 69th Avenue between France Avenue and Palmer Lake. The h revised la n layout dated 6/17/91, alon with a cover letter Y g (copies � P attached) have been sent to all property owners within one block of 69th Avenue, inviting them to attend the 6/24/91 Council meeting to discuss the plan, to ask questions and to state their comments. Following the public informational hearing, the City Council should consider approval of the plan, either "as is" or with specific modifications. Such approval will allow staff and consultants to complete the development of Stage 1 of final plans and cost estimates for this project, and serve to provide direction for implementation of this project. i RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION • Ask City staff and SEH Inc. to present the proposal plan • Conduct public informational meeting • Consider adoption of the attached resolution • I C ITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF B ROOKLYN s BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE: 569 -3300 C ENTER FAX. 569-3494 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE Sy Knapp 911 Director of Public Works JUNE 14, 1991 TO: All Owners of Property One Block North and South of 69th Avenue Brooklyn Boulevard to Shingle Creek Parkway FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works SUBJ: City Council Meeting, 7:00 P.M. June 24, 1991 Constitution Hall, Community Center, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Regarding Design of 69th Avenue • The Brooklyn Center City Council will at its June 24, 1991 meeting be asked to designate final design criteria for 69th Avenue North between Brooklyn Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway. In preparation for this meeting, Council members have been provided copies of detailed notes from all meetings, both the large neighborhood meetings as well as meetings with individuals or smaller groups. Council membe "rs have also been provided copies of all comment cards that have been submitted, and the comments staff have recorded from telephone conversations. While this is not a public hearing, the Council will be prepared to take additional comments from the public at this meeting. Enclosed is a copy of the revised plan layout dated 6/17/91 for the improvement of 69th Avenue North between Brooklyn Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway which staff will present for consideration by the City Council. You will note that the plan is very similar to the plan dated 4/19/91 and discussed at the May 1, 1991 neighborhood meeting. However, the following revisions are noted: o This plan shows construction of a cul -de -sac on June Avenue, just north of 69th Avenue; O This plan shows a number of "potential tree planting areas" on both sides of 69th Avenue and in the center island; '�'YN(N o This plan includes an optional plan for the location of the proposed trail along the north side of 69th Avenue between France Avenue and Palmer Lake: and In addition to the plan layout, City staff will recommend to the Council that the following process be used to develop the most effective plan for landscaping, security fencing, and noise abatement: Step 1 - As a part of the general construction contract (to be completed in 1992) earth berms will be constructed at the locations where they will be effective in providing noise abatement and will not require the removal of a large number of mature trees. Step 2 - Upon completion of the general construction contract (Fall, 1992) a series of meetings will be conducted with adjoining property owners on both sides of 69th Avenue to review available options, including fencing (various types), plantings, property extensions, etc. Step 3 - A plan will then be developed to accommodate property owners' requests to the maximum feasible extent. Step 4 - A separate contract will then be awarded for landscaping and other construction according to that plan in early 1993. Our engineering consultants have prepared and submitted the necessary paperwork to the Minnesota Department of Transportation for approval of a signal system at France Avenue and 69th. It is hoped that we will have their decision by the time of the Council meeting. The City Council will discuss the plan, and consider approval of the plan either "as is" or with modifications at 7:00 P.M. on Monday, June 24, 1991 in Constitution Hall in the Community Center, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway. You are invited to attend this meeting to discuss the plan, to ask questions, and to state your comments. We will appreciate your attendance and participation. If you are unable to attend, please feel.free to stop by the Engineering office at City Hall, or call us at 569 -3340 and we will be happy to answer any questions or take note of your concerns. Sincerely, Sy Kapp Director of Public Works Encl. e9 o e9 ao 7t N = it C)� Sl1t3SLT AH O _ _ Rt T i 70 i 7 I ' _— ...... » > > >> C \ i y? • �.•. •�' iii N 3 u:MC...j c. 2 i i \l \ \\ \ i.• iii {72 i •'SZ:�v%M• w jl t � � e 1 I i to a a `� � � `� �a � .�' 3 � �•s� ' a I �ti i "�'`� �ax� i j I 9 F5/5£ 1 aiacnu I i � \ • R �. ..�• •_ . r•. -•�. u , y� tjjJ� gyp{ ... ,...._ ... _ ..... .._ V'1'�i ..(�� . Nl"'b sE" T..�. .etbax l -t �03F`• v .._ __._....... '� �� - - i .......... ___.OL _._.. ....ibbC..;w72e_. _ ._...._..__ .._ 91T 4M _ a j ,j-- .__— e ....� _ a. E 1 . _�. �_ 3 .....__ ;• , � n fl-�k n tom- -�' �`, —_?3 11Mi8 yJuNO EM L YJ M091L \ SEC. eEiaw GROUP HEALTH PLAN SECOND ADDIPON 4 eI NOR TOWN J \ m \HRYSLER REAL \ ` polmm "m PLANTWO AREA 21r toe :•:.x ,71A1 wuic — ------- - - - - -- r oas,.taana�o — �L -- _ - - - - -- 717 +00 "` •"• `" • • °• BROOKLYN CENTER "` •" „.Mur sA".aw EnyM► una. cr n,.. a q. 8971'1 AVENUE 9017) 1 Iftl BY JDAIMI omt aim= o.E. uvm�:.uv.acn nwue MINNE30TA 0 erz 6 e /n /91 E , S SOBENDRIER'S 3RD ADD. a 1t N ie st. st o w so LAN BROOKE _._.._. _ ..... CE,VTER App _...__- _-__ � >t � �.__._._____.___._ —__�- � � HA HN FIR! T ADD. PAL LAKE TERIECE 47H ADD. � ir i.. ,��. _. r � r r••,. r i�� � a 0 I � is caa ' i! . _• v�v • ; v �••• • tit • '�;5; ?S; � {a • v'• •".v',�•y.�•: ` � _.. � �,�..,:... v}' •... v ti .r•.• r •' . i � r I � T" u �i • rr. ±� r } t s��.t�� a �• 7•:•r M1' � � •.•.• , {. � r t •7S +lF ..� ........ ... .._ _ owns C}C3d �\ ` i�e�i.� � � y • i Yq�s,; � � ! I,ro�;s� 1 wux { � d + i ' .Y III ll ' SEE W kW.SC� Y CF Z \r'p CJ LER REALTY p?1� WEST EW � � a Po7mu& im Pawn AM MT. 21r Idy _ — oosTm moues R a a3 � ns«oo I IiM aniy YiRI YiY Mw wo.r Y. mR . AV BROOKLYN CENTER "s •' Rp1Y�.:a Irep�bnR 6gYN iwM RR Nw N tlY Hm H YMS4 88TH AVENUE so177 2 1n n ORA RENwM. 11!11 oml ^^�WTA DA 69TH 6/17/% m O a m PALMER LAKE TERRACE A � =-� �+ 2 A ER LAKE TERRACE s� > _ Law • llY 11,11" Adagios ' 4 ..- . —..._. .—. O .. __ _.... (,. � } ax 4 Y WEST VIEW a - ANDAHL A - - -j .. . ._..� . ........ 71 roman in E7ESMQ oROmo — W Ir PLAN" Am --- - - - - -- 1 - - - -- — 51EC710N 'A' ------- LEtESMOGROLIM 14 — ALTE1MAIE SEC. 'A• 1a 1A11E It it 10 RW i — — E1ES111M OROIAO J luroo L MR n[ 110. AL - -I. 697H AVENUE ao�» ] NW NYMreta �� T Aa �r ulE t r"m 1 tests o.e. 1,. 1!s¢it _ a.�uw ecr 1w,►AAS , YIIIN IG�V I A DAN 6 a /»/at ^ a I � ' r y � i ! I o 1 / • f , ". r jjtii J i j, fil I Rs 1 ,I .0 1 v Ogg -C IMD \` m 1 � I lir b 1 it rl i ,o,. o r �.; � off• > � J o� �s R c 144Ct k o 0 o NO TRACT a � PROPOSED IANDSCAPNO " ol NOM' WEE PLANTING AREAS 70 SE DETEPM&M IN WS AREA. , e.ar «nrr unt nr ya a � <.nd er m. ..s. Tr s.., ww.er. uw r w . ur 1St 114 BRCOKL CENTER 697}1 AVENUE aosrY 6 Ra wr DAM ,cvuna mw cum oco® owe w aarnwura.RCrs novas MINNESOTA 6/ w e f OD D !D _ 100 it .. _ 3i.._. _. _ ` ::::'::: ac �� �. I � k ; . ;._::::::� tit : _ / twvsE GLSC `'` 11 1 .*v ( ni r ( wrrR:a �, \• �� �` ? e '.; }• :e3;:t :: f y n o ca a � - ✓O :LEI. fJJk} � e..l iL °. .,JFL _ a� .. .. .a a �• l� } I I rls i } `S}KLYt� MOf3lL G s�E gc,1DN BELOW GROUP HEALTH sI NOR7HTOWN SECOND A001T1ON 0N R �HYSLER REALTj 1 \ l { \ I - -' --� PLANTINGL AREA PL AREA lop 2le la W � sofwAUC —1 'J �D057tM. OROUID i It u - -___ --- - - - - -_ 111 +w u.e. mr N.cl .c.wm .v d.d I .n . dq Ill N0. BROOKLYN CENTER eeTH AVEN 90277 � AM r a . of YMSIR Ra r wlt tla�vaRa 17m "m aaFacm o.td 1 1 anleus�ARO.RT1�PlAh![Ilj MINNESOTA DATE 6 Member introduced the followin g resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING ALIGNMENT /GEOMETRIC LAYOUT PLAN FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF 69TH AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN BROOKLYN BOULEVARD AND SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 WHEREAS, on March 26, 1990 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 90 -66, ordering the reconstruction of 69th Avenue North between Brooklyn Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway; and WHEREAS, on July 9, 1990 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 90 -139 approving a contract with SEH Inc. to provide professional services relating to Stage 1 of Final Plan Development; and WHEREAS, SEH Inc. has prepared and presented a proposed alignment and geometric layout plan dated June 17, 1991 and said plan represents the culmination of plan development efforts by the consultant, City staff and the City Council and consideration of public input received at four public informational meetings conducted by staff and a public informational meeting conducted by the City Council; and WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Council that said plan should be approved, to serve as a basis for the consultant to complete the development of Stage 1 of final plans and cost estimates and to provide direction for the implementation of this project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The alignment /geometric layout plans dated June 17, 1991 as prepared by SEH Inc. are hereby approved as a basis for proceeding with Stage 2 of final plan development and project implementation. 2. In conjunction with Stage 2 of plan development and project implementation, the following process shall be used to develop the most effective plan for landscaping, security fencing and noise abatement. Step 1 - As a part of the general construction contract earth berms will be constructed at the locations where they will be effective in providing noise abatement and will not require the removal of a large number of mature trees. RESOLUTION NO. Step 2 - Upon completion of the general construction contract a series of meeting will be conducted with adjoining property owners on both sides of 69th Avenue to review available options, including fencing (various types), plantings, property extensions, etc. Step 3 - A plan will then be developed to accommodate property owners' requests to the maximum feasible extent. Step 4 - A separate contract will then be awarded for landscaping and other construction according to that plan. 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 6/24/91 Agenda Item Number / D W REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: STATUS REPORT REGARDING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND COST ESTIMATE FOR 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS DEPT. APPROVAL: e Z Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: - WO No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Item 1 - Project Development Plan Status In accordance with Council authorization on April 23, 1990 SEH Inc. has nearly completed Stage 1 of project development plans for the 69th Avenue project. if the alignment /geometric layout plans are approved (see separate item on Council agenda), SEH will be able to complete work under that contract within 2 months. As required by their contract, SEH has reviewed its budget at the "90% completion" point and report that they will be able to complete all work required in Stage 1 within their $195,000 (maximum) contract budget for this work. It is also noted that the City will need to enter into one more contract for engineering services relating to 69th Avenue, i.e. - for Stage 2 - Project Development (detailed construction plans and specifications) for the remaining portions of this project and for project supervision /inspection during construction. Staff recommendations for the procurement. of these services will be presented in two parts: (1) a draft policy statement for the procurement of professional services for review and approval by the City Council; then (2) a recommendation for the procurement of services needed for this project, based upon the policy statement approved by the City Council. Item 2 - Current Project Cost Estimates Attached hereto is a revised "Estimate of Project Costs and Fund Sources" which • has been prepared by City staff based on SEH's updated cost estimates, current information regarding right -of -way acquisition costs, the inclusion of water main and sanitary sewer improvements, and a number of assumptions regarding the extent of work to be included into the project. A comparison of the current cost estimate with the May 1990 cost estimate shows that: • "Roadway construction costs" are now estimated at $2,462,700 in comparison to the May, 1990 estimate of $2,300.000. Explanation: Although the current project is shorter (no construction west of Brooklyn Boulevard) these costs have increased. The major factor in the increase is the extensive wetland mitigation requirements which will cost approximately $340,000. • The current budget includes a $200,000 allowance for special landscaping, fencing and noise mitigation (in addition to a $50,000 allowance included in the roadway construction cost estimate). • The current estimate includes a $95,000 allowance for installation of traffic signals at the 69th Avenue /France Avenue intersection. • The current estimate includes $350,000 private utility relocation and street lighting costs. This is based on NSP's review of the costs for revisions to the three parallel distribution lines which will be affected • by this project, and for the installation of street lights at all intersections. • Engineering, administrative and legal costs have been reviewed and updated to include all currently identified professional services relating to this project. • Right -of -way acquisition cost estimates reflect staff's current estimate of costs based on the current status of the acquisition process. • We continue to show a 10% contingency in project costs to reflect unknown factors. • The revenue summary for roadway construction includes the proposed $3.0 million bond sale. The current summary shows no participation from Hennepin County because no construction will occur west of Brooklyn Boulevard. Also, the estimated special assessments have been reduced to reflect the City Council's current policies. • Part II -A of the current estimate shows the estimated costs relating to the installation of a 16 -inch trunk water main along the entire length of the project, in accordance with Black and Veatch's recommendations for improvement of the water distribution system. All costs are chargeable to the Public Utility fund. • Part II -B shows the estimated costs for installing a new 24 -inch sanitary I I, sewer on 69th Avenue -from Brooklyn Boulevard to Drew Avenue... to replace the existing corrugated metal pipe (similar to the one which recently collapsed near Lift Station No. 1 in Carden City Park). All costs are chargeable to the Public Utility fund. Item 3 - Approval of Plans and Specifications for Soil Corrections in Palmer lake Area In accordance with City Council authorization on April 22, 1991, SEH Inc. has prepared detailed plans and specifications for construction of soil corrections in the Palmer Lake area, and including all work required to provide compensating _ storage within the floodway and wetland mitigation as required by state and federal agencies. Their current estimate of construction contract costs for this work is $908,356. It is recommended that the City Council approve these plans and specifications and authorize advertising for bids for this work. Item 4 - Resolution Prohibiting Parking on 69th Avenue In accordance with Municipal State Aid street policies, the City Council must adopt a resolution prohibiting parking on 69th Avenue before MNDOT approval can be given for any construction plans. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION f • Item 1 - Project Development Plan Status - review and comment only Item 2 - Project Cost Estimate - adopt resolution Item 3 - Approval of Plans and Specifications - adopt resolution Item 4 - Parking Restriction - adopt resolution i PROJECT 1990 -10 Revised Estimated Project Costs and Fund Sources MAY 1990 JUNE 1991 COST COST ESTIMATE ESTIMATE 24— Jun -91 PART I - ROADWAY COSTS A. STREET CONSTRUCTION COSTS i 1. Roadway construction, including storm $2,300,000 $2,528,400 I drainage surcharge, basic landscaping, j wetland mitigation, and compensating storage 2. Special landscaping and fencing N /I* 200,000 3. Traffic signals at France Avenue N /I* 95,000 4. Private utility relocation and street lighting N /I* 350,000 I i SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION COSTS $2 $3 B. ENGINEERING AND OTHER COSTS RELATING TO STREET IMPROVEMENTS $460,000 1. Consultant costs — design 280,000 2. Consultant costs — construction 230,000 3. Staff costs — engineering (2 %) N/I 56,500 4. Legal and administrative costs (2 %) N/I 56,500 5. Testing, etc. (1 1 /2 %) N/I 37,900 6. Bonding costs N/I 28,000 7. Archaeological services N/I 20,000 SUBTOTAL, ENGINEERING COSTS $460 $708 C. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $2,750,000 1. Direct payments to owners a. Acquisition 2,000,000 b. Relocation 500,000 2. Right of way services a. Evergreen Land Services (Acquisition Services) 80,000 b. Conworth, Inc. (Relocation Services) 40,000 c. Holmes & Graven (Legal Services) 30,000 c. Maintenance and security 6,000 3. Building demolition 20,000 4. Resale of houses (130,000) 5. Other costs a. Taxes & titles, land acquisition 24,380 b. Miscellaneous costs (ROW survey, utilities, well 15,000 sealing, maintenance materials, etc.) NET SUBTOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COSTS L $2,750,000 $2 PROJECT 1990 -10 Revised Estimated Project Costs and Fund Sources MAY 1990 JUNE 1991 COST COST ESTIMATE. ESTIMATE. 24— Jun -91 D. CONTINGENCY $414,000 $388,200 (15% of A & B) (10% of A & B) GRAND TOTAL ROADWAY COSTS $5,924,000 $6,855,880' i REVENUE SUMMARY: ROADWAY MSA #2613/2611 $5,514,000 $3,750,880 MSA #2612 (Bonds) ** N/A 2,955,000 Hennepin County 250,000 0 Special Assessments 160,000 150,000 i TOTAL $5,924,000 $6 69TH:projcost NOTES: N /I, items not included in May, 1990 cost estimate. N /I *, items specifically identified in the 1990 cost estimate as potential costs, but for which no cost estimates were included because insufficient information was available to allow any realistic estimate of their costs. * *Bond proceeds reflect the maximum discount of $45,000. PROJECT 1990 —10 Estimated Project Costs and Fund Sources 'MAY 1990 JUNE 1991 COST COST ESTIMATE ESTIMATE 20— Jun -91 I PART 11 CITY UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS A. WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1. Construction costs N/A 304,700 2. Consultant costs — engineering 48,400 3. Staff costs — engineering (2 %) 6,100 4. Legal and administrative costs (2 %) 6,100 i SUBTOTAL, WATER $365,300 B. SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS I 1. Construction costs N/A 285,400 ! 2. Consultant costs — engineering 45,600 3. Staff costs — engineering (2 %) 5,700 4. Legal and administrative costs (2 %) 5,700 SUBTOTAL, SANITARY SEWER 342 400 l C. CONTINGENCY (15% of A & B) 106,200 GRAND TOTAL, CITY UTILITY COSTS.....- $0 $813;900' REVENUE SUMMARY: UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS Water Utility Fund 420,100 Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund 393,800 TOTAL $0 $813,900' 69TH:projcost / - Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING ESTIMATE OF PROJECT COSTS AND FUND SOURCES FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF 69TH AVENUE NORTH FROM BROOKLYN BOULEVARD TO SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT N0. 1990-10 WHEREAS, City ouncil resolution number 90 -66 ordered improvement y P project 1990 -10, the reconstruction of 69th Avenue from Noble Avenue North to Shingle Creek Parkway, at an estimated cost of $5,574,000; and WHEREAS subsequent stud increased that cost estimate to 5 924 q $ , 000• y and WHEREAS, the limits of the project have subsequently been reduced to remove the portion of 69th Avenue between Noble Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard; and WHEREAS, more detailed information now available allows for a more realistic estimate of cost to be determined; and WHEREAS, the current estimate of cost is substantially greater than that estimated at the time the project was ordered. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the estimated cost of improvement project number 1990 -10 is hereby amended according to the following schedule: AMENDED MAY, 1990 JUNE, 1991 COST COST ESTIMATE ESTIMATE PART I - ROADWAY COSTS A. STREET CONSTRUCTION COSTS Roadway construction, including storm $2,300,000 $2,528,400 drainage surcharge, basic landscaping, wetland mitigation, and compensating storage Special landscaping and fencing N/I 200,000 Traffic signals at France Avenue N/I 95,000 Private utility relocation and street N/I 350,000 lighting SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION COSTS $2,300,000 $3,173,400 N/I = Not Included - Resolution No. AMENDED MAY, 1990 JUNE, 1991 COST COST ESTIMATE ESTIMATE B. ENGINEERING AND OTHER COSTS RELATING TO STREET IMPROVEMENTS $460,000 Consultant costs - design $280,000 Consultant costs - construction 230,000 Staff costs - engineering (2%) N/I 55,200 Legal and administrative costs (2%) N/I 55,200 Testing, etc. (1 N/I 36,900 Bonding costs N/I 28,000 Archaeological services N/I 20,000 SUBTOTAL, ENGINEERING COSTS $460,000 $705,300 C. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $2,750,000 Direct payments to owners a. Acquisition $2,000,000 b. Relocation 500,000 Right of way services a. Evergreen Land Services (Acquisition Services) 80,000 b. Conworth, Inc. (Relocation Services) 40,000 C. Holmes & Graven (Legal Services) 30,000 c. Maintenance and security 6,000 Building demolition 20,000 Resale of houses (130,000) Other costs a. Taxes & titles, land acquisition 24,380 b. Miscellaneous costs (survey, utilities, 15,000 well sealing, maintenance, etc.) NET SUBTOTAL, RIGHT OF WAY COSTS $2,750,000 $2,5485,380 D. CONTINGENCY (15% of A & B) $414,00 (10% of A & B) $388,200 GRAND TOTAL, ROADWAY COSTS $5,924,000 $6,779,680 REVENUE SUMMARY: ROADWAY MSA #2613/2611 $5,514,000 $3,750,880 MSA #2612 (Bonds) N/A 2,955,000 Hennepin County 250,000 0 Special Assessments 160,000 150,000 TOTAL $5,924,000 $6,855,880 N/I =Not Included Resolution No. AMENDED MAY, 1990 JUNE, 1991 COST COST ESTIMATE ESTIMATE PART II - CITY UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS A. WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS Construction costs N/I $304,700 Consultant costs - engineering N/I 48,400 Staff costs - engineering (2 %) N/I 6,100 Legal and administrative costs (2%) N/I 6,100 SUBTOTAL, WATER $365,300 B. SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS Construction costs N/I $285,400 Consultant costs - engineering N/I 45,600 Staff costs - engineering (2%) N/I 5,700 Legal and administrative costs (21) N/I 5,700 SUBTOTAL, SANITARY SEWER $342,400 C. CONTINGENCY N/I $106,200 GRAND TOTAL, CITY UTILITY COSTS $0 $813,900 REVENUE SUMMARY: UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS Water Utility Fund $420,100 Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund 393,800 TOTAL $0 $813,900 GRAND TOTAL PROJECT COSTS. ROADWAY $5,924,000 $7,669,780 AND PUBLIC UTILITIES ---------------- N/I =Not Included 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. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR 69TH AVENUE SOIL CORRECTIONS (CONSTRUCTION PHASE I, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10, CONTRACT 1991 -I) WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 91 -123 adopted by the City Council on April 22, 1991, SEH Inc. has prepared plans and specifications for the construction of Phase I improvements (soil correction in the Palmer Lake segment of 69th Avenue, compensating storage and wetland mitigation) for 69th Avenue Improvement Project No. 1990 -10, Contract 1991 -I, and have estimated the construction costs for this improvement as $974,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. that the plans and specifications for the making of this improvement as prepared by SEH Inc. are hereby approved. 2. that the City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of such improvement in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, shall specify the work to be done and shall state the time and location at which bids will be opened by the City Clerk and the City Manager or their designees. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bids will be given an opportunity to address the Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City Clerk for 5 percent of the amount of such bid. 3. that all costs relating to this improvement shall be charged to the Municipal State Aid Street fund, Account No's. 2600, 2611, 2612 and 2613. 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. 3 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON 69TH AVENUE BETWEEN BROOKLYN BOULEVARD AND SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY WHEREAS, the City has planned the improvement of 69th Avenue North from Brooklyn Boulevard to Shingle Creek Parkway (MSAP No. 109 - 125 -05 and 109 - 125 -06); and WHEREAS, the City will be expending Municipal State Aid funds on the improvement of this street; and WHEREAS, this improvement will not provide adequate width for parking on the street. Approval of the proposed construction as a Municipal State Aid street project is conditioned upon parking restrictions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the City shall ban the parking of motor vehicles on both sides of 69th Avenue from Brooklyn Boulevard to Shingle Creek parkway at all times, following completion of the proposed improvements. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 6/24491 Agenda Item Number O REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: CONSIDERATION OF THE 1991 -2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, I5irector o Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOM UENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUNDIARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes • A preliminary copy of the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) was presented to the Council for discussion on June 10, 1991. Some changes have been made to the plan, and it is now presented to the Council for approval. The purpose of developing the CIP is twofold. First, the Council is in a separate resolution being asked to authorize the sale of $3,000,000 in State Aid bonds. The CIP is an integral part of the review process conducted by Moody's and by prospective buyers. Second, it provides for a comprehensive annual planning process. Much of the analysis included in the CIP has been conducted in other formats and for other purposes. The CIP pulls together all these analyses, and examines them within the framework of a comprehensive fiscal analysis of all capital improvement funds. Part II of this program, the Debt Planning Study, has been prepared by the City's independent financial advisor, Springsted, Incorporated. This section analyzes the City's ability to support long -term bond debt, including both debt supported by ad valorem taxes and debt supported by enterprise or other funds. This information is crucial to the Council's evaluation of those projects which are proposed to be funded from general obligation bond issues. Changes Made To The CIP The following are the changes made to the preliminary plan as a result of Council and staff review: • • The General Fund park equipment annual replacement was increased from $10,000 to $25,000, starting in 1993. This will provide the Park & Recreation Commission ample opportunity to prepare comprehensive plan for playground upgrades. • The estimated state aid annual allotments were recalculated based on Springsted, Inc.'s $3,000,000 state aid bond debt structuring. The preliminary version was based on an estimated payment schedule. This recalculation results in estimated allotments which peak at about $1.030 million, rather than at about $990,000. • The Storm Drainage Utility operating costs for 1996 -2000 were corrected so that the balance at the end of 2000 is positive rather than negative. The operating costs should have read $100,000 annually rather than $500,000 annually. • The Government Buildings "City Hall Remodelling" improvement was retitled "City Office Improvements." • Pie charts were added to depict Tables 1 and 2, the summaries by function and by funding source. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION • A representative from S rin sted Incorporated will provide an overview of Part P P g P P II of the CIP, the Debt Planning Study. A resolution is provided approving the 1991 -2000 Capital Improvement Program. 31 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 1991 -2000 CITY COUNCIL Todd Paulson, Mayor Philip Cohen Jerry Pedlar David Rosene Celia Scott CITY STAFF G.G. Splinter, City Manager Paul Holmlund, Director of Finance Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works Brad Hoffman, Director of Economic Development Jim Lindsay, Chief of Police Services Ron Boman, Chief of Fire Services Arnie Mavis, Director of Recreation JUNE, 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pale INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1 -2 I. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM A. Public Works Street Improvements ............. ............................... 10 Sidewalk/ Trail Improvements ....... ............................... 11 Water Utility ................. ............................... 12 Sanitary Sewer Utility ............ ............................... 13 Storm Drainage Utility ........... ............................... 14 B. Parks and Recreation ............... ............................... 15 C. Facilities and Equipment Government Buildings ........... ............................... 16 Data Processing ............... ............................... 17 Vehicles and Equipment .......... ............................... 18 TABLES Table 1: Summary By Functional Area .............................. 3 Table 2: Summary By Fund ...... ............................... 5 Table 3: Cash Balance Analysis . ............................... 7 -9 FIGURES Figure 1: CIP, 1991 -2000, By Functional Area .......................... 4 Figure 2: CIP, 1991 -2000, By Funding Source 6 EXHIBIT A: Detailed Schedules of Improvements Table A: Water Utility Capital Improvements Map A: Water Utility Capital Improvements Table B: Sanitary Sewer Capital Improvements Map B: Sanitary Sewer Capital Improvements Table C: Storm Sewer Utility Capital Improvements Map C: Existing Storm Sewer System Table D: Sidewalk and Trail Improvements Map D: Sidewalk and Trail Improvements Table E: Park Improvements Map E: Parks and Public Buildings Imppovements Table F: Public Building Improvements Table G: Street Improvements Map G: State Aid Street Improvements Table H: Data Processing Equipment Table I: City Vehicles i TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) EXHIBIT B: 1990 Water Utility Rate Study EXHIBIT C: 1990 Sanitary Sewer Utility Rate Study EXHIBIT D: 1990 Storm Drainage Utility Rate Study EXHIBIT E: 12 -Year Capital Equipment Replacement Program II. DEBT PLANNING STUDY: SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED Page Categories of Debt ................... ............................... 1-4 City Indebtedness .................... ............................... 4 -7 General Fund Debt Projections ............ ............................... 7 -8 Debt Statistics ...................... ............................... 8 Conclusion ........................... ............................8 -9 EXHIBIT I: City Indebtedness as of June 2, 1991 EXHIBIT H: Moody's Municipal Credit Report EXHIBIT III: Debt Capacity Projection EXHIBIT IV: Current & Projected Debt Service Levies by Issue EXHIBIT V: Key Credit Factors EXHIBIT VI: Refunding Analysis ii PART I 1991 -2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM INTRODUCTION The City of Brooklyn Center believes that it is a necessity to periodically review and update its Capital Improvements Program (CIP). By such a review, the Council and staff are better prepared to evaluate needs, meet the financial restrictions facing governmental bodies, and adjust to changing conditions. No city can afford to accomplish every proposed project. Therefore, a methodology must be devised to determine which projects are of highest priority. The CIP presents a schedule of public improvements for the community over a ten year period. This program takes into consideration the community's financial capabilities as well as its goals and priorities. The City's independant financial advisor, Springsted Incorporated, has also prepared a General Obligation Debt Planning Study. Because of the usefulness of this long range debt analysis and its relationship to the CIP, the study is incorporated into this report as Part 1I. Consideration of these reports in concert with the annual budget review provides a better understanding of the demands on the City's financial resources in the coming years. For the purposes of this report, a capital improvement can be defined as any major non - recurring expenditure or any expenditure for physical facilities of government. Typical expenditures are the cost of land acquisition or interest in land, construction of buildings or other structures, construction of roads, utilities, parks, vehicles and equipment. Aside from vehicles and equipment, capital improvements are typically funded from revenue sources other than the general fund. Maintenance of these improvements is primarily funded by the general fund. The CIP is directly linked to the goals and policies, land use and community facility sections of the Comprehensive Plan, since these sections indicate general policies of development, redevelopment, and the maintenance of the community. Consequently, the primary objective of the CIP is to integrate the specific goals, policies, and recommendations contained in the City's plan with its capability to pay for and maintain capital improvements. -1- June, 1991 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 1991 -2000 A summary of the proposed capital improvements by functional area for the ten year period of 1991 through 2000 is shown in Table 1. A summary by funding source is shown in Table 2. These tables are summaries of the detail expenditures shown in Exhibit A. All costs shown are based on 1991 estimated costs, with no adjustment for inflation. Table 3 shows the effect the proposed capital outlays would have on the various sources available to fund them. Certainly not all of the capital improvements to be undertaken during this time period are known at this time. Rather, the information contained in these tables represents a best estimate based on Present knowledge and expected conditions. It must be understood that the scheduling of various improvements, especially those that are related to development or redevelopment can change substantially from year to year. However, the overall level of improvements shown in this CIP represents the City's judgment of what is necessary to maintain its infrastructure in good condition, and to provide those facilities which are necessary to support the public services (public safety, park and recreation, senior programs, etc.) through the year 2000. -2- TABLE 1 - Capital Improvement Program - Summary by Functional Area "Where The Funds Would Be Spent' 0 Ju n -91 1991 1992 199 1994 19 95 19 - 2000 PUBLIC UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS: Water Utility Capital Projects 700,000 400,000 3,675,000 180,000 225,000 1,749,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility Capital Projects 628,000 602,000 528,000 130,000 1,028,000 140,000 Storm Drainage Utility Capital Projects 63,000 125,000 175,000 225,000 225,000 1,225,000 SUBTOTAL $1 391 L 000 __ $1 , 127 , 000 $4 378 000 $535 000 $1 478 000 _$3 114, SIDEWALK/TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS: Off - Street Trails 81,000 80,000 25,000 100,000 300,000 255,000 On- Street Trails 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 Sidewalks 35,000 48,000 0 0 0 48,00_0 SUBTOTAL $ 126,000 ___ $138,000 $35 $110 000 $310000 $353,000 PARK IMPROVEMENTS $0 $9,500 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $1,185,000 W PUBLIC BUILDINGS $0 $2,700,000 $940,000 $0 $0 $450,000 STREET IMPROVEMENTS: Sealcoatin g 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000 Signals 0 110,000 250,000 300,000 0 0 Regular MSA Account #2613 Street Projects 2,200,000 4,469,680 1,100,000 1,089,000 1,197,000 2,684,000 Other Street Projects 0 0 500,000 500,000 500,000 2,500,000 Landscaping 7 2,000 0 1 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL $2 $4 __ $2 , 170,000 $2 $1 $5, 934,000 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT: Data Processing 78,000 198,000 458,000 358,000 310,000 270,000 City Vehicles 181,000 182,500 240,000 166,0 1 1 SUBTOTAL $ 259,000 $380,500 $698,000 $524,000 $496,000 _ $1,906,0 GRAND TOTAL $4,198,000 $9,084,680 $8,246,000 $3,233,000 $4,156,000 $12,942,000 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1991 -2000 BY FUNCTIONAL AREA SIDEWALK/ TRAILS (2.6 %) WATER UTILITY (16.6 %) $1,072,000 $6,929,000 PUBLIC BUILDINGS (9.8 %) $4,090,000 PARKS (3.0%) SANITARY UTILITY (7.3 %) $1,269,500 $3,056,000 STORM UTILITY (4.9 %) $2,038,000 CITY VEHICLES (6.2 %) $2,591,500 STATE AID STREETS (30.4 %) DATA PROCESSING (4.0 %) $12,739,000 $1,672,000 STREETS: OTHER (5.7 %) $2,402,000 LOCAL STREETS (9.6 %) $4,000,000 TOTAL = $41,859,680 w TABLE 2 - Capital Improvement Program - Summary by Fund "Where the Funds Would Come From" 06- Jun -91 1 1991 1 1992 1993 1994 >1995 1 1996 -2000 WATER UTILITY $ 700, 000 $ 407 ,500 $4,005,000 $543,000 $507,000 $2,103,750 Improvement Projects 700,000 400,000 3,725,000 288,000 257,0001 2,026,500 Other Capital Outlay 0 7,500 280,000 255,000 250,000 77,250 SANITARY SEWER UTILITY $628,000 $609,500 $537,000 $141,000 $1,030,000 $420,750 Improvement Projects 628,000 602,000 532,000 136,000 1,030,000 263,500 Other Capital Outlay 0 7,500 5,000 5,000 0 157,250 STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY $63,000 $125,000 $691,000 $485,000 $525,000 $2,237,000 Improvement Projects 63,000 125,000 626,000 485,000 395,000 2,087,000 Other Capital Outlay 0 0 65,000 0 130,000 150,000 TRANSPORTATION UTILITY $0 $0 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $1,250,000 Improvement Projects 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Capital Outlay 0 0 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,250,000 MSA- REGULAR ACCOUNT #2613 $2,000,000 $924,680 $404,000 $512,000 $1,015,000 $1,662,000 Improvement Projects 2,000,000 924,680 404,000 512,000 1,015,000 1,662,000 MSA - LOCAL ACCOUNT #2611 $198,000 $888,000 $ 161,000 $512,000 $308,000 $561,000 Improvement Projects 198,000 888,000 161,000 512,000 308,000 561,000 MSA - LOCAL ACCOUNT #2600 $0 $0 $120,000 $0 $0 $0 Improvement Projects 0 0 120,000 0 0 0 MSA - BONDS ACCOUNT #2612 $200,000 $2,755,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Improvement Projects 200,000 2,755,000 0 0 0 0 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND $0 $1,450,000 $470,000 $0 $0 $225,000 Improvement Projects 0 1,450,000 470,000 0 0 225,000 OTHER FUNDS $0 $0 $47,000 $14,000 $0 $0 Other Capital Outlay 0 0 47,000 14,000 0 0 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS $0 $1,250,000 $470,000 $0 $0 $1,060,000 Improvement Projects 0 1,250,000 470,000 0 0 1,060,000 GENERALFUND $ 409,000 $525,000 $476,000 $425,000 $291,000 $2,396,500 Improvement Projects 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000 Other Capital Outlay 259,000 375,000 326,000 275,000 141,000 1,646,500 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS $0 $150,000 $425,000 $301,000 $230,000 $1,026,000 Improvement Projects 0 150,000 425,000 301,000 230,000 1,026,000 OTHER GOVERNMENTS $0 $0 $190,000 $50,000 $0 $0 Improvement Projects 0 0 190,000 50,000 0 0 GRAND TOTAL $4,198,000 $9,084,680 $8,246,0 00 233,000 $4,156,000 $ -5- i ! ! CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1991 -2000 BY FUNDING SOURCE SANITARY UTILITY (8.0 %) STORM UTILITY (9.9 %) $3,366,250 $4,126,000 { TANSPORTATION UTILITY 4.8% � $2,000,000 ( ) f i i J ) ( WATER UTILITY (19.7 %) f '' , � $8 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND (5.1 %) $2,145,000 OTHER FUNDS (0.1 %) $61,000 GO BONDS (6.6 %) OTHER GOVERNMENTS (0.6 %) $2,780,000 $240,000 STATE AID BONDS (7.1 %) $2,955,000 GENERAL FUND (10.8 %) $4,522,500 STATE AID LOCAL (6.6 %) $2,748,000 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS (5.1 %) $2,132,000 STATE AID REGULAR (15.6 %) $6,517,680 TOTAL = $41,8.59,680 Page 1 TABLE 3 - Capital Improvement Program - Cash Balance Analysis "Can We Afford To Make These Capital Outlays" 06- Jun -91 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 -2000' WATER UTILITY Balance Jan 1 $5,079,732 $4,412,568 $4,810,906 $4,674,522 $4,613,499 $4,579,249 Revenues Investment Interest 325,420 308,880 336,763 327,217 322,945 1,510,132 User Fees 1,235,000 1,247,700 1,260,000 1,272,000 1,285,000 6,622,000 Bond Proceeds 3,000,000 Other 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 175,000 Expenditures Capital Outlays 700,000 407,500 4,005,000 543,000 507,000 2,103,750 Debt Service 48,610 46,855 $64,000 356,000 1,710,000 Operating Costs 713,974 738,887 763,147 788,240 814,195 4,492,761 1990 Projects Paid in 1991 800,000 Balance Dec 31 $4,412,568 $4,810,906 $4,674,522 $4,613,499 $4,579,249 $4,579,870 J SANITARY SEWER 'UTILITY Balance Jan 1 $3,666,664 $3,229,419 $2,823,675 $2,524,412 $2,645,071 $1,875,574 Revenues Investment Interest 279,482 226,059 197,657 176,709 185,155 1,357,394 User Fees 1,531,974 1,691,529 1,851,363 1,999,286 2,098,661 12,344,913 Other 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 100,000 Expenditures Capital Outlays 628,000 609,500 537,000 141,000 1,030,000 420,750 Operating Costs 368,577 385,381 401,925 419,215 437,286 2,487,453 MWCC Charge 1,272,124 1,348,451 1,429,359 1,515,120 1,606,027 9,596,524 Balance Dec 31 $3,229,419 $2,823,675 $2,524,412 $2,645,071 $1,875,574 $3,173,154 STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY Balance Jan 1 $0 $27,300 $132,027 $29,129 $122,528 $179,965 Revenues Investment Interest 1,911 9,242 2,039 8,577 140,263 User Fees 282,000 447,816 726,360 726,360 726,360 3,631,800 Other Expenditures Capital Outlays 63,000 125,000 691,000 485,000 525,000 2,237,000 Operating Costs 80,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Management Costs 111,700 120,000 47,500 50,000 52,500 375,000 Balance Dec 31 $27,300 $132,027 $29,129 $122,528 $179,965 $840,028 Page 2 TABLE 3 - Capital Improvement Program - Cash Balance Analysis "Can We Afford To Make These Capital Outlays" 06- Jun -91 ? 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 -2000 TRANSPORTATION UTILITY (PROPOSED) Balance Jan 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenues Special Assessments 125,000 125,000 125,000 625,000 Investment Interest 0 User Fees 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,250,000 Transfer from Storm Drain Utility 125,000 125,000 125,000 625,000 Expenditures Capital Outlays 0 0 500,000 500,000 500,000 2,500,000 Other 0 Balance Dec 31 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 m ' MUNICIPAL STATE, AID - '_'REGULAR'' ACCOUNT #2613 Balance Jan 1 $1,633,835 $463,835 $99,273 $356,296 $516,744 $185,307 Revenues Intergovernmental 830,000 874,000 973,000 987,000 995,000 5,079,000 Expenditures Capital Outlays 2,000,000 924,680 404,000 512,000 1,015,000 1,662,000 Debt Service 313,882 311,977 314,552 31.1,437 1,565,730 Balance Dec 31 $463,835 $99,273 $356,296 $516,744 $185,307 $2,036,577 MUNICIPAL STATE AID - 'BONDS ACCOUNT #2612;' Balance Jan 1 $0 $2,755,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenues Bond Proceeds 2,955,000 0 Expenditures Capital Outlays 200,000 2,755,000 0 Balance Dec 31 $2,755,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Page 3 TABLE 3 — Capital Improvement Program — Cash Balance Analysis "Can We Afford To Make These Capital Outlays" 06— Jun -91 1991 1992 1993 ' 1994 1995 1996 -2000 MUNICIPAL STATE AID, —I' LOCAL ACCOUNT #2611 Balance Jan 1 $452,974 $366,974 ($0) $0 $0 $0 Revenues Special Assessments 0 Other 112,000 0 Expenditures Capital Outlays 198,000 366,974 0 0 0 0 Other 0 Balance Dec 31 $366,974 ($0) ($0) $0 $0 $0 i `O MUNICIPAL STATE AID — LOCAL ACCOUNT, #2600, Balance Jan 1 $2,687,085 $2,906,889 $2,615,033 $2,517,086 $2,181,282 $2,025,972 Revenues Investment Interest 219,804 229,170 183,052 176,196 152,690 707,846 Other Expenditures Capital Outlays 0 521,026 281,000 512,000 308,000 561,000 Other Balance Dec 31 $2,906,889 $2,615,033 $2,517,086 $2,181,282 $2,025,972 $2,172,817 CAPITAL PROJECTS' FUND Balance Jan 1 $4,322,531 $4,625,108 $3,968,866 $3,306,686 $3,538,154 $3,785,825 Revenues Investment Interest 302,577 323,758 277,821 231,468 247,671 1,454,061 Bond Proceeds 1,720,000 1,060,000 Expenditures Capital Outlays 0 2,700,000 940,000 0 0 1,285,000 Debt Service Balance Dec 31 $4,625,108 $3,968,866 $3,306,686 $3,538,154 $3,785,825 $5,014,887 June, 1991 A. PUBLIC WORKS While most of the City of Brooklyn Center is fully developed, some new development areas and redevelopment areas require the installation of public improvements. The City requires developers to finance and install all public improvements necessary to service their developments. Any oversizing of facilities to provide capacity to service an area greater than the project area is financed by the City through such sources as the Municipal State Aid Street funds, water.and sewer utility funds, storm drainage utility funds and tax increment financing (TIF) funds. The City's program also provides for a high level of maintenance of the existing infrastructure and for the rehabilitation or reconstruction of facilities as needed to improve their functionality, safety, or serviceability. 1. Street Improvement and Maintenance Programs The City's programs relating to streets under its jurisdiction include the following: • An annual high -level maintenance program which includes the sealcoating of all City streets on an 8 -year (average) cycle. • The Municipal State Aid Street program, to which the State of Minnesota provides annual funding ($830,000 in 1991 to MSA Account #2613) to improve the 21.3 miles of collector streets which are designated as MSA streets. • Street construction in new developments, and in redevelopment areas, by developers. • Rehabilitation and reconstruction of non -MSA streets upon receipt of petitions for such improvements. The established policy provides that one -third (1/3) of the costs for such improvements will be levied as special assessments, while two -thirds (2/3) of those costs will be paid by City funds (the Local State Aid Account #2611 or the Capital Projects fund). • Several landscaping ro'ects to enhance the appearance of the . Cit P J PP Y As the City's street system continues to age, it will be necessary to either (a) continue to increase the level of funding for the maintenance program, or (b) initiate a more aggressive program for rehabilitation or reconstruction. The Minnesota nnesota legislature is currently considering legislation to allow cities to create "Transportation Utilities ". If such legislation is adopted, it is proposed to initiate a comprehensive rehabilitation /reconstruction program in 1993, based on a pavement management system to be developed in 1992. Such a program is shown in this plan as being funded half from a City wide transportation utility user fee, one - quarter from the existing storm drainage utility, and one - quarter by special assessments levied against the affected property owners. -10- June, 1991 2. Sidewalk/TrailImprovements The City has established and constructed a comprehensive sidewalk system which serves all major activity areas and corridors of pedestrian traffic. Only a few segments of this system remain to be completed. In addition, the City has developed a plan for development of a comprehensive trail system to provide recreational trails for pedestrians and transportation trails for bicyclists. Both on- street and off - street trails are being developed, and integrated into the regional trail system which serves the Twin City metropolitan area. Where feasible, trail construction is being coordinated with other construction projects to assure lowest cost development of this system. Funding for sidewalk and trail improvements is provided by two accounts within the Municipal State Aid Construction fund: (a) MSA Local Account #2600 The source of funds for this account consists only of investment interest earnings which have not been appropriated to construction projects or other costs. (b) MSA Local Account #2611 The source of funds for this account consists of surpluses from projects which have had more than 100% of the project cost recovered due to duplicate charges to the regular MSA fund (Account #2613) and special assessments. -11- June, 1991 3. Water Utility Proposed activities relating to the public water supply /distribution system include the following: • A routine well inspection and maintenance program to assure the continued functioning of the existing wells • Painting of the water towers • Installation of various O &M features to improve the operability of the system • Installation of new water mains as needed to serve new developments or redevelopment areas • Construction of two new supply facilities (one storage reservoir and one additional well) to assure the system's ability to provide needed capacity during peak demand periods and for fire protection • Installation of various water distribution system improvements to assure the system's ability to deliver needed capacities to all portions of the City during peak demand periods and for fire protection All costs for water supply, distribution system, 0 &M, and improvements are financed through water use charges, connection charges, and lateral assessments. Water use charges and connection charges are adjusted annually based on a comprehensive rate study analysis which reviews operation, maintenance, depreciation and construction costs as related to projected water consumption demand. A copy of the Utility Rate Study conducted in 1990 is attached as Exhibit B to this report. -12- June, 1991 4. Sanitary Sewer Utility Proposed activities relating to the sanitary sewer collection system include the following: • A routine sewer and lift station inspection and maintenance program • Replacement of the existing lift station monitoring system, to improve its reliability • Installation of new sewers as needed to serve new developments or redevelopment areas • Replacement of several segments of sewer which have been identified as needing replacement by the television inspection program • Replacement of one major lift station, to insure its reliability, and to eliminate safety and odor problems • Rehabilitation of one major lift station to insure its reliability All costs for sanitary sewer system O &M and improvements are financed through sewer use charges, connection charges and lateral assessments. Sewer use charges and connection charges are adjusted amivally based on a comprehensive rate study analysis which reviews operation, maintenance, depreciation and construction costs, as well as sewage treatment charges from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (which provides wastewater treatment for the entire Twin City metro area). A copy of the Utility Rate Study conducted in 1990 is attached as Exhibit C to this report. -13- June, 1991 5. Storm Drainage Utilitv Proposed activities relating to the storm drainage system include the following: • Operational activities include storm drainage system maintenance and a street sweeping program • Management activities include participation in two Watershed Management Commissions. These activities also include the development of a local storm water management plan as required by the Minnesota Surface Water Management Act, and the development of a public education program relating to surface water management • Capital outlay expenditures will include participation in projects initiated by developers, by other agencies, or by other city- sponsored improvements. It is also anticipated that the local plan (to be developed in 1991 -92) and new mandates from state and federal agencies will require implementation of a number of water quality improvement projects All costs for storm drainage system O &M and improvements are financed through the storm drainage utility (SDU) user fee system which was adopted in 1991 and through special assessments. SDU use charges will be adjusted annually based on a comprehensive rate study analysis which reviews all costs relating to the storm drainage system. A copy of the Storm Drainage Utility Rate Study conducted in 1990 is attached as Exhibit D to this report. -14- June, 1991 B. PARKS AND RECREATION While continuing the current level of operation and maintenance of the park and recreation system /program, the Capital Improvement Program anticipates the following expenditures: • Replacement of playground equipment in two of the City's neighborhood parks each year • Acquisition of new park land • Development of the Twin Lake /Preserve /Kylawn nature area, in cooperation with the cities of Crystal and Robbinsdale • Replacement of shelter buildings in 6 parks Replacement of playground equipment will be funded as an operating expense under the annual general fund budget. Major capital improvements are proposed to be funded with general obligation bonds authorized by referendum approval. -15- June, 1991 C. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT 1. Government Buildings Proposed major improvements include: • Construction of a water slide in the pool area of the Community Center, to increase revenues while improving the level of recreational programs • An addition to the City Hall building with the emphasis on providing additional space for the Police Department • An addition to the Community Center with the emphasis on providing space for senior activities • Construction of a vehicle storage building to provide increased protection for the City's fleet of vehicles • Construction of additions to both of the City's fire stations to provide improved training facilities and increased vehicle storage space Construction of the water slide will be funded from the capital projects fund. Major capital outlay projects are proposed to be funded 50% from the capital projects and 50% with general obligation bonds authorized by referendum approval. The CIP shows these bonds as being authorized in 1992. Previously issued bonds for park improvements will be retired in 1992, and the timing for the proposed new issue was chosen to avoid sharp fluctuations in the debt service tax levy. -16- June, 1991 2. Data Processing The City currently obtains its data processing services from two sources: major data processing systems (financial, utility billing, payroll) through LOGIS, a consortium of 20 suburban cities; and through desk top PC applications. This area has experienced rapid growth in the late 1980's, and a substantial investment in DP equipment has been made. The City is currently developing its first -ever management information systems (MIS) strategic plan. It is intended that this plan provide a basis on which proposed expenditures for data processing equipment can be evaluated. An important component of the plan is an information system relationship analysis, which provides a method for detecting duplications of data, equipment, and effort. Additions of new hardware and software and replacement of hardware are evaluated through the annual budget process. Acquisition is funded primarily through the general fund budget, although the public utility funds, the Liquor Store fund, and the Economic Development and Housing Redevelopment Authorities are charged the cost of requisite equipment. Proposed major improvements include: • Installation of a Local Area Network (LAN) in the Civic Center, with remote access from the City Garage, Liquor Stores, and Fire Stations • Installation of Mobile Digital Terminals (MDT's) in Police and inspection vehicles • Installation of remote reading water meters • Replacement of existing cash registers in the Liquor Stores, Parks & Recreation, Administration, and the Earle Brown Heritage Center • Installation of a mini - computer in the Civic Center to convert Brooklyn Center to a LOGIS distributed site • Continued replacement of hardware and software as necessary. -17- June, 1991 3. Vehicles and Equipment The City policy for the replacement of vehicles and equipment establishes a projected reasonable life cycle for each item. Annually, the life cycles are reviewed and updated on the basis of experience or changed circumstances. Also, new vehicles and equipment are proposed for addition to existing inventories and replacement schedules when new needs are clearly demonstrated. Additions of new vehicles and equipment are requested through the annual budget process. Both forms of vehicle and equipment acquisition (replacement and addition) are funded from a variety of sources: general fund budget, certificates of indebtedness, depreciation of sewer and water equipment and sales of existing equipment. A copy of the city's 12 -year equipment replacement program is attached as Exhibit E to this report. -18- EXHIBIT A Detailed Schedules of Improvements TABLE A — Capital Improvement Program — Detail of Capital Outlays Water Utility Capital Improvements 06— Jun -91 1991 1992 1993 >1994 »" 1995 ' 1996 2000 FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURES: All Water Utilit WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Well 10 to Well 6 600,000 0 Shingle Creek Pkwy to Brooklyn Blvd 300,000 0 Well 6 to Shingle Creek Pkwy 300,000 0 2 MG Reservoir & Pumping Station 3,300,000 0 Construct Well #11 1,000,000 New Electric Controls at Wells 5, 6, 7 90,000 0 Loop 2" Water Main at Lawrence Circle 15,000 0 Paint Tower #1 166,000 Paint Tower #2 150,000 0 Paint Tower #3 158,000 Routine Well Maintenance 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 Cathodic Protection 50,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 SCADA System Update 50,000 50,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $700,0001 $400,000 $3,s75,000 $180,000 $225,000 $1,749,C FUND SOURCES: Water Utility 700,000 400,000 3,675,000 180,000 225,000 1,749,000 TOTAL I $7q0,000L $400,0001 $3 $180,000 1 $225 000 $1 749,000 I�II`i !jl {�l 11 +I�lfifl� ► { ICI 'I�it��ll "I`�I � I � III ��II I �II�f ( ►fil�II��' q!,v��� 7f I� I i I f 1 7 i ► �t�'1 f { iI 1 , t li I I Ill li ! i 1 7,1 I if l I lil II i f R ;+ w i 11 if�1 I� Ilfl f F i� I I'I' I � I �II'i � ,< \ �� j �__,_'- I �,,,,,,..•. "�_.-- -- �' a:......, j j! 1� ► �j�l� � 1 i���I►1IIi!( ►� _ -T - ��•..� I,: i�i.i,�1 { II ►�, �, ►1.x„11, ulil�. 1: iIIIk.: �fiI :.iIi:�Iifl:eS:j't :':::r:G::73 •iii. a:rl:... a ?' ... iq:ff:3::::I7:.::: '�' - �% (3 .� �_. T - - - -- - ii i � � I I � � �� � ��}� i + �\ i y� L i V i 1 l I _� - -u- 7�� _ -- I - _ � ___._ � � � � t :�� t � - i I ;� � I i�s j,l i I I � '({ -� ��'�- a y ..... l rt- s l f mz f rT` 'li ° t ' I p•le �.i 1 1 ( w e I ;. 7 ,. :z •r ... A 11 17 , II m i � � ,�i�f tl i • �II �In' wa• i� ill � i� � I I n . - .... I� �1 1 {.I'1 IiI 1'� - i.. ���� _ . '•� I f,I' i t � ' -�► I •�fl I II' i 1I •� l . �� .,.. � �� I I rr� .� ;, •� - r: • tt � � , $ �;;,. , l �,,; 1, I :. ,� 7 .� :. _ �.« I 7 , s I ' 1 !, .! x i l' { 1 1 �? .Ill. _ i ,• I _. fl � , � ��• ,(�.I y,�I I 3":�� 1; T L 1 �= I' � � • �,,�� ���.1 l �� j, � � � -r. � Sl` F� � a y � � j � � ;� � ���. {i {I f i �� L •, «. )(� r 111 l � �� � .,• . .. I � 11 � r ff � — � .� • {7 � �' s.f', I l` �� j , � III�.>T l TIC - � �t - �• °� r r� :_ v,�� 9 ��ti � .t _� �q,�.� _�_�_ Iillil�ml Ili n j � ,�..•,... 1.i � I �.., � 7 ,ro� I it •� --- I N m � � � =� • _ — _i i it i '� - - Imt � w _.. n0� f MR to Z •...( CO p .= Q T II. -`ftTi f] o . m _ OR 2� n 1 i�11 j�(I i _ •' f— }(i • n al 11 PF err or i7° ,. _ .. 19 IF 0 TABLE B — Capital Improvement Program — Detail of Capital Outlays Sanitary Sewer Utility Capital Improvements 06- Jun -91 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 -200 FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURES: All San Sewer Utility Replace Lift Station #2 600,000 0 Lift #1 Rehab, Replace Forcemain 500,000 0 Intrac /Motorola Update 84,000 0 SEWER REPLACEMENT: 69th Avenue, Brooklyn Blvd to Drew 240,000 0 53rd Avenue 32,000 0 James Avenue 70,000 0 69th Avenue to Lift Stattion #1 1,000,000 0 Inspect/Repair Mississippi River Interceptor 250,000 0 Annual Televising Program 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 40,000 1/1 Remediation Program 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 100,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 602,0001 $528 $130 1 $1,028,000 1 $140 FUND SOURCES: Sanitary Sewer Utility 628,000 602,000 528,000 130,000 1,028,000 140,000 TOTAL 1 $628 $602 $528,0001 $130,000 $1,028 000 1 $140,000 MAP B: SANITARY SEWER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS rglre 9 —.- �� v.ac cor«earoN •— r -- cow+ECruN _ ' - - - ummw y q ! r TH IN u� e SANITARY SEWER MAN CONWCI Q METROPOLITAN MEHC;Ep7Cq SAP(TAR`/ SEWER LFT STATION �� sar,rtary sewer System a - co o o yn C @gnaw �. Comprehensive Plan PRIORITY 1 1991 -1995 TABLE C — Capital Improvement Program — Detail of Capital Outlays Storm Drainage Utility Capital Improvements 06— Jun -91 1'991 1992 1993! 1994 1995 1996' --2000 FUND SOURCE All Storm Drainage EXPENDITURES: utility Repair or Replace Defective Sections of System 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Watershed Commission Capital Improvements 26,500 100,000 Developer Initiated Improvements (oversizing, etc.) 36,500 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 Water Quality Improvement Projects 50,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $63,0001 $125 $175,0001 $225,0001 $225,0001 $1,225,000 FUND SOURCES: Storm Drainage Utility 63,000 125,000 175,000 225,000 225,000 1,225,000 TOTAL $63 000 $125,0001 $175,OOOL $225 1 $225,0001 $1 MAP Q EXISTING STORM SEWER SYSTEM { Fgfa e 15 {- .- a .•E ar.E a/ I z..:ao 3sl �J: ,5 • -18 � - rY!'��: /, La .I 15 h - t2 =21 ��.. .)'"•""} 24 24 a 38 _ 60 2t i t �t a "' / _ ". "..__"""+,gz� �rH �.'i zc T V \l i 27 . L in -- ,� .• _ L- ]5 5 C 8 x _ . .� - 8tl i 1 _ so a IS- zaiza. 3 l } � '� _ r 56 2 , 2a is FS 54 4y$ A / /' r fi is7t5 8 !- K , 8 21 zf 21 2 — / .Vy / Sz t ] (I 1 38 ]0 i 127, 27 i .- -- - - _ — ttFF{{ ,•Y,w IS 15 tat srawr sewea - •. •,r t e �i j e Existing Storm Sewer S yste m o Co ��Vn F Comprehensive Plan TABLE D - Capital Improvement Program - Detail of Capital Outlays Sidewalk and Trail Improvements 06- Jun -91 1'991 1'992 1993 1994 ! y'995 1996 -2000 FUND SOU EXPENDITURES: OFF - STREET TRAIL: Trail Subsidence Correction Behind Library 32,000 0 Local State Aid Humboldt Square Trail 34,000 0 Local State Aid 53rd Avenue, Upton to Shingle Creek 15,000 0 Local State Aid Brookdale Center Trail 300,000 0 Local State Aid 69th Avenue, Brooklyn Blvd to Shingle Creek Parkway 80,000 0 Local State Aid Twin Lake /Preserve Trail 94,000 Local State Aid Hennepin Parks' Riverridge Trail 50,000 0 Hennepin County NSP Easement Trail, Knox to Dupont 50,000 0 Local State Aid Willow Lane, 1694 to West River Road 25,000 0 Local State Aid Palmer Lake Dual Trail 71,000 Local State Aid 69th Avenue, Shingle Creek Parkway to TH252 90,000 Local State Aid ON- STREET TRAIL: Marking and Signage 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 Local State Aid SIDEWALK: Northway Drive 18,000 0 Local State Aid 73rd Avenue, Humboldt to TH 252 35,000 0 Local State Aid 55th Avenue, Lions Park to Logan 21,000 Local State Aid 73rd Avenue, Humboldt to Penn 30,000 0 Local State Aid 71st/72nd Avenues, Noble to Halifax 27,000 Local State Aid TOTAL EXPENDITURES $12s o00 $13s 000 $35 $110 000 $310 000 $353 FUND SOURCES: State Aid - Local Accounts #2611/ #2600 126,000 138,000 35,000 60,000 310,000 353,000 General Fund Other Governments 0 0 0 50,000 0 TOTAL $126,0001 $138 000 $35 000 $110 1 $310,000 1 $353 MAP D: SIDEINALK & TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS _ ..... _ - -- - --- - -- .�.. _: ,,;_ -� -- --a - ♦ �- --- ------- - - - - -- -------- j 1 r _\ t ­77 fx ----- r >r { i L 11 ------------ - -- , 8 4w r .. 0363 � � 3 tax �� SIDEWALKS EXISTING ON STREET TRAILS EXISTING OFF STREET TRAILS i --------- PROPOSED ON STREET TRAILS J _ 1 ------- PROPOSED OFF S ?BEET TRAILS ` ' .. _.__. .... MAP I Comprehensive Plan PRIORITY 1 1991 -1995 C PRIORITY 2 1996 -2000 TABLE E — Capital Improvement Program — Detail of Capital Outlays Park Improvements 06— Jun -91 1991 1992 : 1993. 1994 1995 1996 -2000 FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURES: Playground Equipment Replacement: 2 per Year 9,500 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 General Fund Replace 6 Shelter Buildings 360,000 GO Park Bonds Lighting— Grandview Baseball 100,000 GO Park Bonds Acquisition of New Park Land 200,000 GO Park Bonds Twin Lake /Preserve /Kylawn Improvements 400,000 GO Park Bonds TOTAL EXPENDITURES $0 $s,5oo $25,000 $25,0001 $25,000 $1 185,000 FUND SOURCES: General Fund 0 9,500 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 GO Bonds 0 0 0 0 0 1,060,000 TOTAL 1 $0 $9,500 $25,000 $25,000 $25,0001 $1,185,000 c•�:�:;:u . II` ° f'' r f' iII l 01 1 [ f 1( ' l �h'P111�i1��� 11 II� I � E£HEMI[n'tt1�I�?I�ALIIII] 111 li j i 3< , /, (.� [If ifHIfiTlfillli11 -1111 fl _ — ttn O � ' ° ° "'�' �+ I�' �_ �I'.'' - � - fIIII9�il[IIII£I➢�II�I _ �[_I_�[ -1t9 _= w ! >.- iltti➢ fI➢I➢[II�'y[III➢f ➢[IIIID➢ = CZ7ffII1[I:iCT[I IT � C� O [ll➢ll1➢u7�IL��1 ui�ill '' - m w ', Milli ➢[IIAII➢I[IA([IIII ➢ lit) I[IIIIIl 1— ►--� i 4 fIIIhIIu`�lililLllll➢ RR����rtrttt ¢art � � r N .. �.ttt 1�� �IIIII�tIFi[ [II11ll127 I �[ 1 ll 11 ll� t ,1 n 1 1i111I 1�Q➢[[[i�l[ ii77 ��um0 / a �f� 11 � ^ �f 1 amil F�1 w � ' / � II➢ O L➢I➢] S - il! ®� �Y1tI1I��➢ O 0 T T _ ;' Q{ ➢IIA[ ➢➢IIAL ��� N CL ,, ;�11J6iu J r ��mmL� IfIII�IB[3��1� F-I-i $ i Q m a �- �■ .. _ ILIII[Ii{1IiI®[IIII® [IPiIIt"1tt Z a Lr , ¢ aZ AF 1I �''A ' r dr :�,:.a � � ��- < �� 7i�t fIl}� � • A[I�11T13 �,� ,� �I I � , <:��,till� ... � � I[[II�I[[lln[lutuhi„d(iIII1I ��� _ ; ", -�� "„ I AMR ., .,rs �, � tC3i'iiu L�I[(l ➢fllllll JlIl[TS � �I�� � ,, ... � (1! ➢IlI7 rE1.�� �(.�_.� ca ➢ K HIM ® � ®® --- ~ fUC- l a •... wr�e F LL IIl, ii� ""`" - � *ur.LI Il Jllll/ ��77���/��7j7� (y.....� l- ]LL✓'_ I lJ __ I.%!'I Ir i:ii::: rtri nnmi^'fi j ...m.,..� .� _ d/ *r, ,;.nn.n , n n�_ \ iW II'Ilill I I I�I IIIjIjilll�i�Illllilll�� I jjlll j l� Ij III jj I If �I: I � � � �/ � .,i ,,jib I I II! I�i I I 1 I (, � ar � i I 1 I � �- -� f �� �.��. :; it �` i � -.��w Il�iI �II1��II�11i, �i�l!= il} �ilhl il��lgl�; l�ti« i�{ Il I�!! �It l��iilfEili !!i•l�IifEEEi�fi!i�ll - -�� TABLE F — Capital Improvement Program — Detail of Capital Outlays Public Building Improvements 06— Jun -91 1`991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996-2000 1 FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURES: CITY HALL City Office Improvements 1,500,000 0 1 /2 GO Bonds, 1 /2 Capital COMMUNITY CENTER Projects Fund Senior Center /Elevator 1,000,000 0 1 /2 GO Bonds, 1 /2 Capital Projects Fund Water Slide 200,000 0 Capital Projects Fund I Public Works Storage Building 450,000 Y< Water, 1 /4 Sewer FIRE STATIONS /2 Utilities, ' Capital Project East Station 610,000 0 1 /2 GO Bonds, 1 /2 Capital West Station 330,000 0 Projects Fund TOTAL EXPENDITURES $o $2,0 $940 , 0001 $o $o $ 450 7 000 FUND SOURCES: Capital Projects 0 1,450,000 470,000 0 0 225,000 Water Utility 0 0 0 0 0 112,500 Sanitary Sewer Utility 0 0 0 0 0 112,500 GO Bonds 0 1,250,000 470,000 0 0 0 TOTAL $01 $2 700 000 $s4o 000 $o $o $450,00 1 - -- .— — Page 1 TABLE G — Capital Improvement Program — Detail of Capital Outlays Street Improvements 06— Jun -91 1991 1992 1993 994 ! 1995 199 -200 FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURES: SEALCOATING 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000 General Fund SIGNALS 69th and France Avenues 110,000 0 MSA— Regular #2613 Brooklyn Blvd & TH100 Northbound Ramp /Lilac Dr 150,000 0 Local State Aid Brooklyn Blvd & 51st Avenue 150,000 0 Local State Aid Summit & Earle Brown W (Target Entrance) 125,000 0 Special Assessments Shingle Creek Pkwy and Parkway Circle 125,000 0 Special Assessments REGULAR MSA ACCOUNT #2613 STREET PROJECTS 69th Avenue, Brooklyn Blvd to Shingle Creek Pkwy 2,200,000 4,469,680 0 MSA — Regular #2613 2,000,000 814,680 0 MSA — Regular #2613 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 750,000 0 MSA —Local #261142600 MSA —Bonds #2612 200,000 2,755,000 0 MSA —Bonds #2612 Water Utility 0 0 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 0 0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 0 0 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 150,000 0 Special Assessments 57th Avenue, Logan to Lyndale 1,100,000 0 MSA — Regular #2613 404,000 0 MSA — Regular #2613 MSA —Local #261142600 126,000 0 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 Water Utility 50,000 0 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 4,000 0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 326,000 0 Storm Drainage Utility Hennepin County 190,000 0 Henne in Count Page 2 TABLE G — Capital Improvement Program — Detail of Capital Outlays Street Improvements 06— Jun -91 1'991 1992 1993 1994 1`995 ?1996`. 2000 FUND SO (State Aid Street Projects, con't) 63rd Avenue, W City Limits to Brooklyn Blvd 1,002,000 0 MSA— Regular #2613 461,000 0 MSA — Regular #2613 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 156,000 0 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 Water Utility 95,000 0 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 5,000 0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 135,000 0 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 150,000 0 Special Assess Noble Avenue, Brooklyn Blvd to N City Limits 87,000 0 MSA — Regular #2613 51,000 0 MSA — Regular #2613 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 (4,000) 0 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 Water Utility 13,000 0 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 1,000 0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 0 0 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 26,000 0 Special Assessments 69th Avenue, Shingle Creek Pkwy to Oliver & Bridge 1,197,000 0 MSA — Regular #2613 1,015,000 0 MSA — Regular #2613 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 (2,000) 0 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 Water Utility 32,000 0 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 2,000 0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 45,000 0 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 105,000 0 Special Assessments France Avenue, 69th to N City Limits 349,000 MSA — Regular #2613 188,000 MSA — Regular #2613 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 18,000 MSA— Local #2611/ #2600 Water Utility 31,000 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 2,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 45,000 Storm Drainage Utility S ecial Assessments 65,000 Specia Ass essment s Page 3 TABLE G — Capital Improvement Program— Detail of Capital Outlays Street Improvements 06— Jun -91 1'991 1992 1993 1994 199 -2000 FUN SO URCE (State Aid Street Projects, con't) 53rd Avenue France to 55th Avenue 403,000 MSA— Regular #2613 196,000 MSA— Regular #2613 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 51,000 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 Water Utility 36,000 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 2,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 51,000 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 67,000 Special Assessments Brooklyn Boulevard At Lilac Drive 571,000 MSA — Regular #2613 474,000 MSA — Regular #2613 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 23,000 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 Water Utility 17,000 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 1,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 24,000 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 32,000 Special Assessments 51st Avenue, Brooklyn Blvd to Xerxes 71,000 MSA — Regular #2613 40,000 MSA— Regular #2613 MSA— Local #2611/ #2600 8,000 MSA— Local #2611/ #2600 Water Utility 5,000 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 1,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 8,000 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 9,000 Special Assessments 69th Avenue, Oliver to Dupont 867,000 MSA— Regular #2613 544,000 MSA — Regular #2613 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 63,000 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 Water Utility 45,000 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 3,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 64,000 Storm Drainage Utility Spe cial Asse ssments 148,000 Special Assessm Page 4 TABLE G - Capital Improvement Program - Detail of Capital Outlays Street Improvements 06- Jun -91 1991 1992 1993' 1994 1'995 1996 -2000 FUND SOURCE (State Aid Street Projects, con't) Humboldt Avenue 69th to N City Limits 423,000 MSA- Regular #2613 220,000 MSA - Regular #2613 MSA -Local #2611/ #2600 45,000 MSA -Local #2611/ #2600 Water Utility 31,000 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 2,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 45,000 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 80,000 Special Assessments OTHER STREET PROJECTS '/2 Transportation Utility, Neighborhood Street Replacement 500,000 500,000 500,000 2,500,000 1 /4 Special Assessments '/4 Storm Drain Utility LANDSCAPING West River Road Streetscape 72,000 0 MSA -Local #2611 Co Rd 10 Streetscape 100,000 0 1 /2 MSA -2600, 1 /Z Special Assessments Xerxes Avenue Streetscape 70,000 0 MSA -Local #2600 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2 422 000 $4,729,680 $2,170.090T $1 847 000 $8,618,000 FUND SOURCES: MSA - Regular #2613 2,000,000 924,680 404,000 512,000 1,015,000 1,662,000 MSA - Local #2611/ #2600 72,000 750,000 126,000 452,000 (2,000) 208,000 MSA - Local #2600 0 0 120,000 0 0 0 MSA - Bonds #2612 200,000 2,755,000 0 0 0 0 Water Utility 0 0 50,000 108,000 32,000 165,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility 0 0 4,000 6,000 2,000 11,000 Storm Drainage Utility 0 0 451,000 260,000 170,000 862,000 Special Assessments 0 150,000 425,000 301,000 230,000 1,026,000 Transportation Utility 0 0 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,250,000 General Fund 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000 Hennepin County 0 0 190, 000 0 0 0 TO TA L $ 2 1 4 22 000 2 _$4,79,680 $2 170,000 $2,039,000 $i 000 _ $5 934 000 ° BROOKLYN PARK x I; ov w�5o� 1L Y a [eEenp [erl — a evE ] n t I ° 1 CRYSTAL 0 ' '\ (r swcnAerr�! �" t_ o tll ' YI 1!j!``11(( mo � �, ac u � t ° uil eti�� Z IRRI'' �j "'16 Oo�pI4tiG n °1 u .t :;:..{4'7S -f ;... u� � 6� _ lYG.J ■ ■ ossf N'Q J . h D n +o J )G"1 91 I' 'le /♦ - — �[,1 r' _eel�alwK ]l. _1Gs�l��lk ° `' �j «'f �,�r;r�lk «6�i o y S - `.(a �_ ` "_.�,,= ! � i l �n �u.d y _S2£�(� _n.'OW /A %LIL �5)A._ 061 "_�46 28 �C.= m O `" f .cU)� �I- �r �5 I[ a •[ °o ry/ c -H� l° n (—� pp 9344 g, ..0 "eo o '�- .. .. 00 . .. - 0 OOSI I e __ O J < ' n f_^£.E1etlaArLx .:.m --I u ) p ,�� •�( p �" ���,�I� .l[ �L -�@�° 1[ E y If 1�_ �f�;. � J! .. � � n =� sal LLn ° gjil� p Obbz CRI,! 2 75 OSCC I N 'm Arc` z 'x y tpp� utn .•" �i D Z !Z, "v1860� �I 4 0" ))o/. IPn )6- .. 4 a 3_ ...� W n _ a �9 z I; � ti� � j qIn . - �maALC. AeE n r, s e ox 7 w Wool LL AS � ro 19,00 :.�[ a�. • ll!!1 NF U „ cLCwl_ I� ua. /�pLL ) W" ` \ . C _C 40 l u CO M s 1 � 8 a 3 Vie. i5 Rj� i RI DLE Y "t " MM ��I1� � s s TABLE H - Capital Improvement Program - Detail of Capital Outlays Data Processing Equipment 06- Jun -91 1991 1992 1993 1994 1`995 1996 -20Q0 FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURES: Network OR Distributed Site 66,000 20,000 170,000 General Fund Annual Equipment 78,000 132,000 183,000 108,000 40,000 100,000 General Fund, Other, Water & Sewer Utilities Remote Reading Water Meters 275,000 250,000 250,000 0 Water Utility TOTAL EXPENDITURES $78,000 $1ss,000 $458,000 1 $3s8 000 $310,000 $270,000 FUND SOURCES: General Fund 78,000 183,000 136,000 94,000 60,000 270,000 Water Utility 0 7,500 275,000 250,000 250,000 0 Sanitary Sewer Utility 7,500 0 Other Funds 47,000 14,000 0 TOTAL $78 1 $198 1 $458,0001 $358 $310,000 $270,000 TABLE I — Capital Improvement Program — Detail of Capital Outlays City Vehicles 06- Jun -91 1991 ': 1992 1993 1994 1, 1995 1996 -20OQ FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURES: STREETS Ford 800 Dump (6) 213,000 General Fund Ford Tandem Dump (2) 50,000 50,000 0 General Fund Ford 700 Dump 0 General Fund Ford 800 Flat Bed /Sander 50,000 General Fund Oil Distributer 5,000 0 General Fund International 46,000 0 General Fund Ford Water Truck 7,000 General Fund Aerial Bucket 82,000 0 General Fund Dodge 3/4 Ton Pickup 13,000 0 General Fund Paint Striper (2) 0 General Fund Mechanical Sweeper 65,000 0 Storm Drainage Utility Vacuum Sweeper 150,000 Storm Drainage Utility Storm Sewer Jet 130,000 0 Storm Drainage Utility Ford 1 Ton /Sign Box 35,000 General Fund Trackless Sidewalk Plow (3) 49,000 50,000 50,000 General Fund PARKS Pickups 16,000 10,000 10,000 11,500 General Fund Ford 350 Dump 0 General Fund Tractors (2) 0 General Fund Van 13,500 0 General Fund PUBLIC UTILITIES Sewer Jet 130,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility Pickups 10,000 10,000 24,500 Water & Sewer Utilities Ford 350 Dump/Utility Dump/Utility Box 30 Water & Sewer Utilities I TABLE I - Capital Improvement Program - Detail of Capital Outlays City Vehicles (City vehicles, con't) UNLICENSED 1 Ton Roller 0 General Fund Cat Grader 0 General Fund Cat Loader 75,000 General Fund Rubber Tired Roller 0 General Fund Backhoe 50,000 Water Utility Snow Blower 45,000 0 General Fund FIRE DEPARTMENT Vans 375,000 General Fund Pumpers 155,000 General Fund Autos 21,000 0 General Fund Ladder 0 General Fund POLICE Autos 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 280,000 General Fund TOTAL EXPENDITURES $181,0001 $182,500 $240,000 $166,000 $186,0001 $1,636 000 FUND SOURCES: General Fund 181,000 182,500 165,000 156,000 56,000 1,251,500 Water Utility 0 0 5,000 5,000 0 77,250 Storm Drainage Utility 0 0 65,000 0 130,000 150,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility 0 0 5,000 5,000 0 157,250 TOTAL 1 $181,0001 $240,000 1 $166,000 $186,000 $1,636, EXHIBIT B 1990 Water Utility Rate Study CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 ROOKLYN TELEPHONE: 569 -3300 C ENTER FAX: 561 -0717 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE November 16, 1990 911 TO: G. G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works SUBJ: Executive Summary: Water Rate Study City Council Resolution 87 -97 established the current Public Utilities Rate Schedule and directed staff to reevaluate in 1990 the adequacy of those rates. The attached rate study evaluates the rate increases proposed for 1991 and 1992. It also includes a financial analysis for the years 1993 -2000. Summary The rate schedule adopted in 1987 was based on the following three objectives: • That the base charge would be a single rate per 1000 gallons used, with neither conservation nor volume discounts; • That one -half of the interest earnings on retained investments be utilized to pay operating and maintenance costs (thereby subsidizing the rate structure), while the other half should be used to provide financing for capital outlay projects; and • That a minimum balance of $3.7 million be retained as a "restricted investment" for partial funding for a future water treatment plant. Utilizing these criteria, the water utility is expected to have a net operating loss in 1990. That loss is projected to increase in 1991 and 1992, even with the rate increases established in the current rate schedule. The schedule established in 1987 increases rates from $0.47 per 1000 gallons in 1990 to $0.51 in 1991 and $0.55 in 1992. Without a larger rate increase, the City will in 1991 not be able to maintain the $3.7 million reserved for future construction of a water treatment plant. This conclusion is based on current and projected operations and maintenance costs, and an anticipated, conservative capital projects progam. The shortfall of the established rate increases is due primarily to three factors: �� ,�esuiu+wcAan November 16, 1990 Page Two 1. An underestimation in the last rate study of future operating costs, due both to increased costs and accounting practices which now more accurately reflect the costs of operations and maintenance; 2. An overestimation of the billable water in the years beyond 1989; and 3. Anticipation of a relatively modest level of capital outlays. The rate structure adopted in 1987 was established using a "depreciation expense" method of providing funding for capital improvements. Using this method, funds for future improvements are programmed based on a retrospective analysis of the cost of improvements to date. While this methodology is appropriate for use when capital expenditures occur at a relatively constant level, it will not accomodate increased levels of capital improvements. Accordingly, this study incorporates a capital outlay program for the years 1990 -2000 and recommends that rates be established to assure that funding will be available for these proposed improvements. To maintain the solvency of the fund, it is recommended that water rates be increased by eight cents per 1000 gallons per year in 1991, 1992, and 1993, rather than by the four cents per year already approved. It is projected that even with those recommended increases the fund would still experience net operating losses in 1991 and 1992. However, by 1993, operating expenditures would approximately equal operating revenues plus one -half the utility's interest earnings, while assuring retention of a minimum balance of $3.7 million of restricted investments. Thus, adoption of the recommended rates would meet the three objectives stated above. If approved, these recommended water rates would still be among the lowest in the Metro area. It is also recommended that the Council direct staff to evaluate rates in 1993. Beyond three years it becomes increasingly difficult to accurately predict both expenditures and revenues. In addition, Black and Veatch, the consulting firm which the City hired in 1989 to study the adequacy of the City's water supply, has made several recommendations for major capital improvements. The most costly improvement, construction of a 2MG, $3.3 million reservoir and pumping station, is recommended for 1993. If approved, the choice of financing schemes for this improvement could have a major impact on future rates, and that impact should be evaluated as a part of any feasibility report. Finally, while retention of the $3.7 million restricted reserve has been an operating assumption and objective, that purpose of that reserve has not been formally designated by the Council. Finance Department staff and the City's auditors recommend that the Council do so. Respectfully Submitted, Sy Knapp Director of Public Works j PU RATES: h2oopt2/dfs Water Utility : Recommended Rates: Showing 1993 Bond Issue to Pay For Reservoir /Pumping Station 15- Nov -90 EXPENDITURES 92 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 19 1993 1994 1) Operations Personal Service $155,547 $165,581 $159,253 $215,693 $217,254 $225,000 $250,485 $259,499 $267,284 $275,303 Contractual 206,429 207,444 108,058 216,281 225,589 216,868 223,375 230,076 236,978 244,087 Supplies & Materials 16,608 26,568 100,796 120,961 90,418 94,939 99,686 104,670 109,904 115,399 Heat, Light & Power 100,374 106,873 121,267 142,460 132,368 136,339 140,429 144,642 148,981 153,451 Interest on Debt 14,154 12,399 10,786 8,889 7,180 5,365 3,610 1,855 0 264,000 Depreciation Expense 1 94,089 2 1 229,327 253, 248,580 294,000 296,000 305,000 320, TOTAL EXPENDITURES $687 ,201 $719,092 $649,832 $933,611 $926,057 $927,091 $1,011,584 $1,036,742 $1,068,147 $1,372,240 REVENUES 2) Billing Revenues $448,002 $456,352 $541,165 $681,872 $662,165 $575,750 $679,250 $786,051 $894,600 $1,043,040 Billable water, 1000 Gallons 1,229,670 1,218,975 1,453,369 1,661,897 1,587,317 1,225,000 1,235,000 1,247,700 1,260,000 1,272,000 RATE PER 1000 GAL $0.35 $0.35 $0.35` $0.39 $0.43 $0.47 $0.55 $0.63 $0.71 $0.82 3) Miscellaneous Operating 98,815 16,927 15,057 12,782 25,817 75,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 4) Miscellaneous Non - operating 27,076 18,843 21,014 8,419 11,622 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5)1 /2 Interest Earnings 2 42,731 234,996 195 1 206,70 1 94, 9 4 5 162,710 147, 14 148 TOTAL REVENUES $816,624 $727,118 $773,056 $886,394 $906,308 $855,695 $876,960 $968,844 $1,074,629 $1,226,329 PROJECTED INCOME OR LOSS $129,423 $8,026 $123,224 ($47,217) ($19,749) ($71,397) ($134,625) ($67,898) $6,482 ($145,910) 6) 112 Interest Earnings 242,731 23 4,996 195,819 183,321 206,704 194,945 162,71 147,793 145,029 (115,711) NET INCOME OR LOSS $372,154 $243,021 $319,043 $136,104 $186,955 $123,548 $28,085 $79,895 $151,511 ($261,621) EFFECT ON CASH & 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 INVESTMENTS: 7) Start of Year Cash & Inv $4,431,224 $4,611,484 $4,630,113 $4,427,483 $4,568,069 $4,873,616 $4,067,744 $3,694,829 $3,625,724 $407,235 8) Capital Outlay 340,983 379,619 626,345 179,845 89,656 1,133,000 650,000 400,000 3,675,000 180,000 9) Net Income or Loss 372,154 243,021 319,043 136,104 186,955 123,548 28,085 79,895 151,511 (261,621) 10) Bond Debt Outlay 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 100,000 11) Depeciation Add -back 194,089 200,227 149,672 229,327 253,248 248,580 294,000 296,000 305,000 320,000 .... 12) End of Year Cash & Inv $4, 611, 484 $4, 630, 113 $4, 427, 483 $4, 568, 069 $4,873,616 $4,067,744 $3,694,829 $3,625,724 $407,235 $185,614 0 Restricted Inv 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 z Unrestricted Inv 911,484 930,113 727,483 868.069 1,173,616 367,744 (5,171) (74,276) (3,292,765) (3,514,386) UJ PU RATES: h2oopt2 /dfs 15- Nov -90 1995 1996 1997 1998 19 2000 EXPENDITURES 1) Operations Personal Service $283,562 $292,069 $300,831 $309,856 $319,151 $328,726 Contractual 251,410 258,952 266,721 274,722 282,964 291,453 Supplies & Materials 121,169 127,227 133,589 140,268 147,281 154,645 Heat, Light & Power 158,054 162,796 167,680 172,710 177,892 183,228 Interest on Debt 256,000 248,000 240,000 232,000 224,000 216,000 Depreciation Expense 320,000 320,000 350, 350,000 350,000 350,0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,390,195 $1,409,044 $1,458,820 $1,479,556 $1,501,288 $1,524,053 REVENUES 2) Billing Revenues $1,195,050 $1,349,920 $1,507,650 $1,522,600 $1,538,700 $1,553,650 Billable water, 1000 Gallons 1,285,000 1,298,000 1,311,000 1,324,000 1,338,000 1,351,000 RATE PER 1000 GAL ° $0.93 $1.04 $1.15 $1.15 $1.15 $1.15 3) Miscellaneous Operating 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 4) Miscellaneous Non - operating 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5) 1/2 Interest Earnings 13 125,413 1 86, 90,1 _ 87,65 9 TOTALREVENUES $1,365,475 $1,510,333 $1,662,691 $1,643,997 $1,663,851 $1,676,309 PROJECTED INCOME OR LOSS ($24,720) $101,289 $203,871 $164,441 $162,562 $152,257 6) 112 Interest Earnings (120,575) (122,587) (119,959) (145,603) (133 (128,341) NET INCOME OR LOSS ($145,296) ($21,299) $83,911 $18,838 $28,713 $23,916 1995 1996- 1997 1998 1999 2000 EFFECT ON CASH & INVESTMENTS: 7) Start of Year Cash & Inv $185,614 $35,318 $1,019 ($740,069) ($546,231) ($508,518) O 8) Capital Outlay 225,000 233,000 1,075,000 75,000 241,000 75,000 9) Net Income or Loss (145,296) (21,299) 83,911 18,838 28,713 23,916 10) Bond Debt Outlay 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 150,000 11) Depeciation Add -back 320,000 320,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 12) End of Year Cash & Inv $35,318 $1,019 ($740,069) ($546,231) ($508,518) ($359,603) O Restricted Inv 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700.000 3,700,000 Z Unroslricled Inv (3,664,682) (3,698,981) (4,440,069) (4,246,231) (4,20 8,518) (4,05 9,603) W WA l ER UTILITY FOOTNOTES: 1. Operations Personal service: The costs of full and part time labor and benefits. Contractual service: Administrative costs such as LOGIS charges, postage, insurance, administrative services, and contracted repairs. Supplies and materials: Office supplies, repair and maintenance supplies, safety equipment, water traetment chemicals. Heat, light, and power: NSP and Minnegasco charges for well houses, booster pumps, etc. Interest on debt: Interest and fiscal fees on bond payments. Depreciation expense: A method of financing fixed assets over the anticipated life of the asset. Straight -line depreciation is used, meaning the asset is depreciated in equal installments. Any new fixed asset ( such as a new water main) is added to the total for the fixed asset category (mains and lines, structures, equipment, land, and construction in progress). Any addition or repair to an existing fixed asset that adds to the life of the asset (such as well repair) is also added. 2. Billing Revenues Billable water: Approximately 98 percent of water pumped is billed out. The remainder is used by utilities crews to flush hydrants, mains, etc. with less than one percent unaccounted for. After two years of higher than average pumping, it is expected that 1990 water use will be more like 1985 -86 than 1988 -89. Because the number of residential connections is not expected toincrease substantially, it is assumed that billable water would increase at a modest one percent per year. 3. Misc. Operating Revenues Revenues from other fees and charges, such as meter rentals. 4. Misc. Non - operating Revenues Revenues from other sources. 5. 1/2 Interest Earnings Restricted and unrestricted assets are invested in the City's Investment Trust Fund. Interest is earned at about eight percent per year. PROJECTED INCOME OR LOSS Operating revenues minus operating expenditures, plus 1/2 interest revenue. Numbers in parens are losses. 6. 1/2 Interest Earnings See #5 above. NET INCOME OR LOSS Projected operating Income or loss, plus 1/2 interest income. A positive is a net gain in retained earnings, while a negative is a net loss to the fund. 7. Start of Year Cash & The sum of restricted and unrestricted ( "cash on hand ") assets. Investments 8. Capital Outlay The estimated cost of anticipated capital projects. 9. Net Income or Loss From above; the net operating impact on the fund. 10. Bond Debt Retired Annual bond payment. 11. Depreciation Add -back Depreciation is "added back" because it is not a true cash outlay. Because it is treated as an expense for rate - setting purposes, some capital outlay is paid for from water charges, and the outlays in excess of that are paid from cash reserves. 12. End of Year Cash & The sum of restricted and unrestricted assets, after considering 118 -11. Investments Restricted Assets: $3.7 million reserved for partial funding of a future water treatment plant. Unrestricted Assets: All non - restricted assets. "Cash on hand." EXHIBIT C 1990 Sanitary Sewer Utility Rate Study CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 C TELEPHONE: 569 -3300 ENTER FAX: 561 -0717 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 November 16, 1990 TO: G. G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works SUBJ: Executive Summary: Sanitary Sewer Rate Study City Council Resolution 87 -97 established the current Public Utilities Rate Schedule and directed staff to reevaluate in 1990 the adequacy of those rates. The attached rate study evaluates the rate increases proposed for 1991 and 1992. It also includes a financial analysis for the years 1993 -2000. Summar The rate schedule adopted in 1987 was based on the following three objectives: • That the base charge would be a single rate, with neither conservation nor volume discounts, except that the standard quarterly rates for senior citizen and apartment accounts are proportions of the residential quarterly rate. These rates are based on the demonstrated lesser volume of use by these customers. • That one -half the interest earnings on retained investments be utilized to pay operating and maintenance costs (thereby subsidizing the rate structure), while the other half should be used to provide financing for capital outlay projects; and • That a minimum balance of $300,000 be retained as a "restricted investment" to provide for unexpected, major capital improvements. Utilizing these criteria, the sanitary sewer utility is expected to have a net operating loss in 1990. That loss is projected to increase substantially in 1991 and 1992, even with the rate increases in the current rate schedule. The schedule established in 1987 increases rates from $1.13 per 1000 gallons in 1990 to $1.19 in 1991 and $1.24 in 1992. The residential quarterly flat charge is slated to increase from $27.10 in 1990 to $29.05 in 1991 and $31.00 in 1992. Without a larger rate increase, the City will incur increasingly large losses, which will by 1999 consume the utility's entire cash and investment balance, ,sesui,uawc.an November 16, 1990 Page Two This conclusion is based on current and projected operations and maintenance costs, and an anticipated, conservative capital projects program. The shortfall of the established rate increases is due primarily to two factors: 1. An underestimation in the 1987 study of the increases in the Metro Waste Control Commission's (MWCC) annual service charge, which is about three - fourths of the sewer utility's annual operating costs; and 2. An overestimation of the number of residential connections. The previous rate study projected an increase of over 450 residential connections between 1985 and 1990; the actual figure is 50. To maintain the solvency of the fund, it is recommended that sanitary sewer rates be increased by thirteen cents per year in 1991, 1992, and 1993, rather than by six cents per year already approved. It is projected that even with the recomended increases, the fund would experience operating losses in 1991 and 1992. However, by 1993, operating expenditures would approximately equal operating revenues plus one -half the utility's interest earnings, while assuring retention of a minimum balance of $300,000. Thus, adoption of the recommended rates would meet the three objectives stated above. If approved, these sanitary sewer rates would still be in the lower half of those in the Metro area. The recommended rates would increase 16 percent for residential customers and 11 percent for non - residential customers. This disparity is due to the way the 1987 rate schedule phased the rate increases. Prior to 1987, residential rates did not "fully fund" the cost of providing service to that group. The 1987 rate schedule was phased so that full funding would occur in 1992. These rates assume that that full funding would occur in 1991. It is also recommended that the Council direct staff to reevaluate rates in 1993. Beyond three years it becomes increasingly difficult to accurately predict both expenditures and revenues. Three- fourths of the sanitary sewer utility's annual operating expense is the MWCC service charge. MWCC has advised us that their service charge for 1991 will increase by 8.4 percent, and by an estimated six percent in both 1992 and 1993. It is especially important to annually review MWCC charges, as increases beyond those projected could have a significant impact on the future rate increases necessary to maintain the solvency of the utility. Finally, while retention of the $300,000 restricted reserve has been an operating assumption and objective, the purpose of that reserve has not been formally designated by the Council. Finance Department staff and the City's auditors recommend that the Council do so. Respectfully Submitted, Sy Knapp Director of Public Works PURATES:sewprojl /dfs Sewer Utility: Recommended Rates : Operating Expenditures = Revenues 15- Nov -90 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 EXPENDITURES 1) Operations Personal Service $86,587 $91,590 $92,974 $94,237 $108,661 $113,000 $131,278 $136,217 $140,303 Contractual Service 154,876 146,060 140,708 171,658 178,826 187,767 197,158 207,013 217,364 Supplies 6 Materials 7,349 2,349 15.695 21,501 20,163 21,171 22,230 23,341 24,508 Heat. Light, & Power 15,485 15,833 15,081 14,810 16,248 17,060 17,913 18,809 19,750 Depreciation Expense 106,196 99,906 91,041 98,454 89.221 97,133 219,590 165,000 180,000 Subtotal: City O& M Expense $370,493 $355738 $355,499 $400,658 $413,119 $436,132 $588,187 $550,381 3581,925 MWCC Charges $806,390 $850,889 $926, $1,049,939 $1,086,314 $1,173,219 $1,272,124 $1,348,451 $1,429,3 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,176,883 $1,206,627 $1,281,58 $1,450,597 $1,499,433 $1,609,351 $1,860,291 $1,898,832 $2,011,284 REVENUES 2) Billing Revenues $1,070,678 $1,065,217 $1,091,749 $1,181,378 $1,376,232 $1,324,852 $1,531,974 $1,691,529 $1,851,363 Residential Accts 7,177 7,132 7,079 7,024 6,959 8,898 6,866 8,843 6,820 Quarterly Charge $21.25 $21.25 $21.25 $23.20= $25.15 $27.10 $31.50 $34.75 $38.00 Senior Accts 1,282 1,328 1,394 1,459 1,525 1,501 1,600 1,825 1,650 Quarterly Charge $11.69 $11.69 $11.69 $12.76 $13.83 $14.43 $17,33 $19.11 $20.90 Apartment Accts _.. 3,264 _... 3.259 3.335 3.543 _..._._ 3,542 _ 3.545 _.. 3,545 ..__:. 3,545 .. ........3,545 Quarterly Charge $14.88 $14.88 $14.88 $16.24 $17.60 $18.97 $22.05 $24.33 $26.60 Non -re8 water 218,986 222.512 234,338 245,454 248,000 191,400 193,000 195,000 197,000 RATE PER 1000 GAL $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $1.01 $1.07 $103 $1.26 $1.39 $1.52 3) Miscellaneous Operating 8,030 6,973 5,453 23,554 28,604 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 4) Miscellaneous Non- operating 16,451 11,466 26,228 12,829 10,975 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5) 112 Interest Earnings 140,362 135 ,344 119,0 130,687 147,591 145,848 139,741 122,572 13 0,125 TOTAL REVENUES $1,235,521 $1,219,000 $1,242,433 $1,348,448 $1,563,402 $1,490,700 $1,691,715 $1,834,100 $2,001,488 PROJECTED INCOME OR LOSS $58,638 $12,373 ($39,149) ($102;149) $63,969 ($118,650) ; ($168,576) ($64,732) ($9,795) 6) 112 Interest Earnings 140,362 135,344 119,003 130,686 147,590 145,848 139,741 122,572 130,125 NET INCOME OR LOSS $199,000 $147,717 $79,854'; $28,537 $211,559 $27,198 ($28,835) $57,840 $120,330 EFFECT ON CASH & 1985 1986 >1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 INVESTMENTS 7) Start of Year Cash & Inv $2,858,256 $3,059,039 $3,256,018 $3,401,855 $3,485,105 $3,646,204 $3,493,535 $3,064,290 $3,253,130 - 0 8) Capital Outlay 104,413 50,644 25,058 43,741 139,681 277,000 620,000 34,000 520,000 °1 9) Net Income or Loss 199,000 147,717 79,854 28,537 211,559 27,198 (28,835) 57,840 120,330 10) Depreciation Add -back 106,196 99,906 91,041 98,454 89,221 97,133 219,590 165,000 180,000 0 11) End of Year Cash & Inv $3,059,039 $3,256,018 $3,401,855 $3,485,105 $3,646,204 $3,493,535 '$3,064,290 i$3,253,130 $3,033,460 Restricted Investments 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 Unrestricted Investments 2,759,039 2,956,018 3,101,855 3,185,105 3,346,204 3,193,535 2,764,290 2,953,130 2,733,460 cc PURATES:sewprojl /dfs 15- Nov -90 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1 '2000 EXPEND /TURFS 1) Operations Personal Service $144,512 $148,848 $153.313 $157,913 $162,650 $167,529 $172,555 Contractual Service 228,232 239,644 251,628 264.207 277,418 291,289 305,853 Supplies 8 Materials 25,734 27,020 28,371 29,790 31.279 32,843 34,486 Heat, Light, 3 Power 20,737 21,774 22,863 24,006 25.206 26.466 27,790 Depreciation Expense 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 Subtotal: City & M Expense $829,215 $847,288 $ 66 6. 173 $685,916 $706.553 $728,128 $750,684 MWCC Charges $1,515,1 $1,606,027 $1,702,389 $1,804,532 $1,912,804 $2,027, $2,149,227 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2,144,335 $2,253,313 $2,368,562 $2,490,448 $2,619,357 $2,755,700 $2,899,910 REVENUES 2) Billing Revenues $1,999,286 $2,098,661 $2,234,845 $2,346,819 $2,458,987 $2,583,593 $2,720,669 Residential Accts 8,797 - 6,774 8,751 8,728 8.705 8,682 6,659 Quarterly Charge $41.00 $43,00, $45.75 $48.00 $50.26 $52.76 $55.51' Senior Acct a 1,875 1,700 1,725 1,750 1,775 1,800 1,825 Quarterly Charge $22.55 $23.65 $25.17 $26.40 $27.64 $29.02 " $30.53 Apartment Accts 3.545 _ 3.545 .... _3.545 3.545 3,545 ,.. 3,545 ,... >. _.. .3.545 Quarterly Charge $28.70 $30.10 $32.03 $33.60 $35.18 $36.93 $38.85 Non -res Water 199,000 201,000 203,000 205,000 207,000 209,000 211,000 RATE PER 1000 GAL $1.64 $1.72 $1.83 $1.92 $2.01 $2.11 $2.22 3) Miscellaneous Operating 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 4) Miscellaneous Non - operating 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5) 1/2 Interest Earnings 121,338 129,563 118,143 125,445 135,136 144,932 155,042 TOTAL REVENUES $2,140,625 $2,248,225 $2,372,988 $2,492,265 $2,614,123 $2,748,524 $2,895,711 PROJECTED INCOME OR LOSS ($3,711) ($5,088) $4,425 r $1,817 ($5,235) ($7,176) ($4;200) 6) 1/2 Interest Earnings 121,338 129,563 118,143 125,445 135,136 144,932 155,042 NET INCOME OR LOSS $117,628 $124,475 $122,568 $127,262 '`$129,901 $137,756 $150,842 EFFECT ON CASH & 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 INVESTMENTS 7) Start of Year Cash &Inv $3,033,460 $3,239,087 $2,953,563 $3,136,130 $3,378,392 $3,623,293 $3,876,049 8) Capital Outlay 122,000 620,000 150,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 9) Net Income or Loss 117,628 124,475 122,568 127,262 129,901 137,756 150,842 10) Depreciation Add -back 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 11) End of Year Cash & Inv $3,239,087 `$3,136,130 $3,378,392 $3,623,293 $3,876,049 $4,141,892 Restricted Investments 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 Unrestricted Investments 2,939,087 2,653,563 2,836,130 3,078,392 3,323,293 3,576,049 3,841,892 W ! # ! SANITARYSEWER UTILITY FOOTNOTES: 1. Operations Personal service: The costs of full and part time labor and benefits. Contractual service: Administrative costs such as LOGIS charges, postage, insurance, administrative services, and contracted repairs. Supplies and materials: Office supplies, repair and maintenance supplies, safety equipment, degreaser, uniform cleaning. Heat, light, and power: NSP and Minnegasco charges for lift stations, etc. Depreciation expense: A method of financing fixed assets over the anticipated life of the asset. Straight -line depreciation is used, meaning the asset is depreciated in equal installments. Any new fixed asset ( such as a new lift station) is added to the total for the fixed asset category (mains and lines, structures, equipment, land, and construction in progress). Any addition or repair to an existing fixed asset that adds to the life of the asset (such as sewer line repair) is also added. MWCC charges: Charge by MWCC, based on sewage flow. 2. Billing Revenues Residential accounts: The quarterly fee is calculated by multiplying the number of accounts by the average water use of 274 gallons per day times 365 days, divided by 1000. That total flow is multiplied by the rate per 1000 gallons, for the total residential charge. That total is divided by the number of accounts, then by four for a quarterly charge. Senior accounts: Seniors may request the senior sewer rate, which is 55% of the residential rate. Accounts are assumed to increase by 25 per year. Apartment Accounts: Apartments are charged 70% of the residential rate per unit. Non - residential water: Commercial and other non - residential accounts are charged based on actual water consumption in the winter quarters. 3. Misc. Operating Revenues Revenues from other fees and charges, such as meter rentals. 4. Misc. Non - operating Revenues Revenues from other sources. 5. 1/2 Interest Earnings Restricted and unrestricted assets are invested in the City's Investment Trust Fund. Interest is earned at about eight percent per year. PROJECTED INCOME OR LOSS Operating revenues minus operating expenditures, plus 1/2 interest revenue. Numbers in parens are losses. 6. 1/2 Interest Earnings See #5 above. NET INCOME OR LOSS Projected operating income or loss, plus 1/2 interest income. A positive is a net gain in retained earnings, while a negative is a net loss to the fund. 7. Start of Year Cash & The sum of restricted and unrestricted ( "cash on hand ") assets. Investments 8. Capital Outlay The estimated cost of anticipated capital projects. 9. Net Income or Loss From above; the net operating impact on the fund. 10. Bond Debt Retired Annual bond payment. 11. Depreciation Add -back Depreciation is "added back" because it is not a true cash outlay. Because it is treated as an expense for rate - setting purposes, some capital outlay is paid for from water charges, and the outlays in excess of that are paid from cash reserves. 12. End of Year Cash & The sum of restricted and unrestricted assets, after considering #8 -11. Investments Restricted Assets: $3.7 million reserved for partial funding of a future water treatment plant. Unrestricted Assets: All non - restricted assets. "Cash on hand." EXHIBIT D 1990 Storm Drainage Utility Rate Study CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/13/9 Agenda Item Number 4 q i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: ALTERNATE FUNDING SOURCES FOR STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM COSTS (DISCUSSION ITEM) ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP, DIREQTOR OF`PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW RECOMMENDATION: /' O ':•Lai I V No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes ) The attached memorandum details the need to provide an alternative source of funds for development and implementation of a local storm water management plan. At its February 26, 1990 meeting, the Council expressed an interest in two particular mechanisms: a local watershed management special tax district, and a storm water utility. Staff Recommendation On further review of the options,, including an assessment of the administrative work load each alternative might impose, staff recommends that the Council consider establishing a storm water utility. Such a utility could provide a source of revenue that is stable and which is unlikely to be statutorily modified. Costs authorized to be paid from a storm water utility are relatively broadly defined. Council Action Required The preliminary 1991 budget assumes that the costs of development of a local storm water management plan and the City's share of the costs of managing the West Mississippi and Shingle Creek Watersheds will be funded from outside the General Fund. The Council should at this time choose an alternate source of funds and direct staff to begin the work necessary to implement that alternate. II August 9, 1990 TO: Sy Knapp FROM: Diane Spector SUBJ: Alternate Funding Sources for Storm Drainage System Costs This memorandum summarizes the history and requirements of the Surface Water Management Act, and begins to estimate the costs to Brooklyn Center of meeting those requirements. Two alternate funding sources - a special tax district and a storm water utility - are summarized. It is recommended that the City Council establish a storm water utility in 1991 to pay the costs of storm water management activities. I. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT COST REVIEW The following is a summary of four major elements of cost relating to the City's surface water management program. A. Watershed Management Commission Costs The 1982 Minnesota Legislature adopted the Surface Water Management Act (SWMA) (statutes 473.825 to 473.883), mandating that all watersheds within the seven - county metro area be governed by a watershed management organization. In 1984 Brooklyn Center entered into two joint powers agreements: ■ The Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission: includes portions of nine cities, including the westerly 2/3 of Brooklyn Center. ■ The West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission: includes portions of five cities, including the easterly 1/3 of Brooklyn Center. To comply with statutory requirements, both commissions have developed generalized plans for managing surface waters. Those plans, which recently received final approval from the Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources (BWSR), include eight management issues: 1. Runoff management 2 2. Floodplain management 3. Shoreland management 4. Water quality monitoring 5. Erosion and sedimentation control 6. Stormwater treatment 7. Wetlands management 8. Groundwater protection Each plan includes strategies addressing these issues. These strategies include projects, plans, and programs. The responsibility and level of participation of each governmental unit and the Commission are also identified in the plans. Until now, the City of Brooklyn Center has funded its apportioned share of the Watershed Commissions' costs via the general fund tax levy. The 1990 budget for these costs is $26,559. For 1991, the City's share of costs will be $36,688.50. This significant increase is due to several factors: ■ The Watershed Management Plans developed by each Commission will require some amendment. ■ There has been an increase in the number of development projects which are to be reviewed by the Commissioner's engineer. Statutes require that any development of an area exceeding five acres must be reviewed and approved by the local watershed commission. ■ There is a need to more closely review and analyze state requirements, and to communicate those requirements to the commissioners, developers, and state and local agencies. ■ A part of the cost allocation is based on the tax capacity of the area within the watershed. Because Brooklyn Center's tax capacity has increased, its assessment has increased. Both Commissions have been using 1990 fiscal year reserves to fund the additional 1990 activities. The 1991 apportionment not only reflects these increased costs but also the reduction in reserves. B. Capital Project Costs The current Watershed Management plans include only minor capital improvement projects, including the Twin Lakes outlet modification project. However, additional projects will need to be undertaken, both by the Commissions and by the City, to meet the newly adopted regulations and standards, particularly relating to water quality improvements. Of special concern to Brooklyn Center is the water quality in the Palmer Lake Basin, in Shingle Creek, and in the Twin Lakes. At this time it is not possible to predict these costs. However, they must be expected to be substantial. i 3 C. Routine Storm Water System Maintenance The City routinely incurs costs for maintenance of its storm water system. This includes storm sewer and ditch cleaning and repair and street sweeping. The estimated annual cost for these activities is $150,000. Because storm drainage facilities are aging, and because additional street sweeping will probably be required to meet water quality standards, it is very likely that these costs will more than double within the next five years. D. "Local Plan" Development In addition to requiring development of comprehensive watershed management plans by the Watershed Commissions, the SWMA also requires each city to follow up with the development of a "Local Plan" for storm water management. This step must be completed within the next three years, by early 1993. A minimal local plan which would meet statutory requirements could probably be developed at a cost of $25,000 to $50,000. However, it should be recognized that, while Brooklyn Center may be described as being "fully storm sewered," it must also be noted that many areas of the City are served with storm drainage systems which are best described as "skeletal" or "minimal." A number of areas of the city are served by undersized drainage systems. Accordingly, rather than conducting a minimal study to satisfy only the statutory requirements for a "local plan," it is recommended that a comprehensive study be undertaken to systematically review the City's entire storm drainage system. This plan would incorporate the elements of storm water management which are required by law and would be consistent with the comprehensive plans developed by the Watershed Commissions. As will be discussed below, a comprehensive, systematic plan is necessary to take full advantage of the alternate funding sources allowed by law. A minimal plan would not provide the City with the level of documentation necessary to be able to fund outside the tax levy the variety of construction and maintenance activities which are or will be required. Without a detailed plan which would review all aspects of surface water management, the City could not use one of these alternate funding mechanisms to, for example, pay the costs of constructing storm sewers in the alleys which were repaved in 1989. Without a comprehensive plan, these types of funds could not be used to pay a share of the cost of routinely upgrading storm sewers during future improvement projects. It is estimated that such a study would cost between $100,000 and $200,000. It is recommended that $75,000 be "adopted" for 1991 to allow for initiation of that study in 1991, with completion in 1992 or 1993. II. FUNDING ALTERNATIVES FOR THE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Nearly all costs related to surface water management are now charged to the General Fund and funded via the City's ad valorem tax levy. 4 Statutory authority exists for several other types of mechanisms for funding these management activities. The City Council reviewed those options at its February 26, 1990 meeting, and expressed an interest in pursuing either or both a watershed management special tax district or a storm water utility. Following is a brief summary of those two funding options: Option A: Watershed Management Tax District Section 473.882 (1), Minnesota Statutes, enables local governments to establish _ a watershed management tax district to pay the costs of: developing a storm water management plan, making the capital improvements detailed in the plan, and maintaining the facilities described in the plan. This district must be established by ordinance. This special tax levy was, prior to the 1989 legislative special tax session, outside the levy limits. However, it is for 1991 to be included within the levy limitations. If the City were to levy $75,000 to begin work on the local management plan plus $36,688.50 for the Watershed District apportionments, the total 1991 levy would be $111,688.50. The additional cost in 1991 to the owner of a home appraised at $80,000 would be about $5.12. While this special tax district has the advantage of being easy to administer, it is not a stable source of revenue. Any tax can potentially be modified or eliminated, and this levy is no exception. Until this special session, this levy was a useful mechanism for funding these types of costs. Legislation can at any time impose additional administrative requirements which could prove burdensome. Finally, statutory changes could be made to change what types of costs could be funded by such a tax, which might make it a less flexible mechanism. Option B: Storm Water Utility The City Council may establish a storm water utility, under the same statute which authorizes water and sewer utilities. The City may build, maintain, and operate storm sewer systems using revenue raised through user charges and /or special assessments. There is only one limitation on the use of such monies. After adoption of a local storm water management plan, utility monies may not be used to construct improvements which are not consistent with that plan, nor to operate or maintain those facilities. Utility funds may be used to operate or maintain facilities which were constructed prior to adoption of the plan but which are inconsistent with the plan. Statute requires that user charges be proportionate to the cost of furnishing the service, or some other equitable basis. A number of communities have established a storm water utility, and are using the Roseville model for apportioning charges. The table below uses this model and is an example of the range of charges and the amount of revenue which could be raised using a residential rate of $4.35 per quarter. Actual charges would be based on the need for operating revenue and the amount needed to establish a capital projects reserve fund. 5 Preliminary Estimate of Area By Land Use Estimate of Annual Revenue Using Representative Quarterly Charges Quarterly Total Average Average Area Area Charge Annual Total Area Quarterly Land Use Class (sf) (acre) Per Acre Revenue Parcels (Acres) Charge ---- --- -------- ----- - - ---- --- ------ -- ----- --- - --- - -- ----- ---- ----- -- ---- - -- ------------------------------- Cemetery 1 392,000 8.999 $3.25 $116.99 1 8.999 $29.25 Golf Course 1 763,780 17.534 3.25 227.94 12 1.461 4.75 Parks 2 15,598,946 358.103 9.75 13,966.00 38 9.424 91.88 Single /Double Family 3 82,993,994 1,905.280 4.35 /lot 128,272.80 7372 0.258 4.35 Schools 4 4,405,089 101.127 16.25 6,573.25 7 14.447 234.76 Multiple Family 5 10,302,532 236.514 32.50 30,746.77 773 0.306 9.94 Churches 5 2,695,201 61.873 32.50 8,043.53 27 2.292 74.48 Govt Bldgs & Comm Ctr 5 3,469,635 79.652 32.50 10,354.74 16 4.978 161.79 Commercial 6 10,593,925 243.203 65.00 63,232.79 128 1.900 123.50 Industrial 6 9,903,663 227.357 65.00 59,112.77 63 3.609 234.57 Vacant 7 0.000 As assigned SngL /Dbl Family 1,549,104 35.563 4.35 /lot 378.45 87 0.409 4.35 Multiple Family 2,271,732 52.152 9.75 2,033.92 44 1.185 11.56 Commercial 2,333,785 53.576 9.75 2,089.48 25 2.143 20.89 Industrial 3,492,048 80.166 9.75 3,126.49 24 3.340 32.57 Open Space 47,700 1.095 9.75 42.71 2 0.548 5.34 ---- ------ --------- - --- - -- -- ------ - - - --- --- -- -- -- - -- -- ---- -- TOTAL 150,813,134 3,462.193 $328,318.63 8,619 $9.52 Less vacant land 9,694,369 222.552 7,671.04 182 -- ---- ---- ---- ----- - --- - -- ------------------------ 141,118,765 3,239.641 $320,647.58 8,437 $9.50 --------------- - -- - -- NOTE: Initial summary based on estimate of area of various Land use types. An advantage of the storm water utility approach is that it is unlikely to be statutorily modified, and is thus a more stable source of revenue. It is somewhat more administratively burdensome, with additional accounting and review required. However, because other LOGIS cities have adopted such a utility, LOGIS already has the ability to include it on the utility bill. It can be implemented in Brooklyn Center with only minimal additional programming. III. SUMMARY It is clear that the City will be required to incur additional future costs to manage storm water activities. Given general fund tax levy constraints, we must find alternate sources of revenue. Other metro area cities have implemented storm water utilities, and have found them to be a satisfactory method of financing. Staff from other cities have noted that a utility is an option that they will consider seriously in the immediate future. It is my recommendation that the Council consider establishing this utility, and that its development coincide with the 1990 public utility rate study. Respectfully submitted, iane Spector `" EXHIBIT E 12 -Year Capital Equipment Replacement Program a w 12 YEAR CAPITAL OUTLAY SCHEDULE Page _of _ VEHICLE AND MAJOR MOTORIZED EQUIPMENT FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 03- Jun -91 :vahl2cap MODE UNIT YEAR DESCRIPTION 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 STREET MAINTENANCE 11 1981 FORD TANDEM DUMP REHAB UNITI 50,000 14 1990 FORD F800 DUMP 21 1990 FORD F700 DUMP 30,000 28 1980 ELGIN MECHANICAL SWEEPER 65,000 34 1991 DODGE 3/4 TON PICKUP 42 1986 FORD F800 FLAT BED /SANDER 50,000 43 1986 GMC /ELGIN VACUUM SWEEPER 150.000 52 1991 INTERNATIONAL 43,000 53 1978 FORD LOUISVILLE WATER TRUCK 7,000 REHAB UNI 68 19871 CHEV CREW CAB 79 1974 INT AERIAL BUCKET 75,000 86 1991 FORD TANDEM DUMP 50 65 1989 TRACKLESS SIDEWALK PLOW 55,000 66 1983 TRACKLESS SIDEWALK PLOW 50,000 72 1983 TRACKLESS SIDEWALK PLOW 51,000 89 1990 FORD F800 DUMP 50,000 90 1988 FORD F800 DUMP 45,000 91 1985 FORD F800 DUMP 45,000 92 1985 FORD F800 DUMP 46,000 93 1987 FORD F800 DUMP 43,000 94 1987 FORD F800 DUMP 45,000 12 YEAR CAPITAL OUTLAY SCHEDULE Page _ of _ VEHICLE AND MAJOR MOTORIZED EQUIPMENT FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 03— Jun-91 :vohl2cap MODE UNIT YEAR DESCRIPTION 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 PARK MAINTENANCE 116 1987 CHEV S -19 PICKUP 10,000 200 1980 FORD RANGER PICKUP 10,000 11,500 203 1990 INTERNATIONAL TRACTOR 206 1990 JEEP 3/4 TON J20 PICKUP 202 1990 FORD F350 DUMP 209 1988 FORD H.D. TRACTOR 251 1985 CHEVROLETVAN 13,500 SIGN SHOP 46 1989 MB PAINT STRIPER 40,000 40,000 639 1983 FORD 1 TON SIGN BOX 35,000 PUBLIC UTILITY 601 1988 CHEVROLETS-10 10,000 642 1989 CHEV 3/4 TON UTILITY BOX 13,000 604 1983 FORD C700 SEWER JET 130,000 623 1984 FORD RANGER PICKUP 10,000 11,500 641 1990 FORD RANGER 12,000 644 1 19891 F350 FORD UTILITY BOX 30,000 UNLICENSED 10 1965 1 TON ROLLER 12 1968 CAT MOTOR GRADER 13 1979 CAT 930 LOADER 75,000 15 1988 CAT 9508 LOADER 18 1975 BROS RUBBER TIRED ROLLER 49 1975 FORD BACWOE 50, _45__ __1973 ` WESTERN_ SNOW BLOWER_ 45,OQ0 1 ,_ TOTALS 85,000 193,500 60,000 51,000 260,000 196,000 229,500 56,500 100,000 40,000 102,000 123,000 r Debt Planning Study i for the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota June 19, 1991 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa e s CATEGORIES OF DEBT General Obligation Debt ............................................................................ ............................... 1 ImprovementDebt ...................................................................................... ............................... 1 TaxIncrement Debt ............................ ............................... Future Tax Increment Districts ................................................................... ............................... 2 State -Aid Road Debt ............. .................................................... .................. ............................... 3 General Factors Considered When Entering the Bond Market 3-4 CITY INDEBTEDNESS General Obligation Bonds Subject to Legal Debt Limit ............................ 4 - j Special Assessment Improvement Bonds ................................................ ............................... 4 -5 State -Aid Road Bonds ................................................................................ ...........................:... 5 z Tax Increment Bonds ................................................................................. ............................... 5-6 Potential Refundings & Bond Calls ........................................................... ............................... 6-7 a GENERAL FUND DEBT PROJECTIONS ................................................ ............................... 7-8 DEBTSTATISTICS .................................................................................... ............................... 8 CONCLUSION City Indebtedness as of June 2, 1991 .................. ............................... ........................ EXHIBIT Moody's Municipal Credit Report .................................................. ............................... EXHIBIT II Debt Capacity Projection ............................................................... ............................... EXHIBIT III Current & Projected Debt Service Levies by Issue ...................... ............................... EXHIBIT IV Key Credit Factors .......................................................................... ............................... EXHIBIT V RefundingAnalysis ......................................................................... ............................... EXHIBIT VI t f CATEGORIES OF DEBT General Obligation Debt The City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, is a statutory City and therefore subject to debt limitations as set forth in Minnesota Statutes. Chapter 475, Minnesota Statutes, is the overall bond code which states that municipalities may incur net debt equal to 2% of estimated market value. The City's gross bonding capacity is computed as follows: 1990/91 Estimated Market Value $1,045,593,500 y Allowable Percentage X 2% Gross Bonding Capacity (Legal Debt Limit) $ 20,911,870 There are certain types of issues which are not subject to the debt limit. Those issues include, 4 but are not limited to; improvement bonds; obligations payable wholly from income producing enterprises; obligations issued for the acquisition and betterment of public works systems, and public lighting, heating or power system, and any combination thereof, or for any other public convenience from which a revenue is or may be derived; other obligations which under the 'le provision of law authorizing their issuance are not to be included (see Exhibit 1). Generally speaking, those bonds which are wholly supported from tax levies are included. Issues supported by assessments, tax increment, water or sewer utility revenue, or state -aid allocations are not included. Improvement Debt The City has issued its general obligation improvement bonds pursuant to Chapter 429, Minnesota Statutes. While these bonds have the full faith and credit and unlimited taxing power of the City pledged for security, the prime source of revenue to retire the debt comes from special assessments against benefited property. These bonds do not count against the City's debt limit. i i -1 - Tax Increment Debt The City has undertaken a number of tax increment projects pursuant to Chapter 469, Minnesota Statutes. The costs associated with these projects will be paid from increment income generated from the various districts in the City. As you are aware, increment income is generated by the differential between the original value of each district and the new value of completed projects. All taxing jurisdictions have the authority to receive the taxes payable on the original value. Generally, all taxes received on the value greater than the original value will be received by the City to pay eligible costs incurred pursuant to the various Tax Increment Financing Plans and to retire debt issued pursuant to those various plans. Future Tax Increment Districts In 1990 the Legislature enacted various restrictions to tax increment financing. The vast majority of the legislation impacts districts created after April 30, 1990. The legislation placed severe restrictions on pooling and use of administrative expenses, shortened the duration for redevelopment districts, established a shorter duration for renovation districts, and set more l stringent requirements for establishing various types of districts. 4 The legislation also impacted economic development districts by limiting expenditures to projects involving manufacturing, warehousing, telecommunications and, outside the seven - county metropolitan area, tourism. These districts may no longer be used to support commercial or retail type projects. In addition to the restrictions on types and uses of districts, the Legislature imposed a monetary adjustment to future increment income. The premise for this reduction lies with the determination by the Legislature that State -aid to school districts would be drastically reduced if it weren't for tax increment financing. Therefore, the cost of aid will be based on the aids payable to a school district based on original value compared to what the aid would have been if the captured value were included in the school district's levy base. The differential is the cost of aid and the City will lose up to this amount in the LGA/HACA payments by the State. This loss only involves financing districts created after April 30, 1990 and does not effect your current districts. It is our understanding that Brooklyn Center in conjunction with other t communities is working to enact modification to current laws. i -2- State -Aid Road Debt The City is contemplating issuing State -aid road bonds pursuant to Chapter 162, Minnesota Statutes for the purpose of construction and improvement to State -aid designated streets in the City. The debt service is paid from annual allocations received from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. General Factors Considered When Entering the Bond Market i When contemplating the issuance of bonds, the City should examine several factors to determine if this is the most opportune time to enter the bond market. The first and the most basic factor is, "Is the project necessary? Are these improvements being done at the right time ?" Brooklyn Center has done an excellent job of examining what projects need to get accomplished and setting up a time table for it through the CIP. Once the City has decided to issue bonds for a project there are three more things to consider; S market rates, arbitrage, and bank qualification. It is a good idea to get a feel for the market by looking at the trend of the BBI. Since it usually takes several months to bring an issue to sale, it is wise to know where the market have been and where it might be headed. Another factor to consider is arbitrage rebate reporting requirements of the 1986 Tax Reform Act and the 1989 amendments to the Act. All arbitrage profits (the yield difference between the earnings on the investments and the yield on the bonds) must be rebated to the Treasury. One exception is for municipalities issuing less than $5 million of tax- exempt obligations in a calendar year. A second exception is to expend the proceeds accordingly: 10% within six months, 45% within 12 months, 75% within 18 months, and 100% within 24 months. This option can only be utilized if 75% of the proceeds of an issue are to be used for construction expenditure. The City will use this later exemption for the MSA Bonds being currently sold. Under the Tax Reform Act financial institutions (Banks) are generally not entitled to deduct 80% of the interest expense allocable to tax- exempt obligations, therefore making municipal banks less attractive as investments. There is an exemption to this for issuers of less than $10 million of tax- exempt bonds during a calendar year. The effect of this is that the bonds are more attractive to financial institutions and therefore they are more likely to buy them, resulting in increased demand. This currently has the effect of approximately 10 - 15 basis points on the interest rates received on the bonds. -3- 1 In both cases if the issuer reasonably expects to issue over $5 million for rebate or $10 million for bank qualification in a calendar year, then it might be wise to look at downsizing the issue to meet the qualification or delay issuance of the bonds until the next calendar year. CITY INDEBTEDNESS i General Obligation Bonds Subject to Legal Debt Limit 3 The City has a total of $610,000 of debt outstanding as of June 2, 1991 subject to the legal debt limitation. The Park Bonds of 1980 is the only issue strictly covered by taxes. As noted earlier, the City's legal debt limit is 2% of taxable market value. Based on data received from Hennepin County, the City's 1990/91 taxable market value of real and personal F property is $1,045,593,500. The legal debt limit, therefore, is $20,911,870. The City is currently using only 2.917% of this capacity. This low utilization leaves the City with a substantial latitude to finance various projects. The final maturity for all debt in this category is 1993. i The debt service for these obligations is provided from ad valorem taxes. Taxes certified for t collection are used to pay all debt service in the following calendar year. As an example, taxes certified in 1990 to be collected in 1991 will be used to pay interest on the Park Bonds on August 1, 1991 and the principal and interest payable on those obligations on February 1, 1992. The interest due August 1 will be payable from the first -half collections of taxes. The surplus funds together with investment earnings as well as the second -half collection of taxes will be on hand prior to the February 1, 1992 principal and interest payment date. This sequence permits the City to earn investment dollars rather than using available cash and thus experience a loss of investment potential. Special Assessment Improvement Bonds I These bonds are issued pursuant to Chapter 429, Minnesota Statutes. The bonds have the full faith and credit and unlimited taxing authority of the City pledged as security for the debt. -4- - However, the primary source of payment is received from special assessments against benefited property. y The City currently has one improvement bond issue outstanding totaling $530,000. The original term of the issue was ten years and the final maturity is scheduled for February 1, 1997. As noted earlier, these bonds are not subject to the statutory legal debt limit as they are a supported, at least in part, by special assessments. These bonds may be authorized by the Council providing that at least 20% of project costs are assessed against benefited property. The portions not assessed are generally paid from property tax levies or other available funds = of the City. State -Aid Road Bonds E The City has paid off its 1970 State -Aid Road Bonds as of March 1, 1991. In August, 1991 the City is contemplating selling a $3,000,000 new issue of State -Aid Road Bonds. These bonds are authorized pursuant to Chapter 162, Minnesota Statutes and debt service is paid from annual allocations from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MDOT). j t Cities in Minnesota may issue these bonds pursuant to a resolution of the Council providing it has projects associated with designated State -aid roads. The bonds may be issued in an amount such that the average annual debt service may not exceed 50% of the last allotment from the construction account in the municipal State -aid road fund. In 1991, the City will receive a total allotment of $861,771 of which $31,950 is for maintenance. Therefore, the 1991 allotment for construction is $829,821. Assuming an average annual debt service requirement of $414,910 (50% of the 1991 construction allotment) the City could issue approximately r $3.9 million of additional bonds amortized over a 15 -year period of time, although the City chose to issue only $3 million. For such bonds, principal is paid from the construction account and interest is paid from the maintenance account. Up to 25% of the total allotment may be '- designated for the maintenance account. Tax Increment Bonds o The City has outstanding $11,775,000 of general obligation tax increment bonds. This debt funded eligible project costs in Tax Increment District No. 1 and No. 2. -5- 3 The expenditure of tax increment funds is governed by Chapter 469, Minnesota Statutes as well as the various tax increment financing plans Cit adopted by the Ci . Increment income is P generated from taxes paid on improved property within a special district and represents the ! differential between the taxes paid on the original value of the property in the District and the taxes paid on the new value. All taxing jurisdictions receive their proportional share of taxes on the original value. However, the taxes on the value (tax increment) above the original value are received only by the City (HRA/EDA) to be used only to pay eligible project expenses. 3 For taxes payable in 1991, the City has a total of $1,317,997 of captured tax capacity after the $300,000 abatement. The preliminary tax capacity rate for property located in the City for taxes payable in 1991 is 103.940 %. This means that the City would receive a total of $1,369,926 in increment income this year if the tax capacity rate is not frozen at a lower level. The 1992 annual debt service for the TIF bonds is $1,231,687.50. As a general practice throughout the State, each tax increment district should be wholly self supporting. Upon occasion, increment income generated in one financing district is used to pay some of the costs of another financing district. This pooling of funds permits marginal projects to proceed assuming reliance on healthier districts. Based on the projected increment income and the amount of debt outstanding, it appears the j City will receive more than sufficient revenue to retire the debt. Surplus increment may be used to pay eligible costs pursuant to an adopted financing plan; to pay debt service; to accumulate a reserve to prepay debt; or to prepay debt. Increment not used for these purposes must be returned to the County for redistribution to other taxing jurisdictions. Potential Refundings & Bond Calls A refunding is best described as the replacement of old (refunded) debt service with new 1 (refunding) bonds. This usually results in debt service savings to the issuer, since the new bonds often have lower interest rates than the old outstanding bonds. We have looked at several outstanding bond issues of the City, and two standout as possible refunding candidates. The 1983 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds can be called on 2/1/92. The City intends to call the issue and pay for it with funds on hand. Approximately i� $609,568 will be needed. I -6- 3 The other issue that has potential is the 1985A General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds. The most recent analysis produces total net savings of $183,000 and when the time value of money is considered the savings is $104,000. Exhibit VI summarizes the important information concerning the refunding. This refunding would be done as a crossover. In a crossover refunding, the proceeds of the refunding (new issue) bonds are placed in an escrow account with a major bank and invested in government securities. These securities and their earnings are structured to pay debt service on the new bonds until the call date of the refunded (old issue) bonds, at which time the escrow account will "crossover". and pay the remaining principal of and original issue by calling in all of those remaining bonds. The Issuer will continue to pay debt service on the original issue until the call date. The Issuer will then "crossover" following the call date of original issue and begin paying debt service on the new issue. GENERAL FUND DEBT PROJECTIONS 3 } r The current outstanding debt for the City is summarized in Exhibit III. The total amount outstanding peaks in 1992, with the last payment occurring in 1997. The City has indicated that there are two possible bond issues in the future, an issue in 1993 for Public Building I Projects, and a second issue in 1996 for Park Improvements. As mentioned earlier, the current level of debt capacity used is 2.917%. With the addition of the two proposed issues the debt capacity used increases to 11.285% in 1996 (Exhibit IV). j j Exhibit III contains a debt capacity projection through the year 2008. Included in the exhibit are debt schedules for two projected bond issues identified in the Capital Improvement Program for proposed future projects. With the addition of these bond issues the total debt service still remains below the peak in 1992 of $503,000. Assuming the City would be able to make annual - debt service payments of $500,000, the City can support additional bonding amounts ranging from $830,000 to a total of $3,590,000. The tax impact of the two additional issues is provided in Exhibit IV. Based on the combined j projected debt service levies for each issue, we have calculated the required tax capacity rate for each year. This calculation is the ratio of annual debt service to the Taxable Net Tax Capacity for 1990/1991. Since the tax capacity rate for 1992 is larger than in any other year, this rate of 2.15% was used to calculate the tax impact. The actual impact on residential and t -7- commercial property taxes ranges from $10 to $28 for residential values and $69 to $1,027 for i commercial values. DEBT STATISTICS The City is currently rated Al by Moody's Investors Service, Inc. of New York. This is a high 9 quality rating and permits financing institutions to bid on your obligations without performing an 1 extensive internal review. It also qualifies your obligations for automatic purchase by trust f accounts. The rating takes into consideration valuation, population, debt levels, sources of revenue other than taxes, and the general economy of the community. Moody's does not publish specific levels of ratios and statistics it uses in arriving at its rating of a community. They do publish national ranges which are beneficial for internal analysis. t Exhibit V summarizes of most of the data Moody's will review in their analysis. We have also provided a comparative summary of your statistics to other similar communities in the metro area. CONCLUSION Although this debt study analyzes the impact of the City's upcoming tax and assessment - 1 supported bond issues on the City tax base, it should also be noted that the City has plans to issue State -aid road bonds this year. This issue is expected to be paid from annual allocations received from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Therefore, issuance of these bonds is not expected to increase the City's debt levies or impact the City's tax capacity rates. We have looked at several of the City's outstanding bond issues and recommend that the City consider refunding one issue in early next year. This recommendation is based on current rates as of this writing. If the rates were to increase there is the possibility that this refunding would be delayed until rates come down. -8 As the City approaches major building projects which must be undertaken in the next several years, we feel it is well - positioned to support the additional new debt. The City should not only be able to absorb additional debt, but also be able to maintain a very favorable debt position. The City's strong Al credit rating is ample proof of the City's solid track record for well - planned debt management and its focus on the current and future ability of its residents to support its infrastructure needs. t i s -9- EXHIBIT CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA j CITY INDEBTEDNESS AS OF JUNE 2,1991 1990 Indicated Market Value of Taxable Property: $1,137,751,360* t * Calculated by dividing the county assessor's estimated market value of $1,045,593,500 by the 1989 sales ratio of 91.9% for the City as determined by the State Department of Revenue. 1990 Taxable Net Tax Capacity: $24,577,373 r 1990 Net Tax Capacity $27,793,721 Less: Captured Tax Increment Tax Capacity (1,617,997) Contribution to Fiscal Disparities (5,344,200) Plus: Distribution from Fiscal Disparities 3,745,849 1990 Taxable Net Tax Capacity $24,577,373 Legal Debt Limit Legal Debt Limit (2% of Estimated Market Value) $20,911,870 Less: Outstanding Debt Subject to Limit (610,000) f Legal Debt Margin as of June 2, 1991 $20,301,870 10 General Obligation Debt Supported by Taxes s Principal Date Original Final Outstanding of Issue Amount Purpose Maturi As of 6 -2 -91 9 -01 -80 $1,500,000 Park 2 -01 -1993 $610,000* * This issue is subject to the statutory debt limit. General Obligation Debt Supported Primarily by Special Assessments - Principal Date Original Final Outstanding of Issue Amount Purpose Maturi As of 6 -2 -91 3 -01 -87 1,200,000 Refunding 2 -01 -1997 $530,000 i Pagel of 4 ; General Obligation Debt Supported by Tax Increments Principal Date Original Final Outstanding of Issue Amount Purpose Maturi As of 6 -2 -91 10-01 -83 $ 930,000 Tax Increment 2 -01 -1997 $ 585,000 12 -01 -85 5,250,000 Tax Increment 2 -06 -2003 5,140,000 3 -01 -91 6,050,000 Tax Increment 2-06 -2004 6,050.000 Total $11,775,000 Revenue Debt Principal Date Original Final Outstanding of Issue Amount Purpose Maturi As of 6 -2 -91 7 -01-63 $1,000,000 Public Utility 1 -01 -1993 $90,000 Annual Calendar Year Debt Service Payments G.O. Debt Supported G.O. Debt Supported Primarily by by Taxes Special Assessments Principal Principal Year Principal & Interest Principal & Interest 1991 (at 6 -2) (Paid) $ 23,030.00 (Paid) $ 13,333.75 I 1992 $300,000 334,810.00 $145,000 168,260.00 1993 310,000 321,780.00 110,000 127,157.50 1994 100,000 111,912.50 1995 85,000 92,131.25 1996 50,000 53,550.00 1997 40,000 41,100.00 $610,000 $679,620.00 $530,000 $607,445.00 Page 2 of 4 } 2 G.O. Debt Supported by Tax Increments Revenue Debt -- Principal Principal Year Principal & Interest Principal & Interest 1991 (at 6 -2) (Paid) $ 368,937.50 (Paid) $ 1,775.00 1992 $ 450,000 1,231,687.50 $ 45,000.00 47,632.50 1993 590,000 1, 341, 032.50 45, 000.00 45, 877.50 1994 635,000 1,348,935.00 1995 690,000 1,362,095.00 1996 795,000 1,418,241.25 1997 795,000 1,364,712.50 1998 805,000 1,320,355.00 1999 910,000 1,366,070.00 2000 995,000 1,383,870.00 3 2001 1,115,000 1,428,332.50 2002 1,220,000 1,448,247.50 2003 1,350,000 1,484,400.00 2004 1,425,000 1,467,750.00 } $11,775,000 $18,334,666.25 $90,000.00 $95,285.00 * 56.9% of this debt will be retired within 10 years. Summary of Direct Debt Gross Less: Debt Net Debt Service Funds(a) Direct Debt G.O. Debt Supported by Taxes $ 610,000 $ (431,186) $ 458,814 G.O. Debt Supported by Assessments 530,000 (2,765,555) 0 G.O. Debt Supported by Tax Increments 11,775,000 (1,067,458) 10,707,542 Revenue Debt 90,000 (b) 90,000 (a) Debt service funds are as of December 31, 1990 and include money to pay both principal and interest. (b) Paid from revenues of various enterprise funds. f t t i p � P Page 3of4 Indirect General Obligation Debt Debt Applicable to 1990 Taxable G.O. Debt Value in City - Taxing Unit Net Tax Capacity As of 3- 2 -90(b) Percent Amount Hennepin County $1,065,234,355 $88,980,000 2.31% $ 2,055,438 ISD 11 (Anoka- Hennepin) 88,841,559(e) 48,008,635 2.66 1,277,030 ISD 279 (Osseo) 70,114,371 66,290,000 7.93 5,256,797 ISD 281 (Robbinsdale) 79,217,791 1,605,000 9.81 157,450 Hennepin County Technical - College 686,906,602 210,000(c) 3.58 7,518 } Hennepin Parks 734,425,886 5,325,000 3.35 178,387 Metropolitan Council 1,942,345,918(e) 45,560,000(d) 1.27 578,612 - Regional Transit District 1,793,884,648(e) 54,010,000 1.42 766,942 Total $10,278,174 A (a) Only those taxing units with debt outstanding are shown here. (b) Excludes general obligation tax and aid anticipation debt and revenue debt. (c) This represents only 30% of the District's $13,000,000 outstanding General Obligation f School Building Obligations of 1971 since State and federal aids pay 70 - 80% of the debt service. (d) The Metropolitan Council also has outstanding $401,066,000 of general obligation sanitary sewer bonds and loans which are supported by system revenues. (e) Represents 1989 taxable net tax capacity since 1990 values are not yet available. Debt Ratios Including G.O. Net G.O. Indirect & Direct Debt Net Direct Debt To 1990 Indicated Market Value 1.0% 1.9% Per Capita (28,887 -1990 Census) $391 $738 * Excludes general obligation debt supported by other sources and revenue debt. t t AD Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT II Mood 's Credit Report y Brooklyn Center, Minnesota February 7, 1991 New issue General Obligation/Special Tax sale: S6,050,(XX) General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1991 A date: For bids February I 1 Molds rating: Al opinion: Proximity to a broad area economy, a diverse tax vide above average security for the city's moderate + base and strong financial operations combine to pro- level of debt. key facts: General Obligation Bonds Population Change, Outstanding: S 12,915,000 1970 -80: -11.2% Debt Burdett: 2.2 % 1980 -90: -7.5 Payout, Ten Years: 69.1 Per Capita Income, 1987: S12,772 Tax Base Composition, 1990, As % of State: 1()4.0 CommcrcialMdustrial: (D 57.8% Growth, 1979 -87: 48.0% Residential: 41.8% Unemployment Rate, 1989: 3.5 Average Annual Growth, F.V., 11/90: 2.9°I1 1986 -90: 4 Unreserved General Fund Balance F. V. per Capita: $39,386 as % of Revenues, 1989: 58.3°I, analysts: Brooklyn Center's economy continues to be driven The current borrowing is *die city's first new money by its location northwest of and adjacent to the City offering since 1985, and completes financing for a of Minneapolis. The local unemployment rate has recent! completed tax increment project Y P P l� begun at g historical! been low, and r capita in come y co a rs mod - that time. The project, Fe P F 1 t. known as the Earle Brown estly above average for the state, though income Heritage Center, involved the restoration and conver- growth has recently been sluggish. The city is an sion of historic farm buildings for use as a multi - older suburb, having een settled primarily in the g p y � purpose facility, including a convention center. The 1950s and 1960s, and has experienced a declining captured value of existing development within the tax population in the last two decades. The city's tax increment district is expected to be sufficient to pay base is quite diverse, including a large, long- estab- debt service on the outstanding and current issue. lishcd retail sector. While the city is virtually fully While no additional projects within the district are developed, the tax base continues to show moderate not currently scheduled, officials expect further 3 growth, rellrcting ongoing redevelopment activity. development in future years. The city's debt levels Y 2 General Obligation/Special Tax February 7, 1991 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota are moderate, and future borrowing plans scc;in funds. A drawdown of the General Fund balance In manageable. 1989 reflected a one -time charge due to an account- 'Me city's financial operations continue to be well- ing change. Officials report that 1990 operations maintained, as demonstrated by annual operating resulted in a fund balance increase of approximately results which typically are better than budgeted. The 10 %, representing a more than 5400,000 improve- city maintains sizable reserves in its major operating ment over budgeted operations. detalls of bond Legal Name of Issuer: City of Brooklyn Center, Interest Payable: Semiannually, commencing sale: Minnesota. Autust 1, 1991. Security: G.O., ULT; tax increment income also Call Features: Beginning February 1, 2000 at par. pledged. Registrar: To be determined Date of Bonds: March 1, 1991. Paying Agent: To be determined. Denomination: 55,000. Delivery: Within 40 days following award. Annual Maturities 2/1 ($ 000) Bond Counsel: Holmes & Graven, Minneapolis. Year Amount Year Amount Financial Officer: Paul W. Holmiund; Director of 1992 S 250 2001 -02 S 425 Finance. 1993 -95 350 2003 550 Advisors: Springsted, Inc., St. Paul. r� 1996 -98 375 2004 1,425 1 1999 -2000 400 Auditor: Deloittc & Touche, Minneapolis Interest Rate: To be determined. (FY 1989). Average Life of Issue: 8.35 years. rating history: August 1980: Al October 1964: Bas October 1976: A October 1960: Ba March 1973: Baal December 1955: Baer analyst: Dov A. iskowitz (212) 553 -7936 information heroin has been obtained f sou Lobe accurate and reliable. but because of the ssnbilit of human and mechanical error its accurac or coon not � from ices believed Po Y Y co is n P guaranteed. Moody's ratings ate opinions, not recommendations to buy or sell. and their accuracy is not guaranteed. A rating should be weighed solely as one factor in an investment demston. and you should nuke your own study and evaluation of any issuer whose secunues or debt obligations you consider buying or selling. Most issuers of corporate bonds. municipal bonds and - notes, preferred stock, and commercial paper which are rated by Moody's Investors S xvtce, Inc. have, prior to receiving the swig, agreed to pay a fee to Moody's for the appraisal and rating services. the fee ranges from 51,000 to S 125,000. Copynght 0 1991 by Moody's Investors Service, Inc. Publishing and exccuuve offices at 99 Church Street, New York, NY 1(017 3 General Obilgatlon/Speeiai Tax February 7, 1991 3 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota debt factors: Debt Statement as of 3/1/91 ($ 000) Amount Bonded debt outstanding 56,955 Current offering (2/11/91) 6,050 Gross bonded and direct debt 513,005 Less: Revenue bonds 90 Direct net debt S12,915 Overlapping debt 11,582 Overall net debt S24,497 For additional information please refer to Moody's 1990 Municipal and Government Manual, page 3142. 1 Security: G.O., ULT. Defaults: No record found. Debt Ratios Rate of Retirement Net Per % Median Principal Amount % of Debt Capita Median (D F.V. (%) 0 Amount Due ($ 000) Total Direct $447 5567 1.1 1.3 In 5 years $4,260 33.0 Overall 848 965 2.2 2.7 In 10 years 8,920 69.1 M Cities with population 25.000 to 49,999. Use of Proceeds: To finance public costs associ- CiP /Future Borrowing: Approximately $5 million ated with the renovation of a country estate into a general obligation state aid road bonds may be convention and exhibit complex. offered late 1991 or early 1992. Equipment certifi- Structure: This issue wraps around existing debt, rates of $700,000 to be financed internally. resulting in level debt service requirements. Final maturity of all bonded debt in February 1, 2004. administrative Form of Government: Council - manager. Mayor Public Employees: 143 full -time and 261 pan -time. factors: and four council members elected to overlapping Pension plans administered by PERA. four -year terms. Appointed city manager and director Leglslatlon /Referenddlltlgation: None reported. of finance. property Brooklyn Center valuation and Levy/ tax data: -, Collection Full Valuation % Taxable Tax Rate Levy Collected Year (000) Change Value (000) iD (9'0) (000) First Year 1988/89 51,098,297 7.1 29,751 14.26 54,295 98.5 1989/90 1,089,573 -0.8 23,944 17.48 5,141 96.9 1990/91 1,137,751 4.4 24,577 NA 5,770 In proc:cs, ID Year to year changes not meaningful due to changing valuation rauos. 4 General Obil 9 ation/Speclai Tax February 7, 1991 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota t 1990 Full Valuation: $1,137,751,360 Average Annual Growth F.V., 1986 -90: 4.8% 1989 Equalization Rate: 91.9% 1990 F.V. per Capita: S39,386 1989 A.V. ($ Largest Taxpayers Business 000) I] General Growth Company, Inc. Brookdale Mall S1,784 Brookdale Two and Brookdale Three Limited Partners Office 909 3 Commercial Partners Brookdale Square Shopping Center 551 Sears Roebuck and Company Retail 4.38 Cigna Real Estate Funds Office buildings 430 Plaza Realty Hotel /motel 399 M 1990 values not yet available. eeonorNe Population: Brooklyn Center Locatlon: Northern suburb of Minneapolis within 1 factors: % Hennepin County. Mississippi River forms castcm Year Population Change boundary. 1970 35,173 44.4 Area: 8.5 square miles 1980 31,230 -11.2 Population Density: 3,398 per square mile 1990 28,887 -7.5 Source. U.S. Ccn= Bureau. Population and Housing Characteristics: Brooklyn Center Norms U.S. 1970 1980 1980 O 1980 Population: Median age 22.0 29.0 29.8 30.0 % school age 33.4 21.9 18.4 20.9 % working age 53.4 65.2 62.4 60.7 % 65 and over 2.7 6.2 12.1 11.3 No. personsfiousehold 3.8 2.9 2.4 2.75 Income: Median family income $12,412 $24,932 $21,752 $19,908 % below poverty level 2.8 5.4 9.8 12.5 Per capita income S3,256 S8,290 $7,942 S7,313 Housing: % owner occupied 75.2 69.1 64.2 64.4 % built before 1939 - 2.0 30.5 26.1 % built since last census 41.1 17.6 19.4 25.9 Owner occupied median value S22,198 561,800 S47,075 S47,300 l Median gross rent S170 5277 S240 S243 Occupied housing units 9,141 I] 10,751 - - t Source: U.S. census Bureau. ©1970 -s0 96 change: 17.6%. M Norms are For ail cities with population gnatur than 20,000 in the Mains Rupom General Obligatlon/Special Taos February 7, 1991 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 3 Per Capita Income 1979 1989 % Change Brooklyn Center $8,290 $12,772 48.x. Hennepin County 9,403 15,804 68. State of Minnesota 7,450 12,281 64. Labor Market Characteristics: Brooklyn Center Labor Total % Unemployed Year Force Employment CRY State U.S. - 1985 19,998 19,234 3.8 6.0 1986 19,839 19,114 3.7 5.3 T 1987 20,043 19,296 3.7 5.4 6.= 1988 19,832 19,199 3.2 4.0 5.: 1989 19,973 19,283 3.5 4.3 5.] 1 11/89 0 20,411 19,835 2.8 3.6 5.- 11/900 20,752 20,155 2.9 3.8 Source: Department of tabor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. M Monthly data not seasonally adjusted. ! Largest Employers Employees Employees 1990 1990 Brookdalc Center 1,700 Hoffman Engineering 175 Promeon, Div. of Mcdtronics 450 Health One Corporation 151. City of Brooklyn Center 393 Graco, Inc. 100 Ault, Inc. 270 TCR Corporation 8= Independent School District 286 205 Silent Knight Source: ofrtcial statematt 4 3 financial factors: Operating Funds Financial Performance (fiscal years ended 12/31 $ 000) 0 o� 1988 1989 Chaff Revenues $10,609 $11,053 4. _ 2 Expenditures 9,832 10,327 5.0 Operating surplus I] 386 91 261 - 32.; M General and Debt Service Funds (modified accrual method of accounting). ® General Fund only. ® Before effect of accounting change. a 1989 Sources of Revenue % 1989 Items of Expenditure °a Property taxes 34.1 Public safety 30.0 1 Intergovernmental 33.6 Parks and recreation 17.r Charges for services 10.2 General government t7.- Operating tranfers in 6.0 Public works Investment carvings 5.8 Debt service 12.- 6 General Obllgatlon/Special Tax February 7, 1991 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota General Fund Financial Position (S OQG) 1988 1989 Cash and investments 55,843 $5,361 3 Operating loans _ _ Other current liabilities 554 El 871 Year-end cash surplus 55,289 54,490 Receivables S253 S941 Fund balance S5,658 O 55,569 Unreserved fund balance 5,545 5,431 (D Increase in liabilities and decrease in fund balance reflect c�—angc in accounting for accrued vacation and sick pay. 7867E01 ■ t f l 1 E� I ^wx+wwu (;wu,wrtA r ;waawww+ �.Mwiiw+tl +.vrrxa.�l6 rnB»aMwww y� aw'ww.wiu rwmw ;w,, rwwwwa w;«w.V ewwwr++.++ City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Debt Capacity Projection OUTSTANDING DEBT SUPPORTED BY TAXES AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ! ADDITIONAL G.O. BONDING CAPACITY 1993 1996 Total Proposed Net Additional Actual Actual Levy Payment Existing Public Park Outstanding Level of Available Bonding Bonds Bond Year Year Debt Service Buildings Bonds Debt Service Debt Service Debt Service Capacity (b) Issued Debt Service 1989 1991 (a) 36,364 36,364 36,364 0 0 1990 1992 503,070 503,070 503,070 0 0 1991 1993 448,938 448,938 500,000 51,063 0 0 1992 1994 111,913 237,177 349,090 500,000 150,911 0 0 1993 1995 92,131 235,157 327,288 500,000 172,712 0 0 1994 1996 (d) 53,550 232,737 286,287 500,000 213,713 0 0 1995 1997 41,100 234,762 147,854 423,716 500,000 76,284 830,000 (c) 830,000 0 1996 1998 235,927 148,174 384,101 500,000 115,899 830,000 115,457 1997 1999 236,274 148,074 384,348 500,000 115,652 830,000 115,457 1998 2000 235,774 147,539 383,313 500,000 116,687 830,000 115,457 1999 2001 234,396 146,601 380,997 500,000 119,003 830,000 115,457 2000 2002 232,208 145,251 377,459 500,000 122,541 830,000 115,457 2001 2003 234,190 148,478 382,668 500,000 117,332 1,690,000 2,520,000 115,457 2002 2004 145,945 145,945 500,000 354,055 2,520,000 350,544 2003 2005 148,025 148,025 500,000 351,975 2,520,000 350,544 2004 2006 149,380 149,380 500,000 350,620 1,070,000 3,590,000 350,544 2005 2007 0 500,000 500,000 830,000 3,590,000 499,386 2006 2008 0 500,000 500,000 1 3,590,000 499,386 1,287,065 2,348,602 1,475,321 5,110,988 8,539,434 3,428,446 4,420,000 (a) Debt Service as of 6/2/91 (b) Assumptions Used: Interest 6.50% Term (Years) 10 X Total Available 500,000 = (c) The $830,000 could be issued in any year after 1996. (d) Approximately 11.285% of the city's debt capacity is used at this point. Prepared By: SPRINGSTED, Inc. ( 19- Jun -91 ) 0 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Prepared June 19, 1991 Public Buildings By SPRINGSTED Incorporated Dated: 2- 1 -1993 Mature: 2- 1 First Interest: 8- 1 -1993 Total Year of Year of Principal Levy Mat. Principal Rates Interest & Interest ( (2) ( (4) ( (6) 1992 1994 135,000 5.20% 102,177 237,177 1993 1995 140,000 5.30% 95 235,157 1994 1996 145,000 5.50% 87,737 232,737 1995 1997 155,000 5.70% 79,762 234,762 1996 1998 165,000 5.85% 70,927 235,927 1997 1999 175,000 6.00% 61,274 236,274 1998 2000 185,000 6.15% 50,774 235,774 1999 2001 195,000 6.25% 39,396 234,396 o 2000 2002 205,000 6.35% 27,208 232,208 2001 2003 220,000 6.45% 14,190 234,190 TOTALS: 1,720,000 628 2,348,602 ) i Bond Years: 10,245.00 Annual Interest: 628,602 Avg. Maturity: 5.96 Plus Discount: 17,200 Avg. Annual Rate: 6.136% Net Interest: 645,802 T.I.C. Rate: 6.325% N.I.C. Rate: 6.304% 3 Interest rates are estimates; changes may cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary. 4 i i� 1 0 I - City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Prepared June 19, 1991 Parks By SPRINGSTED Incorporated Dated: 2- 1 -1996 Mature: 2- 1 First Interest: 8- 1 -1996 Total Year of Year of Principal Levy Mat. Principal Rates Interest & Interest (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1995 1997 80 5.85% 67,854 147,854 1996 1998 85,000 6.00% 63,174 148,174 1997 1999 90,000 6.15% 58 148,074 1998 2000 95,000 6.25% 52,539 147,539 1999 2001 100,000 6.35% 46,601 146,601 2000 2002 105,000 6.45% 40,251 145 251 0,25 , 2001 2003 115,000 6.55% 33,478 148,478 2002 2004 120,000 6.60 25,945 145,945 2003 2005 130,000 6.65% 18,025 148,025 2004 2006 140,000 6.70% 9,380 149,380 i TOTALS: 1,060,000 415,321 1,475,321 I Bond Years: 6,365.00 Annual Interest: 415,321 i Avg. Maturity: 6.00 Plus Discount: 10,600 Avg. Annual Rate: 6.525% Net Interest: 425,921 T.I.C. Rate: 6.724% N.I.C. Rate: 6.692% i Interest rates are estimates; changes may cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary. City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Exhibit IV Projected Tax Capacity Rates Current and Projected Debt Service Levies By Issue 1993 1 I Total _ 996 Tota ota Tax Debt Levy Payment Existing Public Park Outstanding Debt Service Capacity Capacity Year Year Debt Service Buildings Bonds Debt Service 105.00% Rate b Used c 1989 1991 (a) 36,364 36,364 38,182 0.16% 2.917% 1990 1992 503,070 503,070 528,224 2.15% 1.482% t 1991 1993 448,938 448,938 471,384 1.92% 8.225% 1992 1994 111,913 237,177 349,090 366,544 1.49% 7.579% 1993 1995 92,131 235,157 327,288 343,653 1.40% 6.910% 1994 1996 53,550 232,737 286,287 300,601 1.22% 11.285% 1995 1997 41,100 234,762 147,854 423,716 444,902 1.81% 10.162% 1996 1998 235,927 148,174 384,101 403,306 1.64% 8.966% 1997 1999 236,274 148,074 384,348 403,565 1.64% 7.699% 1998 2000 235,774 147,539 383,313 402,479 1.64% 6.360% 1999 2001 234,396 146,601 380,997 400,047 1.63% 4.949% 2000 2002 232,208 145,251 377,459 396,332 1.61% 3.467% 2001 2003 234,190 148,478 382,668 401,801 1.63% 1.865% 2002 2004 145,945 145,945 153,242 0.62% 1.291% Y 2003 2005 148,025 148,025 155,426 0.63% 0.669% 2004 2006 149,380 149,380 156,849 0.64% 0.000% 1,287,065 2,348,602 1,475,321 5,110,988 5,366,537 (a) Debt Service as of 6/2/91 (b) Taxable Tax Capacity 1990/1991: $24,577,373 (c) Debt Limit as of 2/1 each year. I a t 3 1 , i F Prepared By: SPRINGSTED, Inc. ( 19- Jun -91 ) Residential Homestead Property Minnesota Property Class: 1 A Net Tax Capacity Rate: 103.940% Estimated Increase: 2.150% Estimated Net Tax Capacity Rate with Project: 106.090% Section A -1991 Projected Tax Payment Without Project Estimated Market Value* $50,000 $80,000 $100,000 Net Tax Capacity 500 920 1,320 t Net Tax 520 956 1,372 Section B -1991 Projected Tax Payment With Project Estimated Market Value* $50,000 $80,000 $100,000 Net Tax Capacity 500 920 1,320 Net Tax 530 976 1,400 r Estimated 1991 Tax Increment Due to Project $10 $20 $28 B Commercial /Industrial Property j Minnesota Property Class: 3A Section A -1991 Projected Tax Payment Without Project ' Estimated Market Value* $100,000 $250,000 $1,000,000 Net Tax Capacity 3,200 10,625 47,750 ! Net Tax 3,326 11,044 49,631 Section B -1991 Projected Tax Payment With Project Estimated Market Value* $100,000 $250,000 $1,000,000 Net Tax Capacity 3,200 10,625 47,750 Net Tax 3,395 11,272 50,658 Estimated 1991 Tax Increment Due to Project $69 $228 $1,027 1 * Estimated market value is the basis from which net tax capacity is calculated. This value is not necessarily the price the property would bring if sold. NOTE. The above schedule shows the estimated increase in taxes payable at various market values if the estimated tax capacity rate increase due to the above project 4 were added to the current tax capacity rate for taxes payable in 1991. t �.a..u,,.wrww .aa. e4rbl ....N..w... ,.,....« -... .W.w.!au..n4 r ✓uWWY ;ny c.rNMlat rb,wWYrw.n i' 1 Comparison of Key Credit Factors Used by Rating Services City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Brooklyn Maple Brooklyn Center Grove Park Bloomington Robbinsdale Current Moody's Rating Al Al Aa Aa A Population Preliminary 1990 Census 28,810 38,331 58,281 86,335 14,396 % Increase /(Decrease) Since 1980 -7.70% 87.00% 34.50% 5.22% -0.18% Property Value Information 1990 Indicated Market Value (IMV) $1,137,751,360 $1,360,660,100 $1,684,248,700 $4,613,632,305 $483,756,545 1990 Taxable Net Tax Capacity (TNTC) 24,577,373 27,841,574 39,211,704 110,256,526 8,226,268 Fiscal Disparity Contribution 5,344,200 2,902,515 4,802,976 22,750,730 419,938 Fiscal Disparity Distribution 3,745,849 4,943,471 8,503,900 7,920,977 2,002,918 Captured Tax Increment Tax Capacity 1,617,997 1,379,394 1,580,413 4,022,661 1,463,956 Ratios: IMV /Per Capita $39,492 $35,498 $28,899 $53,439 $33,604 TNTC /Per Capita $853 $726 $673 $1,277 $571 % of Debt Capacity Used (e) 2.917% (f) 22.544% (f) 17.931%(0 8.207°x6 (f) 0.000 Payable 1991 Tax Capacity Rates: Total 103.940% 117.731% 115.885% 100.885 110.807% City Only 19.208% 21.328°x6 18.717% 18.729% 16.742% Debt Outstanding Net Direct G.O. Debt $13,100,000 $44,835,000 (a) $14,920,000 $148,233,391 $5,570,000 (a) Overlapping Debt 10,278,174 (a) 30,678,027 (b) 39,141,313 (a) 18,395,210 (a) 1,523,440 (c) Ratios: G.O. Direct Debt /IMV 1.151 3.295% 0.886% 3.213% 1.151 G.O. Direct & Overlapping Debt /IMV 2.055°x6 5.550% 3.210% 3.612°x6 1.466% G.O. Direct Debt /Per Capita $455 $1,170 $256 $1,717 $387 G.O. Direct & Overlapping Debt /Per Capita $811 $1,970 $928 $1,930 $493 Financial Statement Information @ 12/31/89 ($000) M General Fund: _ Revenue & Other Sources $9,323 $7,689 $13,884 $27,755 (d) $5,366 Expenditures & Other Uses 9,404 7,435 16,589 27,450 5,391 Operating Surplust(Deficit) (81) 254 (2,705) 305 (25) < General Fund Balance 5,569 2,040 4,280 6,691 769 Fund Balance/Revenues 59.7% 26.5% 30.8% 24.1% 14.3% Fund Balance /Expenditures 59.2% 27.4% 25.8% 24.4% 14.3% . .....__.__ '._..,....�. IwwWwSYr (.aly,cwrW:t I , +WWw+a iru.rwrl+liY u+ww'+WYYap .wra!»wuu � bwbNwYxu.:Y. awWwapbwv lwwNdf4bA+a ,Zwwui.wb� cep +w.VuwMN.r' ' ... nld.ti wwrwdia.i,i (a) Debt outstanding as of 3/2/91 (b) Debt outstanding as of 10/2/90 (c) Debt outstanding as of 1/2/91 (d) Financial Statement information as of 12/31/90 (e) G.O Debt / (Estimated Market Value x 2 %) (f) Estimated Market Values: Brooklyn Center = 1,045,593,500 Maple Grove = 1,360,660,100 Brooklyn Park = 1,684,248,700 Bloomington = 4,484,450,600 Robbinsdale = 439,734,700 I i ii EXHIBIT VI City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota G.O. Refunding Bonds, Series 1991A 1 Full Crossover Advance Refunding of G.O. Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1985A Even Annual Savings Structure Issuer Funds Required: $14,621.05 Date of Bonds: 05/01/91 Delivery Date: 05/28191 Refunded Call Date: 02/01/96 1 1st Callable Date: .. 02/01/98 Comparison: Refunded Refunding Principal: 3,820,000 3,915,000 Bond Years: 36,735.00 37,356.25 Avg. Maturity: 9.616 9.542 N IC: 8.041 6.487 1 otat Net Savings: 182,993 95 Present Value Savings 104,318.32 a As % of Refunded Int..: 6.970 Prepared: By SPRINGSTED Incorporated f Annua of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Prepared: l O. Refunding Bonds, Series 1991A By SPRINGSTED Incorporated Savings Analysis a Date Non - Refunded Refunding Total Debt Old Debt Savings 08/01/91 02/01/92 503,675.00 503,675.00 503,675.00 08/01/92 02/01/93 536,925.00 536,925.00 536,925.00 08/01/93 02/01/94 572,265.00 572,265.00 572,265.00 08/01/94 02/01/95 614,130.00 614,130.00 614,130.00 08/01/95 02/01/96 651,610.00 651,610.00 651,610.00 08/01/96 02/01/97 387,720.00 278,415.00 666,135.00 694,485.00 28,350.00 08/01/97 02/01/98 706,645.00 706,645.00 736,765.00 30,120.00 08/01/98 02/01/99 754,045.00 754,045.00 782,795.00 28,750.00 08/01/99 01/2000 796,410.00 796,410.00 826,995.00 30,585.00 01/2000 02 /01/2001 848,285.00 848,285.00 874,395.00 26,110.00 08/01/2001 02/01/2002 898,485.00 898,485.00 924,195.00 25,710.00 38/01/2002 02/01/2003 836,810.00 836,810.00 864,800.00 27,990.00 : ; .ls 3,266,325.00 5,119,095.00 8,385,420.00 8,583,035.00 197,615.00 resent Value Rate...: 6.36702% Funds from Issuer....: (14,621.05) 7 resent Value Savings: 104,318.32 Funds to Sinking Fund: As $ of Refunded Int.: 6.97$ Total Net Savings....: 182 993.95 Jobi Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 1991 -2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the proposed sale of Municipal State Aid street improvement bonds requires the City to prepare a Capital Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it appropriate to engage in an annual planning process regarding proposed and potential capital improvement projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The 1991 -2000 Capital Improvement Program is hereby approved. 2. The City Manager is hereby directed to provide an annual review of this program for Council discussion and approval. 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 6124/91 Agenda Item Numbe . REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: CONSIDERATION OF $3.0 MILLION BOND SALE RELATING TO THE 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PRPOJECT NO. 1990 -10 DEPT. APPROV Sy Kna , Direc or of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report . Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _ • The attached study by Springsted Incorporated, the City's independent financial advisors, provides that firm's recommendations regarding the sale of $3.0 million of State Aid bonds. The proceeds of the bonds would be used to pay a portion of the costs of the 69th Avenue improvement project, 1990 -10. Salient points of the recommendations include: • Springsted recommends that an allowance for discount bidding be made in the amount of $45,000. • The interest due on the bonds is payable from the maintenance portion of the annual State Aid allotment; that proportion of the allotment is annually designated by the City. The City is reminded that it must increase that proportion for 1992 so that it is sufficient to make the necessary interest payments. • To obtain an exemption from the arbitrage requirements of the 1986 Tax Reform Act, the City must ensure that expenditures from the proceeds are made within a particular timeframe. The City will have no problem meeting this requirement. • The bonds will be offered for sale on Monday, August 12, 1991. The cost of issuing these bonds is estimated to be $28,050. • RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution authorizing sale of these bonds is provided for council consideration. r Recommendations For Brooklyn Center, Minnesota $3,000,000 General Obligation State Aid Road Bonds, Series 1991 B Study No. 3866 SPRINGSTED Incorporated June 17, 1991 SPRINGSTED PUBLIC FINANCE ADVISORS tit'Q 500 Elm Grove Road 85 E Seventh c 135 North Pennsylvania Street East Se e th Pla e Y Suite 101, P.O. Box 37 Suite 100 Suite 2015 Elm Grove, WI 53122 -0037 Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2143 Indianapolis, IN 46204 -2498 (414) 782 -8222 (612) 223 -3000 (317) 684 -6000 Fax: (414)782 -2904 Fax: (612) 223 -3002 Fax: (317)684 -6004 2739 Second Avenue S.E. 6800 College Boulevard 222 South Ninth Street Cedar Rapids, IA 52403 -1434 Suite 600 Suite 2825 (319) 363 -2221 Overland Park, KS 66211 -1533 Minneapolis, MN 55402 -3368 Fax: (319) 363 -6999 (913) 345 -8062 (612) 333 -9177 Fax:(913)345 -1770 Fax: (612) 333 -2363 June 17, 1991 Mayor Todd Paulson Members, City Council Mr. Gerald Splinter, City Manager Mr. Paul Holmlund, Director of Finance 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Recommendations for the Issuance of $3,000,000 General Obligation State Aid Road Bonds, Series 1991 B We respectfully request your consideration of our recommendations for the issuance of these bonds according to the attached proposed Official Terms of Offering. The proceeds of this issue will be used to finance construction of improvements to State -aid roads within the City. City staff has determined that a $3,000,000 bond issue will be sufficient to cover a portion of the $5,799,000 of construction costs with the balance to be covered from other available sources. Chapter 162, Minnesota Statutes, limits the amount of debt which may be incurred for State aid road bond purposes and also limits the amount of debt service to be paid in any calendar year of a bonding program. The City's state aid road bonds must be issued in an amount and on terms such that the average annual debt service coming due on all outstanding and new state aid road bonds shall not exceed 50% of the total construction allotment received from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MDOT) in the year in which the bonds are issued. The interest on the bonds is paid from the maintenance allotment and the principal is paid from the construction allotment. The City currently has no outstanding state aid road bonds, since the final payment on a 1970 issue was made on March 1, 1991. Based on the recommended maturity schedule for the new bonds, Appendix I of these recommendations, this issue will have an estimated average annual debt service requirement of $313,092. The City's 1991 allotment from MDOT for 1991 is a total of $861,771, which includes $31,950 for maintenance and $829,821 for construction. Since the anticipated average annual debt service does not exceed 50% of the construction allotment, which is $414,910, this issue meets the statutory requirements. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota June 17, 1991 We recommend the City include, as part of the principal amount of the issue, an allowance for discount bidding in the amount of $45,000. This discount, representing approximately $15 per $1,000 of bonds issued, provides the underwriter with all or part of his profit and /or working capital for purchasing the issue. If the underwriter has to generate his profit by charging a premium to the ultimate purchaser of the bonds, those costs will be passed on to the City, resulting in higher interest costs and reducing the usable allotment from the maintenance account. Appendix I illustrates the recommended maturity schedule for the bonds and projected scaled interest rates. The interest rates represent rates currently being received by comparably rated issues. We anticipate that these bonds could be sold at a net effective rate of approximately 6.62 %. These bonds will be dated September 1, 1991 and mature each April 1, 1992 through 2006. The April 1 maturity date coincides with the desires of MDOT relative to State aid road bonds. This will allow the State sufficient time to determine the City's annual allocation which is prepared in January of each year. The allocation is then approved in February and distributed to the City in March in sufficient time to meet the April 1 payment date. The first payment on these bonds will be a principal and interest payment in the estimated amount of $222,090 due April 1, 1992. This payment will be made from the 1992 allocation, with interest payable from the maintenance account and principal payable from the construction account. If the 1992 allocation for maintenance is similar to the amount allocated in 1991 ($31,950), the amount of interest due on April 1, 1992 ($107,090) will exceed the maintenance allocation and the balance of the payment will have to be covered from other available City funds. However, the City may make a request to MDOT to shift a portion of the construction allotment into the maintenance allotment to an amount not to exceed 25% of the total allotment for the year. Using the City's 1991 allotment as an example, 25% of the City's total allotment of $861,771 is $215,443; therefore, increasing the $31,950 maintenance allotment to this amount (or a lesser amount, as needed) would easily cover annual interest requirements on the bonds (shown in Column 5 of Appendix 1). This would allow the City to cover each April 1 and October 1 semiannual interest payment from the maintenance allocation received the same year, and each April 1 annual principal payment from the construction allocation received in the year of maturity. This does reduce the annual construction allotment but puts more money into the maintenance allotment. We recommend the bonds maturing on or after April 1, 2001 be subject to payment in advance of their stated maturity on April 1, 2000 and on any date thereafter at a price of par and accrued interest. This call feature will permit the City to prepay $1,550,000, or 52% of the bond issue, should future circumstances warrant an early repayment or if a restructuring of the issue is desired. With the inclusion of the allowance for discount bidding, this call feature should not impair the marketability of the bonds. This issue will be subject to the arbitrage and rebate reporting requirements of the 1986 Tax Reform Act and 1989 amendments to the Act. Generally speaking, all arbitrage profits (the yield difference between the earnings on the investments and the yield on the bonds) must be rebated to the Treasury. There are some exemptions to this rebate requirement which include: (a) A "small issuer" exemption if the bonds are for governmental purposes and the issuer reasonably expects to issue not more than $5,000,000 tax- exempt bonds during the calendar year; Page 2 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota June 17, 1991 (b) A two -year expenditure test if at least 75% of the proceeds of the issue are used for construction and if 10% is spent within six months, 45% within 12 months, 75% within 18 months and 100% within two years. If it is reasonably required that a retainage be maintained to enforce the completion of a contract, up to 5% of the proceeds may be retained for an additional 12 months. Net proceeds subject to these expenditure tests include investment earnings on the original bond proceeds. Since the City has already issued $6,050,000 tax exempt bonds during the current calendar year, the only rebate exemption that would be available is item (b) to be able to retain arbitrage earnings. Please note that this exemption is based on a test of absolute requirements and is not based on reasonable expectations and the spend down requirements include the additional income earned from the reinvestment of bond proceeds. Prior to the issuance of the bonds the City must determine whether it is reasonable to expect to meet the expenditure limits. If there is some question about that possibility then the City can elect to either rebate the arbitrage earnings on the unexpended portion or pay a penalty with respect to the close of each six -month period after the date the bonds are issued equal to 1.5% of the amount by which unexpended proceeds exceed the percentages listed above. The penalty is effectively 3% per year and is computed on any excess unexpended proceeds until the bonds are no longer outstanding. Any election under this provision must be made on or before the date the bonds are issued. The Tax Reform Act also restricts the ability of banks to deduct tax- exempt interest as a carrying expense under certain circumstances in calculating their tax liability. We understand the City does not expect to issue more than $10,000,000 of tax- exempt obligations in 1991, so these bonds will be designated as "qualified obligations" which can be included in a bank's calculation of interest deduction. This qualification typically assists in attracting bidders for the issue and can garner slightly lower interest rates. Springsted Incorporated has joined with Capital Guaranty Insurance Company, a municipal bond insurer, to offer a surety bond service to underwriters in lieu of putting up a good faith check in order to bid on the Bonds. The program is called "Sure -Bid" and we have allowed for its use in the Official Terms of Offering, attached to these Recommendations. We believe that the use of this bidding option will help garner more bids for the bond sale, since it has the potential to make it easier for an underwriter to bid. There is no cost to the City for this service and Springsted Incorporated does not have a financial interest in the use of Sure -Bid. For underwriting firms which have been approved and have entered into a reimbursement agreement with Capital Guaranty and have elected to use Sure -Bid instead of physically delivering a good faith check with their bid, Capital Guaranty will put up a surety bond, guaranteeing the amount of the good faith check to the City if the purchaser does not deliver such check to Springsted Incorporated by 3:30 P.M. the day after the sale. We believe that we will not have to invoke the surety bond on your behalf and will forward the good faith check from the purchaser as soon as we receive it. This is a new product in the municipal bond industry developed by Springsted Incorporated and Capital Guaranty. Therefore, for your bond sale, you will most likely receive some bids which are accompanied by a good faith check and some which are covered under Sure -Bid. Springsted Incorporated will be in constant touch with Capital Guaranty to monitor the underwriters which have been admitted to this program and, if Sure -Bid is used, Springsted will follow through after the sale, to make sure you receive your good faith amount from the purchaser. We recommend a rating application for this issue be made to Moody's Investors Service of New York. We will provide Moody's with the necessary documentation which they will use in Page 3 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota June 17, 1991 making their rating analysis, including your recently completed 10 -year Capital Improvement Plan and our debt analysis and debt planning study. Moody's will charge a fee of approximately $4,000 for this rating, which will be payable out of bond proceeds. These bonds will be offered for sale on Monday, August 12, 1991 with the bids received in the offices of Springsted Incorporated until 11:00 A.M. The bids will be opened and tabulated and presented to the City Council for action at 7:00 P.M. that evening. A representative of Springsted will be present at the meeting to make recommendations as to the acceptability of the bids received. Proceeds of the issue will be available in mid - September. Respectfully submitted, SPRINGSTED Incorporated rls Page 4 APPENDIX I City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Prepared June 13, 1991 General Obligation State -Aid Road Bonds By SPRINGSTED Incorporated $3,000,000 15 -Year Schedule Dated: 9- 1 -1991 Mature: 4- 1 First Interest: 4- 1 -1992 Total Year of Year of Principal Levy Mat. Principal Rates Interest & Interest (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1991 1992 115,000 5.00% 198,882 313,882 1992 1993 135,000 5.20% 176,977 311,977 1993 1994 145,000 5.40% 169,552 314,552 1994 1995 150,000 5.60% 161,437 311 1995 1996 160,000 5.80% 152,597 312,597 1996 1997 170,000 5.95% 142,899 312,899 1997 1998 180,000 6.05% 132 312,396 1998 1999 190,000 6.15% 121,108 311,108 1999 2000 205,000 6.25% 108,859 313,859 2000 2001 220,000 6.35% 95,468 315,468 2001 2002 230 6.45% 81,065 311,065 2002 2003 245,000 6.55% 65,624 310,624 2003 2004 265,000 6.65% 48,789 313,789 2004 2005 285,000 6.75% 30,359 315,359 2005 2006 305,000 6.80% 10,370 315,370 TOTALS: 3 1,696,382 4,696,382 Bond Years: 26,295.00 Annual Interest: 1,696,382 Avg. Maturity: 8.77 Plus Discount: 45,000 Avg. Annual Rate: 6.451% Net Interest: 1 T.I.C. Rate: 6.655% N.I.C. Rate: 6.622% Annual payments include the interest payment following the maturity date Interest rates are estimates; changes may cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary. Page 5 OFFICIAL TERMS OF OFFERING $3,000,000 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION STATE AID ROAD BONDS, SERIES 1991 B Sealed bids for the Bonds will be received by the City Manager or his designee on Monday, August 12, 1991, until 11:00 A.M., Central Time, at the offices of SPRINGSTED Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:00 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated September 1, 1991, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on April 1 and October 1 of each year, commencing April 1, 1992. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360 -day year of twelve 30 -day months and will be rounded pursuant to rules of the MSRB. The Bonds will be issued in the denomination of $5,000 each, or in integral multiples thereof, as requested by the purchaser, and fully registered as to principal and interest. Principal will be payable at the main corporate office of the registrar and interest on each Bond will be payable by check or draft of the registrar mailed to the registered holder thereof at the holder's address as it appears on the books of the registrar as of the close of business on the 15th day of the immediately preceding month. The Bonds will mature April 1 in the years and amounts as follows: 1992 $115,000 1996 $160,000 2000 $205,000 2004 $265,000 1993 $135,000 1997 $170,000 2001 $220,000 2005 $285,000 1994 $145,000 1998 $180,000 2002 $230,000 2006 $305,000 1995 $150,000 1999 $190,000 2003 $245,000 OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elect on April 1, 2000, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or after April 1, 2001. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part, at the option of the City and in such manner as i the C shall determine t b lot selected e and within a maturity as se b City tY Y Y the registrar. All prepayments shall be at a price of par and accrued interest. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition the City will pledge annual State -aid allotments from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The proceeds will be used to finance construction of improvements to State -aid roads within the City. TYPE OF BID Bids shall be for not less than $2,955,000 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds. Bids shall be accompanied by a Good Faith Deposit ( "Deposit") in the form of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond in the amount of $30,000, payable to the order of the City. If a check is used, it must accompany each bid. If a Financial Surety Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a bond in the State of Minnesota, and preapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to Springsted Page 6 Incorporated prior to the opening of the bids. The Financial Surety Bond must identify each bidder whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the Bonds are awarded to a bidder using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is required to submit its Deposit to Springsted Incorporated in the form of a certified or cashier's check or wire transfer as instructed by Springsted Incorporated not later than 3:30 P.M., Central Time, on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time, the Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement. The City will deposit the check of the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement and no interest will accrue to the purchaser. In the event the purchaser fails to comply with the accepted bid, said amount will be retained by the City. No bid can be withdrawn after the time set for receiving bids unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. Rates must be in ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional bid will be accepted. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded to the bidder offering the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true interest cost (TIC) basis. The City's computation of the interest rate of each bid, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non - substantive informalities of any bid or of matters relating to the receipt of bids and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all bids without cause, and, (iii) reject any bid which the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER'S OPTION If the Bonds qualify for issuance of any policy of municipal bond insurance or commitment therefor at the option of the bidder, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the issuance of any such commitment shall be at the sole option and expense of the purchaser of the Bonds. Any increased costs of issuance of the Bonds resulting from such purchase of insurance shall be paid by the purchaser, except that, if the City has requested and received a rating on the Bonds from a rating agency, the City will pay that rating fee. Any other rating agency fees shall be the responsibility of the purchaser. Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after Bonds have been awarded to the purchaser shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery on the Bonds. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the registrar. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the purchaser. Page 7 SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following he date of their award , the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the 9 purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and the purchaser. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Holmes & Graven, Chartered of Minneapolis, Minnesota, which opinion will be printed on the Bonds, and of customary closing papers, including a no- litigation certificate. On the date of settlement payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds which shall be received at the offices of the City or its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Except as compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds shall have been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the purchaser's non - compliance with said terms for payment. OFFICIAL STATEMENT The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent information relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly -final Official Statement within the meaning of Rule 15c2 -12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. For copies of the Official Statement and the Official Bid Form or for any additional information prior to sale, any prospective purchaser is referred to the Financial Advisor to . the City, Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone (612) 223 -3000. The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other information required by law, shall constitute a "Final Official Statement" of the City with respect to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2 -12. By awarding the Bonds to any i underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting an Official Bid Form therefor, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 120 copies of the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter executing and delivering an Official Bid Form with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if its bid is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement. Dated June 24, 1991 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Patti Page Deputy Clerk Page 8 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $3,000,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION STATE AID ROAD BONDS, SERIES 1991B BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota (City) as follows: 1. It is determined that: (a) the City Council has approved the construction of improvements (Improvements) to various municipal state aid roads in the City as follows: Right -of -way acquisition, road construction and signalization of 69th Avenue North between Brooklyn Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway. (b) the estimated cost of the Improvements is $5,799,000; (c) the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 162.18 (Act) to issue its general obligation bonds in anticipation of the allocation of municipal state aid funds in an amount and on terms such that the average annual amount of principal and interest due in all subsequent years on the bonds and any other similarly authorized bonds does not exceed 50% of the amount of the last annual allotment from the Construction Account in the Municipal State Aid Fund preceding the issuance of the bonds; (d) the last annual allotment of funds to the City from the Construction Account in the Municipal State Aid fund was $829,821; and (e) it is necessary and expedient to the sound financial management of the affairs of the City to issue $3,000,000 General Obligation State Aid Road Bonds, Series 1991B (Bonds) to provide financing for the Improvements. 2. To provide financing for the Improvements, the City will issue and sell its Bonds in the amount of $2,955,000. To provide in part the additional interest required to market the Bonds at this time, additional Bonds will be issued in the amount of RESOLUTION NO. $45,000. The excess of the purchase price of the Bonds over the sum of $2,955,000 will be credited to the debt service fund for the Bonds for the purpose of paying interest first coming due on the additional Bonds. The Bonds will be issued, sold and delivered in accordance with the terms of the following Official Terms of Offering (see Exhibit A) . 3. The Deputy Clerk is authorized and directed to advertise the Bonds for sale in accordance with the foregoing Official Terms of Offering and to publish the abbreviated notice of sale attached hereto as Exhibit B in the manner required by law. The City Council will meet at 7 p.m. on Monday, August 12, 1991, to consider bids on the Bonds and take any other appropriate action with respect to the Bonds. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Exhibit A OFFICIAL TERMS OF OFFERING $3,000,000 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION STATE AID ROAD BONDS, SERIES 1991 B Sealed bids for the Bonds will be received by the City Manager or his designee on Monday, August 12, 1991, until 11:00 A.M., Central Time, at the offices of SPRINGSTED Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:00 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated September 1, 1991, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on April 1 and October 1 of each year, commencing April 1, 1992. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360 -day year of twelve 30-day months and will be rounded pursuant to rules of the MSRB. The Bonds will be issued in the denomination of $5,000 each, or in integral multiples thereof, as requested by the purchaser, and fully registered as to principal and interest. Principal will be payable at the main corporate office of the registrar and interest on each Bond will be payable by check or draft of the registrar mailed to the registered holder thereof at the holder's address as it appears on the books of the registrar as of the close of business on the 15th day of the immediately preceding month. The Bonds will mature April 1 in the years and amounts as follows: 1992 $115,000 1996 $160,000 2000 $205,000 2004 $265,000 1993 $135,000 1997 $170,000 2001 $220,000 2005 $285,000 1994 $145,000 1998 $180,000 2002 $230,000 2006 $305,000 1995 $150,000 1999 $190,000 2003 $245,000 OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elect on April 1, 2000, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or after April 1, 2001. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part, at the option of the City and in such manner as the City shall determine and within a maturity by lot as selected by the registrar. All prepayments shall be at a price of par and accrued interest. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition the City will pledge annual State -aid allotments from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The proceeds will be used to finance construction of improvements to State -aid roads within the City. TYPE OF BID Bids shall be for not less than $2,955,000 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds. Bids shall be accompanied by a Good Faith Deposit ( "Deposit") in the form of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond in the amount of $30,000, payable to the order -of the City. If a check is used, it must accompany each bid. If a Financial Surety Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a bond in the State of Minnesota, and preapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to Springsted -i- Incorporated prior to the opening of the bids. The Financial Surety Bond must identify each bidder whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the Bonds are awarded to a bidder using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is required to submit its Deposit to Springsted Incorporated in the form of a certified or cashier's check or wire transfer as instructed by Springsted Incorporated not later than 3:30 P.M., Central Time, on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time, the Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement. The City will deposit the check of the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement and no interest will accrue to the purchaser. In the event the purchaser fails to comply with the accepted bid, said amount will be retained by the City. No bid can be withdrawn after the time set for receiving bids unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1 /8 of 1 %. Rates must be in ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional bid will be accepted. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded to the bidder offering the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true interest cost (TIC) basis. The City's computation of the interest rate of each bid, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non - substantive informalities of any bid or of matters relating to the receipt of bids and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all bids without cause, and, (iii) reject any bid which the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER'S OPTION If the Bonds qualify for issuance of any policy of municipal bond insurance or commitment therefor at the option of the bidder, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the issuance of any such commitment shall be at the sole option and expense of the purchaser of the Bonds. Any increased costs of issuance of the Bonds resulting from such purchase of insurance shall be paid by the purchaser, except that, if the City has requested and received a rating on the Bonds from a rating agency, the City will pay that rating fee. Any other rating agency fees shall be the responsibility of the purchaser. Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after Bonds have been awarded to the purchaser shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery on the Bonds. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the registrar. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the purchaser. ii - SE17LEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and the purchaser. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Holmes & Graven, Chartered of Minneapolis, Minnesota, which opinion will be printed on the Bonds, and of customary closing papers, including a no- litigation certificate. On the date of settlement payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds which shall be received at the offices of the City or its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Except as compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds shall have been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the purchaser's non - compliance with said terms for payment. OFFICIAL STATEMENT The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent information relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly -final Official Statement within the meaning of Rule 15c2 -12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. For copies of the Official Statement and the Official Bid Form or for any additional information prior to sale, any prospective purchaser is referred to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone (612) 223 -3000. The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other information required by law, shall constitute a "Final Official Statement" of the City with respect to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2 -12. By awarding the Bonds to any underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting an Official Bid Form therefor, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 120 copies of the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter executing and delivering an Official Bid Form with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if its bid is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement. Dated June 24, 1991 BY ORDER OF THE CfTY COUNCIL /s/ Patti Page Deputy Clerk Exhibit B NOTICE OF BOND SALE $3,000,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION STATE AID ROAD BONDS, SERIES 1991B CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, H aINEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that sealed bids for the purchase of the above bonds will be received until by the City Manager or his designee on Monday, August 12, 1991, until 11:00 A.M.,- Central Time, at the offices of Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, St. Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated for consideration by the City Council at a meeting at 7:00 P.M. on the same day. The bonds are offered on the following terms. The bonds will be dated September 1, 1991, will bear interest payable semiannually on each April 1 and October 1, commencing April 1, 1992, and will mature on April 1 in the years and amounts as follows: Year Amount Year Amount 1992 $115,000 2000 $205,000 1993 135,000 2001 220,000 1994 145,000 2002 230,000 1995 150,000 2003 245,000 1996 160,000 2004 265,000 1997 170,000 2005 285,000 1998 180,000 2006 305,000 1999 190,000 The City may elect on April 1, 2000 and on any day thereafter, to prepay bonds due on or after April 1, 2001. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part, at the option of the City and in such manner as the City shall determine and within a maturity by lot as selected by the registrar. All prepayments shall be at a price of par and accrued interest. Bidders must specify a price of not less than $2,955,000 plus accrued interest. A legal opinion on the bonds will be furnished by Holmes & Graven, Chartered, Minneapolis, Minnesota. The proceeds of the bonds will be used to finance a portion of the cost of state aid road construction projects in the City. Bidders should be aware that the Official Statement to be distributed for the bonds may contain additional bidding terms and information relative to the bonds. In the event of a variance between statements in this Notice of Bond Sale and the Official Statement bidders must comply with the terms of the latter. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL _ /s/ Patti Page Deputy City Clerk Dated: June 24, 1991. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of the City held on Monday, June 24, 1991, with the original minutes on file in my office and the extract is a full, true and correct copy of the minutes, insofar as they relate to the issuance and sale of $3,000,000 General Obligation State Aid Road Bonds, Series 1991B of the City. WITNESS My hand as Deputy City Clerk and the corporate seal of the City this day of , 1991. Deputy City Clerk City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (SEAL) B2:BR291.RAU CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meetin Date 6/24/91 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: STAFF REPORT REGARDING 57TH AVENUE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS (DISCUSSION ITEM) DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, irector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes • At the February 25, 1991 City Council meeting, Edith Svitak, who lives at 5616 Dupont Avenue North, addressed the Council to ask why there are no storm drainage structures on 57th Avenue at Dupont Avenue and at Humboldt Avenue, noting that the waster stands at these corners almost continuously and that it causes safety problems, especially for pedestrians. Attached hereto is a report which describes the existing conditions and a cost estimate for installing a storm drainage system. The report recommends: • that storm sewer improvements be constructed in coordination with a complete street improvement project for 57th Avenue; and • that the reconstruction of 57th Avenue, along with the storm sewer system improvements, be programmed for implementation in 1993 or 1994. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Review and discussion....... Provide direction to staff....... CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOK of L�N BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TEL 569 -3300 C ENTER FAX: 569 -3494 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: G. G. Splinter City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp i� Director o ublic Works DATE: May 21, 1991 RE: Drainage Problems on 57th Avenue between Logan Avenue and Camden Avenue At your request the Engineering Department has reviewed the matter of surface drainage problems on 57th Avenue and report the following: • The existing storm drainage system which serves 57th Avenue provides storm drains only at Logan Avenue, at Irving Avenue and at Bryant Avenue (see Exhibit A attached). Of these, only the drains at Logan Avenue are designed to meet current standards. The drains at Irving Avenue are very marginal, while the drains at Bryant Avenue serve only the west side of that intersection. • Most surface drainage along 57th Avenue flows easterly along this street (see Exhibit B attached). This drainage pattern is very substandard because (1) the overall gradient is approximately one -half (1/2) of recommended minimum grades; and (2) the "crowns" of the cross - streets connecting to 57th Avenue are continued into the intersections. As a result, water ponds to depths of 3" to 6" even in summertime conditions (and greater with wintertime snow and ice build -ups) before finally flowing over one intersection to the next intersection. • Some "improvement" could be accomplished by milling, reshaping and repaving the gutter lines and intersections along 57th Avenue. However, this would cost an estimated $100,000 to $150,000, and the end result would still be standing water because the overall gradient would remain unchanged (i.e. - one -half of the recommended minimum). • The recommended solution is the installation of two storm sewer extensions, i.e.: �YN �� tsesui+MacAan e May 21, 1991 Page two Estimated Total Cost if Completed as a Separate Description "Storm Sewer Only" Project Extension of storm sewer from Logan $193,000 Avenue, easterly to Humboldt Avenue (see Exhibit C attached) Construction of a storm sewer along $351,000 57th Avenue between Fremont and Bryant Avenues, then north along Bryant Avenue to 59th Avenue storm sewer (see Exhibit D attached) TOTAL $544,000 • More than 60% of the above stated costs are related to roadway restoration which would necessarily relate to a "storm sewer only" project. Accordingly, rather than constructin g P these improvements as "storm sewer only" projects, it is recommended that they be constructed in coordination with a complete street improvement project for 57th Avenue. Fifty- seventh Avenue between Logan Avenue and Humboldt Avenue is designated as a County State Aid Highway by Hennepin County. Between Humboldt Avenue and Lyndale Avenue, 57th is designated as a Municipal State Aid Street by the City of Brooklyn Center. Accordingly, MSA funds (and CSAH funds) could be used to fund a part of the storm drainage improvement costs as well as most of the street improvement costs. It is recommended that the reconstruction of 57th Avenue, along with the above- described storm sewer system improvements, be programmed for implementation, possibly in 1993 or 1994. Attachments t _ •� i C \ I - ' QUEEN 4 i E'EMN AVE . r 1 - JU DY ' ♦ ;�`. \� � \�` .. ' � \ 1 - ? ri W TON _ . WJ m 11 i t AbQRGAN - iAVE N ' tt w ii -:- i. +�• I 3 LOGAN iaYe° WNOX` :3r 'AV F. wt 7t )AMES! _...: IRViNG' -. :AVE n' _� -.. ,... v •� rr' +1uMb AVE n ,.; _ =`r _; t. ... -.♦ _ U T 7 .. GZRO. RAVE N . �..y.. ♦.. ' ! _li ..1. '..i..- 3...i...i.. ~ 1..-:...i. -.i ;..T...i...; . -;. ; ... ....+;.� 1 f �X 1 r4 iF EMJNT` i ASE, N +t : - - -- ,. .r.. , I !? T' iEMEFtSON AvE' ! — 7 ._ r !v5. f )ri , 4 ay. J � • f .. , Z � : t t ! v � w } ! ! ? )Di1PO NT AVE. N COLGAX! s AYE -.. - ... -_. : j R ...... m j ' I IH AVE. 'N. ! I �^8'.•�hAN R ': Avr IN , m A� aY+pa.N w j C ic Q CAMDEP! I AV E.rI T 1..... - . i I C A11��EN i f , Z /� 11 _ � �._•_.._. _ _ - I � ,S UAL [ . A t f l T D, i q� z \ � 6 AutsLLL ` PE N �0 c NEWTCN ,•' r '� a \ • i s , : lK rn iMORGANi _ N • i • 1 # E LOGAN fAV'£° i 4 J . , 1 j ckOx 'AVE I T j JAMES! t 'AV£ i N { .. i. _..- '- .:..�. -• ..r �:\ \ w. _ i \ . .1.. .. .. i , 1 i : i ;_.j p. -T...i i i .N .`J 1, \ \ \`\`. S t ( .. }...d...E. 1 ...... {IRZING' " "'i nV£ N: • iUt.4F3v1. AVE' n ^,� u r ' t IT, ,i.: G1RARJ` i I :aVE` N ? ! i Z l d i� r o f r' i FRFMC�NTI AV tJ }` trt t'.,•r. IT: ', :: 1� T! ?EMERSON :AVE N i ' ; E Z i H ;_l. I I iDUP NT i AVE. IN S 2 S r!�it�`D:T S. C COL Ax. rn i9RYANT AVE. N. ! I i m�±'n m NYC iN Q at CH R.d � C �-- ;Al )R .R C�' .AYE N• Z CAI i AVE. IN I nh�t) C 8 — m m _ �- .. I c LA i N lkTtj 1 • i 1 I i A \�\ V { i \\ n , k A \ 1 low z L AVE o ��y 14.EN 1 AVE ' ... y ?• \ \� j` "s i i lPENN .:AVE -•;.�. �.. a' :�' \ +�n? :\ ter: S _ °.. z: \ i rk h , 1 V E R --t �+�• -• -.-. w <.. m •' �, t \\ M RGANi AVE N -' '?i � 1T: i •� EoGaN N . i... L --- zc - t ........ k` f ^ 4 ^ AAiES. _y..•j...1, -A... ....yyi....i. AVE 1 ! iRVlNG AVE l i i ir i tfUMB i! ` n , - = .. .. r.-.{ ! 1 i ;` 1 i ? 1 I GIRARU' `A, ✓E. N �.... ^ � i 1A r• E ! ; iFRFW' AvE:. N i i ' � > e ..1.i.:. ..L.:..: �_ i l ILI ,� ;�! I !EMERSON iAVE`N J. ;• , i [)UPONT'• i AYE ?N T.;. COLFaX AVE N ....1._ 0 i !BRYANT AVE fN ! . i r'?F;Rhd. i } m .4✓i .h S V/ I i i AVE . IN j O �. AL R1CNpR W ii, ; h C ' "' -�' • -.- _ 0 7 ....,... T _,._ z Z CAMDEPE i AVE. N C'ntaDQN : tv r j ; :• I cn a 4 .... 1 c 4A I - ' r • i � � is RU St L L AvE,�U... QUEEN AvE 'PENN . :AVE N i i i` ioi V E R yo., �< •.<� NEw7CN n ' a �K ? ; �.\ - MORGAN - -fAVE N ; Li Att r........ � \ ,. . T � L vQ . € sN' 's '• 9 j i 1 i j � � - 'alt' `.. •'� � _ :K N 0 - +t `AVE i N f ' i i A 6 �Jwt i \ n • rr•r•r -i -y 1A AfE$l ' I ! AV E.:N z- { v ,: (RUING'" AVE' N` .....: " mY tip•, , E ,u+aaor AVE: n' ' •''; ;� k N I ✓ t i GIRAR• iG.VE h: n b i,` k r; ; p. , . . . . . . . . . . FREM� NT AYE i lc ;EM Vi AVE` N' A I i DUPONT i AV N . r -.�.i. . .. ...:.. ff AVE 'r m i COLFAX .... o n �1 ; F t D O I i6RYAWT� iAVE. ^�� t rT I r' [_' m a n h A.4 I of RKpR.N M A OkCH N W4 AVE- . �...... ..- ,..�.. ;.. "..... , t i.... .'n F.,(iN. t „ a . 0 1 CQMDErF i AVE tl ' "� _ I t I D cn _. __ CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 06124 / /9 91 L 0 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: STAFF REPORT RE: CONCEPT DESIGNS FOR TRAILWAY PAST HUMBOLDT SQUARE DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Directo of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONMENDATION: A ifg �► S"' .. ; No comments to supplement this report . Comments below /attached SUNDIARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes City Staff and Westwood Professional Services, Inc., the City's landscaping consultant for this project, have developed design alternatives for the continuation of the sidewalk /trail along the east side of Humboldt Ave. No., adjacent to the Humboldt Square shopping center. At the April 8, 1991 meeting, the Council accepted Westwood's proposal for these planning services and directed staff to proceed with the development of alternatives. The following is a summary of the seven design alternatives that have been developed so far: Alt. A -1: This ro osed de o e philosophy that was design consists f the sam P P g P P y applied adjacent to the Brooklyn Center High School (14' wide concrete walk with tree grates against the existing curb and gutter). A 2' high retaining wall, directly behind the proposed walk, would be required and the existing landscape materials and Humboldt Square sign would be relocated. Temporary and permanent easements would be required. Alt. A -2: This alternative varies from A -1 essentially in that the proposed retaining wall is located 2' west of the existing curb of the parking lot. Rock mulch would be placed between the new wall and the existing curb. Alt. B: In this design, the existing 5' boulevard along Humboldt Ave. would remain, with the addition of tree plantings. The existing 5' conc. walk would be widened to 10', landscape materials and sign relocated, and the berm would be regraded. Easements would be required. I Alt. C: This alternative design leaves the existing boulevard and conc. walk intact, and provides a separate 8' bike lane. This proposed bike lane would be striped on the existing Humboldt Square parking surface, and there would be some minor grading to the existing berm. Because the bike lane location would leave the parking lot with a substandard driving aisle width, the westerly tier of parking (± 50 spaces) would be lost. Tree plantings would be added to the existing boulevard. Easements would be required. Alt. D: Similar to Alt. C, this design separates the pedestrian and bicycle traffic. However, the bicycle lane would be constructed as an additional 8' wide concrete walk within the existing parking area and new perimeter curb and gutter would be constructed. The impact on the number of parking spaces available to the shopping center would be the same as Alt. C. Tree plantings would be added to the existing boulevard. Easements would be required. Alt. D -1: This design involves a 12' wide combined, conc. walk /trail which would be located within the existing parking area. The existing 5' walk would be removed and replaced with landscape materials. This design requires temporary and permanent easements, and the construction of curb and gutter in the parking lot. The before - mentioned effect on the number of parking spaces also applies. Alt. E: This alternative would construct a 12' concrete walk, immediately behind the Humboldt Ave. curb. The existing berm would be • regraded, landscape materials replaced and addition trees planted in the berm. Temporary and permanent easements would be required. The attached table provides a comparison of the alternative designs and includes estimated construction costs, contingency, engineering, legal and administration costs, and easement costs. Note that estimated easement acquisition costs for the alternatives vary from $ 16,000 to $ 40,000, generally increasing as the trail moves toward Humboldt Square. Also, Alternatives C, D and D -1 require the "taking" of existing parking stalls from the shopping center. While it appears that the shopping center has an excess of parking based on their current use, taking 50 stalls would preclude the center from contemplating future, allowed uses that require more parking. Therefore, it is entirely possible that alternative designs C, D and D -1 may be cause for the shopping center to claim additional damages from the City. Accordingly, City staff's "choices ", considering the effectiveness of the trail, and the "aesthetics" of the completed project are: 1st choice - Alternate A -2 2nd choice - Alternate E 3rd choice - Alternate B Because all alternates require that easements be obtained, and that the actual cost of those easements may vary considerably from our estimates (because the • owners may be more receptive to some alternates than to others), it is recommended that the following process be followed: Step 1- City staff and Westwood present report to City Council. After discussion, City Council identifies 2 to 4 "preferred" alternates. Step 2- Staff will meet with property owners to discuss the project in general, the preferred alternates, and attempt to negotiate easements based on one preferred alternate which the owners select. Step 3- Staff reports results to City Council, and requests Council to authorize preparation of plans and specifications, for bids to be taken and construction completed this year if no major delays occur in obtaining required easements. ' RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Review and discussion.... Provide direction to Staff.... i.e., identify the preferred alternates r MAY 8, 1991 REVISED 06/20/91 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. W COMPARISON OF TRAIL ROUTING ALTERNATIVES HUMBOLDT SQUARE TRAIL STUDY BROOKLYN CENTER, MN The following matrix is a comparison of six alternative trr.il routings for the Humboldt Square frontage along 14180 Trunk Hwy. 5 Humboldt Avenue. The comparison assumes that all alternatives have a minimum total walking /biking width of 9 Eaen Prairie. MN 55344 feet in the summer and 5 feet in the winter. 612937 -5150 °Ax 612.537 -5822 Alt. A -1 Alt. A -2 Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. D -1 Alt. E 14' Walk w/ 14' Sidewalk w/ 5' Boulevard Bike Separated 12' Retail Side 12' Sidewalk w/ Actions Involved Ad j. Wall wall Near Retail & 10' Sidewalk Lane Sidewalks Sidewalk Trees on Berm New Paving Yes - Yes - Yes - Some + Yes - Yes - Yes - New Curb No + No + No + Some + Yes - Yes - No + Tree Grates Yes - Yes - No + No No + No + No + Retaining Wall or Regrade Berm Yes - Yes - Yes - No + No + No + Yes - Sign Alteration No + No + Yes - No + No + No + No + Remove and Replace Plantings Yes - Yes - Yes - No + No + No + Yes - Adequate Snow Storage (7') Yes + Yes + Yes + No - No - Yes + Yes + Humboldt Square Parking Alteration No + No + No + Yes - Yes - Yes - No + Acquire R.O.W. or Easement Yes - Yes - Yes - Yes - Yes - Yes - Yes - Est. Const. Cost $45,470 $41,160 $19,190 $ 4,290 $22,910 $28,190 $21,210 Contingency (10 %) 4,550 4,120 1,920 430 2,290 2,820 2,120 Engr., Legal, Admin. (15 %) 7,500 6,790 3,170 710 3,780 4,650 3,500 Est. Easement Costs 18,730 18,730 16,050 26,750 26,750 40,125 18,725 Total Estimated Project Costs $76,250 $70,800 $40,330 $32,180 $55,730 $75,785 $45,555 69th Ave. N. -- 1I II II I GoW xpu(X NEa1-/ 14 `>IUF W,4LK Ff�OM llJ2t� i �Men 76 CON -'PQt;r P Pt'RAX. 2' ZETaIFJ i1J C� WAu- ti 1 p- F.Mt)vE AND R- �Pt�.(,E SN�Ubs _ 61 _ I — umboldt Square q — z — — 6 E — — -- 0 -- - �. r 1 1 ----------- I U 0 15 0 60 i.i >m� Westwood Professional Services, Inc. MAY 8, 1991 REVISED 6120191 11. City of 13, wkly.r C-1,, 1 Square Trail Planning � TIVE A-1 69th Ave. N. I1 GONSTRLJC.T r1EW 14' SIDEWALi�- RF 15F-KM TD NAVE. 3'1 SL.OPE TO IAWA NUMBOL4DT AVENUE al JJnicn 76 OUILD > TPININb WAtrt- 2 PEP—'T F2OM PAXW -4"(-, I REMOVE AND K61Pt.IALS 1 3140uF3S I PL ANT S NEW T}z.�ES IN Till` (�fZ.�TEg I I R' RACK- MULZ" IN V OVEp -iiAN& I— l — — q — — I -- —Humboldt Square iYPrUI -'. 1Y�1' a _ QI 6 — F I — i I o 15 3 0 4. Now `� ��. Westwood Professional Services, Inc. MAY 8, 19 REVISED 6/2079 1 Ilw City of Brooklyn Cenlm I-IumbOldt Square Trail Planning 9NA A-2 i 691h Ave. N. i F Y pOVt EVA�O Tp 2EMA111 I II I nldn 76 � C-OhtSTRUU" rlEah/ 10' WAt,K- `I • AVTEf• 54Cahi 'rTOr- P C.I,EAC.o.N[.E. � F- E<�Kp+DC. D�izM I - -- � R�tHOVr. ANO RkPt -�fk. }wr>:ur5s I j t�l A+`iT Tw"_'t' IN 60VL's_:VAF -O � I � R�Lou�'f6 51GN — umboldt Square z — — ai — a — — � I — E — — --- - r.'i,C y�1r• ..dL j( (' {{,yy� Rf't�RiSV'btlf ' 1 3:� • 0 2. 5' S' 10' . Westwood Prolessional Services, Inc. MAY 8, 1991 REVISED 6/20/91 I1� COY of 0+(wkjyn Cente( Humboldt Square Trail Planning B ,q�(z/�(ATlVE 69th Ave. N. i l -i� EXI�INC� Fi SIOt✓WPLIL AND 5' 60VL EV, t0 'ZE4 0 �nion 76 - LW 011 t.AN'L IN 'iuE �I Irv[ REo+s+✓ �v�r8 RAD1U5 ? ENTizAN1.E POIMS TO , I ,I �nf..ovfH.voErsiuo . �EMovE. WESTF�KN RoW OF PAF}�t� ,I umboldt Square - fTSieq _ r y � I � { I E I - i -_ 03-6 _ BIKE LANE AISLE . . .............. ! f J' _,�•� � ,r#?S�t't'.'.t.'� ti -1 S�4?t.. � . ,. e S i�f`�i:�iif��^eu.!.s - I +e .. 0 15� 3 5 0' I 0 2.5' .1 S 1 0' Westwood Pmle5sional Services, Inc. MAY 8, 1991 REVISED 6/20191 Ills city m n,—ktyn r—in - -- HUMbOldt Sduarc Tl Planning A�n✓n�>4nv� C LL - 691h Ave. N. I I I I EXISTING 5' DOUL -F VAf-D 64.40 5 7' '51MWAJ_ K TO rf " IN JJnI 76 GaNSllzUU NEW 8' E5IK-f.PA.TI-1 AND GURb QSN t% 1 IDE of �OVUNCs TPFa PAW- -PN(, NIDI" u�NCaG F'ER.PENDIWLS�.F� Pf^FmV -IN(5, TD Al�lCsl�L` Pi�>zK -Ih1C: I � P-4 TR -GK'S IN BOUI�GV?F� n _ IZEMOVE WE57 ZOv4 OF PAeWN& I t -- I I E G - -. Humboldt € o _ Square V E — - x . -:KGs _ •. I`u �t- AISLE 0 15 0' ° : ° ��. Westwood Professional Services, Inc. MAY B, 1991 REVISED 6/20!91 Ihr C+Iy of Bmaklyn C-1l ( Humboldt Square Trail Planning aLJ NAwE 69th Ave. N. lI• • P-- ><r"�a�6 EXt�(itu� 5� �iDE.wAi_"K• I --Anl ' 76 • GON ST _UCT NE.W 17_' 511 -E PA 1H ANP GllF�, ON OAGK �i Dec O� I 6ER - r"�, REC�tHC Trig PARKiNW Alsi,� W�PTN • PL.ANT TR�E`� IN I?outrEVA1� -D I �I -•1ovE WESTERN Row oP PA�I�It -iC� I I �I t — I I •I 1 r. - umboldt —�- - Square -- COVE FIIRI -� - SUEWwLR l Z I - Qr E I - - 7 Z. .... ............ s 1 o ts� s a• I '*'§' o z s s' to' I Westwood Professional Servic Inc. June 19, 1991 REVISED W 20 / 91 Flumboldt Square Trail Planning A�Cr✓RNAT1v� D-1 6911', Ave. N. GONSTRUC,"1 NEW IZ' SIDEWP.I,K I i ttE.rr10V� SF}1>;UBSON PJE2M ,G"D QZPC..oI-Z r vi.A.r.47 a Ntw TTZ,eES pU E3ER- j T I L i i I `I o II -- - — umbofdt .Yw • I o - Square I — d — o -- -- E -- _ -- — - IZ 1- -- 11 ` t t. --•.--- - - -- -- 1- fi - • - - r' r9 Y 2 y}�y 1 1 .779a.:t47 t: 'YYdI�t:L: w.rr 1 2 ��. Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 0 MAY 8, 1991 nEVISED 6/20/91 Ihn Cly of Brooklyn Cenler — HUM oldt Square Trail Planning A � TE � N �,� wE E CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 6/24/91 Agenda Item Number /0 /— REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: STAFF RECOMMENDATION REGARDING REMODELING OF PARK SHELTER BUILDING AT TWIN LAKE BEACH DEPT. APPROVAL- Sy Knapp, Vfrector / of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes In the attached memo Chief Lindsay explains the need to provide a place to store • the specialized equipment (ATV, water ski bike, boat, etc.) which the Police Department uses to patrol the Twin Lakes area, and recommends that the park shelter building at Twin Lake Beach be remodeled to provide that storage. As noted in his memo, the costs for the proposed remodeling will include: Installation of overhead door $2,275.00 Install new beam above door (if old beam is inadequate) 570.00 Natural gas service line 600.00 Contingency, misc. items* 800.00 Estimated total cost range $2,875.00 to $4,245.00 * Note : Staff has agreed that it will not be necessary to construct any new partitions. However, additional costs may be incurred to reactivate plumbing and electrical systems which have not been used for several years. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION If the Council wishes to approve this improvement, a resolution is provided to amend the 1991 General Fund budget to appropriate the necessary funds from the Contingency fund and authorize the City Manager to proceed with the improvement. ©F1 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET, APPROPRIATING FUNDS, AND AUTHORIZING REMODELING OF PARK SHELTER BUILDING AT TWIN LAKE BEACH WHEREAS, the Chief of Police has determined that there is a need for storage space for specialized equipment used by the Police Department to patrol the Twin Lakes area; and WHEREAS, the Director of Recreation has obtained price quotations for remodeling the park shelter building at Twin Lake Beach Park to accommodate the Police Department's storage needs; 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, Minnesota, that: 1. The 1991 General Fund budget be amended as follows: Increase the Appropriations for the following line items: Parks Maintenance - No. 69, Object No. 4520 $4,245.00 Decrease the Appropriations for the following line items: Unallocated Dept. Expense - No 80, Object No. 4995 $4,245.00 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to proceed with this improvement. 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. POLI DEPARTMENT CE MEMORANDUM POLICE TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM: James Lindsay, Chief of Police DATE: May 3, 1991 SUBJECT: Remodeling Twin Lake Park Shelter Building For Use by Twin Lake Joint Power Organization Communities The Twin Lake Joint Power Organization representing Robbinsdale, Crystal, and Brooklyn Center was formed early this year. The original purpose was to patrol the three lakes during the winter time. The concept has now been expanded to consider patrolling the lakes during the summer months. This past winter the lakes were patrolled using the police department's A.T.V. We attempted to store the vehicle at the Twin Lake Park shelter building. The doors were not wide enough to allow entry of the vehicle into the building. We did keep auxiliary equipment in the building including snowmobile suits, helmets, overshoes, et cetera. The vehicle was kept at a private residence, secured in a garage. Arnie Mavis has obtained cost estimates to add an overhead garage door to the building to allow access of vehicles and a boat for storage. He also obtained costs to bring natural gas lines onto the property to the building. The building has a furnace, although bottled gas was used in the past. Both of the items should be one -time costs. The natural gas for running the furnace would be a recurring cost. e, Memo to Splinter and Knapp Page 2 May 3, 1991 We discussed at the time erecting a wall inside the park building that would cordon off a space that could be used exclusively by the enforcement people for writing reports, tags, and so forth. Mavis has indicated he had forgotten to have the wall included in the estimate. We already have a three -seat water ski bike donated to the Joint Powers communities for use during the summer months on Twin Lake. This unit was provided by the Kawasaki Company at no cost to us. We understand this could be provided annually. The Joint Powers Organization anticipates having a limited summertime water patrol during the summer of 1991. During this time, research and planning will be done for the purpose of developing an all - volunteer water patrol along the lines of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Lake Minnetonka Water Patrol Unit. If it is determined to establish the water patrol unit, the target date for becoming operational will be June of 1992. The Twin Lakeshore Owners Association is considering a fund - raiser to finance the purchase of a boat and motor. There has also been some preliminary discussion with the Lions Clubs of the three communities to help in the funding of the boat, motor and auxiliary equipment. The connection of the furnace and installation of the overhead garage door will be needed regardless of the summertime operation. We would expect to have the water ski bike delivered by the end of May. We do not believe the unit will fit through the service door at the shelter building the way it is without the improvements. It would then be required to store the water ski bike at a private residence again. This really is not desirable as it is a great inconvenience anytime we would use the unit. I would appreciate whatever consideration can be given to the remodeling of the park building. Attached you will find an estimate from Brandvold Builders. Mavis also indicated Minnegasco has estimated a cost of $600 for running the natural gas to the building. As stated above, there is no estimate for walling off one office area. ANDVOLD BUILDERS S !6 Colfax Ave. N. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 (612) 560 -8263 Date Mar.6,1991. To Richard Schwab 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55430 Description Amount Install one (1) 9' x7' flush overhead aaraae door with one (1) Garage door operator and two (2) remote controls. Patch both ends and patch concrete floor, redo wood siding around new garage door (no painting and no electrical). All- labor and material $2275.00 If old concrete beam above door is not strong enough it will have to be removed and replaced with two 10" micre lam beams at an additional cost of - - 570.00 0 Total - 10 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Alears Park Centre. 230 List Fifth Street, St. Paul. XIN 55101 -1634 612 291 -6359 FAX 612 291 -6550 TTY 612 291 -090.1 DATE: May 31, 1991 TO: Local Government Officials and Legislators FROM: Mary Anderson, Chairw9/ SUBJECT: REGIONAL BREAKFAST MEETINGS IN HENNEPIN COUNTY June 25, and July 1, 1991 The Metropolitan Council is beginning to develop its work program and budget for 1992. The Council members and I are anxious to hear your ideas about the future work of the Council and how you think we can best serve the region. We hope you will join us at our annual chair's regional breakfasts, which we are holding in June and July this year to provide you with the opportunity to comment and make suggestions. If you cannot attend the meetings we hope you i will send your thoughts to me in writing. During May, the Council is preparing its first draft of a list of priorities for the staff to consider in proposing a work program and budget. The staff will develop and present this proposed budget to the Council during June and July. By that time, we will have received your comments, and will include them in our considerations as we review and modify the staff's proposed budget for the public hearing process. A hearing will be held on the revised proposed budget in August or September. I am posing the following three questions for you to consider as we focus on long -term visioning as well as the immediate budget process. Please suggest what we should do in the short term (1992 work program) to work toward the long -term vision you see for the Council. 1. What are the major opportunities /challenges /issues that you believe the region faces now and over the next 10 -20 years? 2. In view of the above, what would you or your organization like the Council to do in our region? 3. How do you see us accomplishing this? Details for the Hennepin County breakfasts follow. I look forward to seeing and hearing from you. -over- Hennepin South When: Tuesday, June 25, 7:30 -9 a.m. Where: T. Wrights 3310 S. Hwy 101 Wayzata Cost: $4, includes breakfast, tax and gratuity RSVP: Please call Rosemarie Coleman at 291 -6630 by June 21 Hennepin North When: Monday, July 1, 7:30 -9 a.m. Where: Days Inn Minneapolis North 1501 Freeway Blvd. Brooklyn Center Cost: $6, includes breakfast, tax and gratuity RSVP: Please call Rosemarie Coleman at 291 -6630 by June 27 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 06/24/91 Agenda da t= Number / REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -03, CONTRACT 1991 -C (WATER MAIN CONSTRUCTION IN THE VICINITY OF 69TH AVENUE AND DUPONT AVENUE AT WATER TOWER #2) DEPT. APPROV f44, Sy Knapp, irector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: � No comments to supplement this report . Comments below /attached *********************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SU DIARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached • On May 13th of this year the City Council approved plans and specifications and authorized advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1990 -03, Water Distribution System Improvements. Bids for this project were received and opened on June 13, 1991. Of the five bids received (see attached Resolution) the lowest bid, $ 499,799.75 was submitted by Glendale Contracting Inc., of Plymouth, MN. Note: At the time of the May 13, 1991 meeting, the estimated contract cost of the project was reported as $409,017. Upon further review of the plans and proposed work, and discussions with the Public Utility Department, it was determined that several essential items had been omitted in the cost estimate which was submitted on May 13. When these items were added construction cost estimate was d o the contract, the constru increased to $507,000. These previously overlooked bid items (joint restraint, dewatering, additional valve manholes) are in fact essential to the project. It is also noted that, on January 8, 1990, when the Council originally established this project, the "estimated total project cost" was reported as $600,000 vs. the $585,941 which we now estimate. (I guess we should have left it unchanged on May 13!) Glendale has extensive experience in utility construction in the Metro area and has most recently completed the emergency repair of the sewer near Lift Station No. 1 for the City of Brooklyn Center. It is City Staff's opinion that Glendale is a competent firm, capable of handling the work. Accordingly, staff recommends award of the contract to Glendale Contracting Inc. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution accepting bid and awarding contract to Glendale is attached for consideration. n �v Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0, RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -03, CONTRACT 1991 -C (WATER MAIN CONSTRUCTION IN THE VICINITY OF 69TH AVENUE AND DUPONT AVENUE AT WATER TOWER #2) WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1990 -03, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Engineer, on the 13th day of June, 1991. Said bids were as follows: Bidder Bid Amount Glendale Contracting, Inc. $499,799.75 Barbarossa and Sons $559,081.75 Ryan Contracting $572,299.00 Excel Utilities $655,221.50 Northdale Construction $757,453.25 WHEREAS, it appears that Glendale Contracting, Inc. of Plymouth, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract, in the amount of $499,799.75, with Glendale Contracting, Inc. of Plymouth, Minnesota in the name of the City.of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1990 -03 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. 3. The estimated cost of Improvement Project No. 1990 -03 is hereby amended according to the following schedule: I RESOLUTION NO. As As Amended Ordered Per Low Bid Contract $ 409,017 $ 499,799.75 Contingency $ 61,353 (15 %) $ 24,980.25 (5%) Subtotal Construction $ 470,370 $ 524,780.00 Professional Services $ 8,679 $ 8,679.00 Staff Engineering (8%) $ 37,630 $ 41,982.00 Administration (1 %) $ 4,704 $ 5,250.00 Legal (1 %) $ 4,704 $ 5,250.00 Total Est. Project Cost $ 526,087 $ 585,941.00 4. All costs for these improvements will be financed by the Public Utilities Fund. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 6/24/91 Agenda Item Number / / b REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR MOTOR FUEL DISPENSING CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM UPGRADE, IMPROVEMENT NO. 1991 -15 DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, 5dector 4fublic Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONBAENDATION: �. No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached • The 1991 Data Processing annual budget includes $11,616 to upgrade the City's motor fuel dispensing control and data acquisition system located at the city maintenance garage. The original fuel dispensing control unit was installed in 1982. While the mechanical and electrical portions of the unit - the pumps, the electrical system, etc., are sound, the computerized control and data acquisition portion is worn out and obsolete. Bids were taken to upgrade the system by replacing the card reader and control unit, and the outdated HP150 computer. The low bid for the system upgrade was submitted by Pump and Meter Service, the firm which installed the original system. The bid is to upgrade the existing Tech 21 Series 1500 to a Tech 21 Series 1000. This unit is also used by the city of Blaine, and by the Robbinsdale and Osseo school districts' bus garages. Bids were also taken for replacing the existing computer. The low bid was submitted by PC Express, for a PC Express brand computer. The lowest bid for a Hewlett Packard brand computer was submitted by Office Products of Minnesota. The sum of the low bids ($11,565) for the system upgrade and the computer replacement is less than the amount budgeted. • • RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Pump and Meter Service is a reliable firm, and the Tech 21 Series 1000 is used by several metro area cities and school districts. We recommend acceptance of their low bid and awarding the contract to that firm to upgrade the control and data acquisition system. We also recommend acceptance of the bid from PC Express to replace the computer used with the system. • 11b Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR MOTOR FUEL DISPENSING CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM UPGRADE, IMPROVEMENT NO. 1991 -15 WHEREAS, the 1991 annual budget includes $11,616 to upgrade the Motor Fuel Dispensing Control and Data Acquisition System used at the City Maintenance Garage; and WHEREAS, the following proposals have been obtained: System Upgrade: Pump and Meter Service, Inc. $ 9,189.00 Zahl Equipment Company $11,259.00 Computer Upgrade: PC Express $ 2,376.00 Office Products of Minnesota $ 3,673.00 WHEREAS, the sum of the low bids ($11,565) for the two parts of the system is less than the amount budgeted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The proposal of Pump and Meter Service, Inc. is hereby accepted. 2. The proposal of PC Express is hereby accepted. 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Pump and Meter Service, Inc. on the basis of its bid. 4. All costs for this improvement shall be charged to the Data Processing Division 20 of the General Fund, Object No. 4551. 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 Mecting Date 06/24/91 Agenda Item Numbe,-__Ll C REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR TRAIL IMPROVEMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -07 (REPLACEMENT OF A PORTION OF TRAIL IN CENTRAL PARK, AND SURFACING OF TRAIL ON 53RD AVENUE EXTENSION SOUTH OF CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE) DEPT. APPROV : e /- Sy Knap , Direc of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMI%lENDATION: No comments to supplement this report . Comments below PP attached P below/ attached EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes At the regular meeting of May 13, 1991, the City Council established Improvement Project 1991 -07 (Trail Replacement and Surfacing) and accepted a Proposal from STS Consultants, Ltd., to provide geotechnical services. The two segments of the City's existing trail system proposed for upgrade are the bituminous, side -by- side pedestrian/bike trail segment located just southwest of the City Hall /Civic Center complex and the east -west, wood chip segment along the south boundary of Centerbrook Golf Course. Please refer to Figure 1 for the project location(s). Portions of the bituminous trail near the City Hall /Civic Center, under as much as 8" of standing water, and have been impassable since snowmelt this spring. This condition is a result of gradual subsidence, the effect of which can is apparent during this year of somewhat normal water table levels. The wood chip trail adjacent to the south edge of the golf course is normally too soft to ride a bicycle on, and should be reconstructed with a hard surface. Accordingly, the C E has o r trail in s develo ed plans and specifications f Y g P P P reconstruction in the two project areas. Incorporating the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant, the design for the reconstruction of the "sinking" trail behind the Hennepin County Government Center complex consists of the following: removal of the existing bituminous, gravel and sand fill in the areas where there has been water standing over the existing trail • - the installation of a lightweight aggregate material, to replace the existing fill material(s) - encapsulation of the lightweight aggregate with a geotextile fabric, to prevent the new fill material from mixing with the underlying organic soils - a thin layer of ordinary gravel and bituminous paving, at a higher elevation - slightly raising the elevation of a small pedestrian bridge, to match the new paving For the trail segment adjacent to the golf course, the design is essentially the same, except that the removal of existing wood chips is required. The most important aspect of this design philosophy is that these trail sections should be "floated" as much as possible, with a minimum of weight, to discourage future settlements. It should be noted, however, that due to the organic nature of the underlying soils, some small settlements may occur. The elevation of the reconstructed trail is being set high to account for any such settlements. Please refer to Figure 2 for design details. The static water table in the construction areas is anticipated to be relatively high; therefore it is recommended that this work be performed in late summer (August or September). The water levels would be at their seasonal lowest, and paving could commence before the cool weather sets in. • The estimated construction cost of both segments is $ 65,700 ($ 51,700 for Central Park Trail, $ 14,000 for Golf Course Trail). Approximately one -half of the estimated cost can be attributed to the use of lightweight aggregate, which is regarded as somewhat of a specialized construction material. It should be noted, however, that the geotechnical consultant has stated that the use of conventional fill materials will undoubtedly lead to conditions that exist now, i.e.- further consolidation of the peat soils and trail subsidence. Staff recommends approval of the plans and specifications, as prepared by the City Engineer, and authorization for advertisement for bids. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution approving plans and specifications and directing advertisement for bids is provided for consideration by the City Council. • _ _:. .. - v a k i I �t 6' 1 a 1 u 1 + — 3 r %�. RR EST OCAT v , f i - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- z f PROJECT LOCATION ,e • { - SIDEWALKS EXISTING ON STREET TRAILS is EXISTING OFF STREET TRAIL S --- - - - - -- PROPOSED ON STREET TRAILS PROPOSED OFF STREET TRAILS 's 1 MAP 1 Comprehensive Plan i Z 6ir. Sue,� � � 0 7 �,SC,'2EC�,9T� TP /CAL �LE4 � yD . , ... , E.1' >5;t %NEa �P• • :�'2 � , � . ' � /8 � /E�.�fTl1/� /��7� r�7/ /G s TYPICAL SECTION BITUMINOUS TRAIL REPLACEMENT CENTRAL PARK Zo !O 96e 4 �E�av� yl/ ®DD C� /oS ACE �e5o 6 ' PG 71ZZ �49.,elC �9AAO TYPICAL SECTION REPLACE WOOD CHIP TRAIL 53RD AVE F/G IRZ 2 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR TRAIL IMPROVEMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -07 (REPLACEMENT OF A PORTION OF TRAIL IN CENTRAL PARK, AND SURFACING OF TRAIL ON 54RD AVENUE EXTENSION SOUTH OF CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE) WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 91 -133, adopted May 13, 1991, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for Trail Improvements, Improvement Project No. 1991 -07, and has submitted the plans and specifications to the City Council for review and approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Said plans and specifications as prepared by the City Engineer are hereby approved. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of such improvement in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, shall specify the work to be done and shall state the time and location at which bids will be opened by the City Clerk and the City Manager or their designees. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City Clerk for 5 percent of the amount of such bid. 3. The estimated project costs for Improvement Project No. 1991 -07 are as follows: Contract $ 65,700 Contingency 9,860 Professional Services 2,700 Engineering (8%) 6,040 Administration (1 %) 760 Legal (1 %) 760 Total Estimated Project Cost $ 85,820 4. All costs relating to this project shall be financed by MSA Fund No. 2611. 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 6/24 91 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1990 -D, STREET RECONSTRUCTION ON FREEWAY BOULEVARD /65TH AVENUE /66TH AVENUE FROM SHINGLE CREEK TO T.H. 252, AND ON HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN 65TH AND 69TH AVENUES NORTH ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: J", i� SY KNAPP( IRE PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • Contract 1990 -D, Street Reconstruction of Freeway Blvd. /65th Ave. /66th Ave.(Shingle Creek to T.H. 252) and Humboldt Ave. N., between 65th and 69th Ave. N., has been completed by Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc. The City Council accepted their low bid per Resolution No. 90 -110 and a contract was subsequently executed. Due to an underestimation of quantities, the actual final value of work exceeds the original contract, plus approved change orders, by $500.23. Staff recommends acceptance of the work performed and authorization to make final payment to Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc. . City Council Action Required A resolution accepting work performed and authorizing final payment to Thomas and Sons Construction Inc. is attached for consideration. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1990 -D, STREET RECONSTRUCTION ON FREEWAY BOULEVARD /65TH AVENUE/ 66TH AVENUE FROM SHINGLE CREEK TO T.H. 252, AND ON HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN 65TH AND 69TH AVENUES NORTH WHEREAS, pursuant to written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Thomas & Sons Construction s Inc. has satisfactorily completed the following improvements in accordance with said contract: RECONSTRUCTION OF FREEWAY BOULEVARD /65TH /66TH AVENUES NORTH AND HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 1989 -26A, 1989 -26B & 1989 -27 CONTRACT 1990 -D 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 P PP according to the following schedule: As Amended for Original Contract & Contract Total As Ordered Change Orders 1 & 2 Final Amount Contract $ 825,520 $ 763,358.89 $ 763,859.09 Contingency 123,830 - -- - -- Landscape (future contract) - -- 25,000.00 25,000.00 Right -of -way Acquisition 29,500 63,206.55 63,206.55 Overhead Power Relocation 60,000 58,645.00 58,645.00 Staff Engineering (8%) 75,950 61,068.71 61,108.73 Engr. Fees (Consultants) - -- 35,000.00 6,850.00 Administration (1 %) 9,490 7,633.59 7,638.59 Legal and Bonding (1 %) 9,490 7,633.59 7,638.59 Interest 94,940 9.955.62 64.85 Total Est. Contract Cost $ 1,228,720 $ 1,031,501.95 $ 994,011.40 RESOLUTION NO. Project Revenues As Amended for Original Contract & As Ordered Change Orders 1 & 2 Final Amount Special Assessments $ 623,030 $ 532,409.17 $ 532,409.17 Public Utility Fund 298,820 100,425.70 93,862.29 Regular Municipal State Aid Fund 2613 869,900 631,588.12 687,090.73 Local Municipal State Aid Fund 2611 (563,030) (232,921.04) (319.350.79) $ 1,228,720 $ 1,031,501.95 $ 994,011.40 PROJECT 1989 -26 As Amended for Original Contract & Contract Total As Ordered Change Orders 1 & 2 Final Amount Contract $ 730,960 $ 603,533.55 $ 593,580.42 Contingency 109,650 - -- - -- Landscape (future contract) - -- - -- - -- Right -of -way Acquisition 24,500 24,500.00 24,500.00 Overhead Power Relocation 60,000 58,645.00 58,645.00 Staff Engineering (8%) 67,250 48,282.68 47,486.43 Engr. Fees (Consultants) - -- 32,990.00 4,840.00 Administration (1 %) 8,400 6,035.34 5,935.80 Legal and Bonding (1 %) 8,400 6,035.34 5,935.80 Interest 84.070 6.839.79 0 Total Est. Contract Cost $ 1,093,230 $ 786,861.70 $ 740,923.45 Project Revenues As Amended for Original Contract & As Ordered Change Orders 1 & 2 Final Amount Special Assessments $ 527,930 $ 437,309.17 $ 437,309.17 Public Utility Fund 298,820 100,425.70 93,862.29 Regular Municipal State Aid Fund 2613 727,960 539,116.22 583,110.43 Local Municipal State Aid Fund 2611 (461,480) (289,989.39) (373,358.44) $ 1,093,230 $ 786,861.70 $ 740,923.45 RESOLUTION N0. PROJECT 1989 -27 As Amended for Original Contract & Contract Total As Ordered Change Orders 1 & 2 Final Amount Contract $ 94,560 $ 159,825.34 $ 170,278.67 Contingency 14,180 - -- - -- Landscape (future contract) 25,000 25,000.00 25,000.00 Right -of -way Acquisition 36,400 38,706.55 38,706.55 Overhead Power Relocation - -- - -- - -- Staff Engineering (8%) 8,700 12,786.03 13,622.30 Engr. Fees (Consultants) 2,010 2,010.00 2,010.00 Administration (1 %) 1,090 1,598.25 1,702.79 Legal and Bonding (1 %) 1,090 1,598.25 1,702.79 Interest 10,870 3,115.83 64.85 Total Est. Contract Cost $ 193,900 $ 244,640.25 $ 253,087.95 _Project Revenues As Amended for Original Contract & As Ordered Change Orders 1 & 2 Final Amount Special Assessments $ 95,100 $ 95,100.00 $ 95,100.00 Public Utility Fund - -- - -- - -- Regular Municipal State Aid Fund 2613 141,940 92,471.90 103,980.30 Local Municipal State Aid Fund 2611 ( 43,140) 57.068.35 54,007.65 $ 193,900 $ 244,640.25 $ 253,087.95 2. The value of work actually performed is $ 500.23 more than the original contract plus approved change orders, 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 to the Contractor for said improvements under said contract shall be $763,859.09. 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 CENTER Council Meeting Date 06/24/91 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION *********************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED SHADE TREES DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp irecto of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report . Comments below /attached t 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 all as new trees are marked. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION It is recommended the Council adopt the attached resolution. /Ir Member introduced the follow' resolution lution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES (ORDER NO. DST 06/24/91) 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 ---------------------- - - - - -- ----------------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- DOUGLAS & KELLY STAND 3813 FRANCE PL 23 ROBERT & MARTHA RUE 5948 ADMIRAL LN 24 RICHARD & RUTH KRUGER 5830 PEARSON DR 25 KEVIN & JULIE BAKEY 5822 PEARSON DR 26 AMBROSE MCGRATH 6043 JUNE AVE N 27 JON SPETZ 7232 FRANCE AVE N 28 DANIEL & JOY WADSWORTH 7237 FRANCE AVE N 29 STEPHEN & SOLVEIG NELSON 5929 EWING AVE N 30 CYNTHIA DUBOIS 5921 EWING AVE N 31 STEVEN ABRESS 5807 EWING AVE N 32 ERNEST & BETH CREELMAN 3612 58TH AVE N 33 DALE & NORMA ANDERSON 6331 KYLE AVE N 34 DONALD & LILA HEUER 6436 QUAIL AVE N 35 DANA & BARBARA DANIELS 6236 BROOKLYN DR 36 JAMES & KATHLEEN UTECHT 5900 WASHBURN 37 DONALD & BETTE MEYER 5842 WASHBURN AVE N 38 GARY & TERRY GOSSARD 5843 WASHBURN AVE N 39 KATHERINE MILLER 5543 DUPONT AVE N 40 KATHERINE MILLER 5543 DUPONT AVE N 41 JAMES & BOBBYE MOYLAN 5541 KNOX AVE N 42 DOROTHY LESCAULT 6831 SCOTT AVE N 43 HARRIET BERG 620 53RD AVE N 44 CITY OF BC SHINGLE CR PKWY 45 JUDY ERICKSON 3412 72ND AVE N 46 JOSEPH WHALEN 3507 72ND AVE N 47 WAYNE & BARBARA YWECKO 5807 HALIFAX AVE N 48 WILLIAM & JOAN CASHIN 3320 49TH AVE N 49 RESOLUTION NO. ROBERT & LINDA RANCOUR 3229 49TH AVE N 50 FLOYD & ELEANOR JOHNSON 4901 BEARD AVE N 51 DALE & DOROTHY STIELE 3349 49TH AVE N 52 ALVIN & RUTH LIND 3343 49TH AVE N 53 DWAIN & MARGARET HURD 3207 QUARLES RD 54 JOSEPH & ALICE LAHAYE 3206 QUARLES RD 55 CITY OF BC CENTRAL PARK 56 CITY OF BC CENTRAL PARK 57 CITY OF BC CENTRAL PARK 58 J. BURTON & ANGELA WUENSCH 6400 GIRARD AVE N 59 JAROLD & JUDITH MODEEN 5545 BROOKLYN BLVD 60 GEORGE & HELLEN ZAHLER 3508 ADMIRAL LA 61 LORRAINE HIPP 5925 WASHBURN AVE N 62 GERALD & NANCY DOUCETTE 5949 ZENITH AVE N 63 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER WILLOW LN PARK 64 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 70TH PERRY SIDE 65 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 70TH PERRY SIDE 66 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 70TH PERRY SIDE 67 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 70TH PERRY SIDE 68 CITY OF BROOKLY CENTER 70TH PERRY SIDE 69 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 70TH PERRY SIDE 70 THOMAS & SHERYL JOHNSON 5338 LOGAN AVE N 71 THOMAS & SHERYL JOHNSON 5338 LOGAN AVE N 72 JAMES BERGMANN 5328 LOGAN AVE N 73 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER CENTER BROOK GOLF 74 JOSEPH & CHERYLE PULLEN 2331 ERICON DR 75 GAYLE & LILA HAMEL 2325 ERICON DR 76 BENNIE ROZMAN 3425 53RD AVE N 77 BENNIE ROZMAN 3315 53RD AVE N 78 WANDA LARSON 5826 EWING AVE N 79 RANDY & MARIE REED 6421 BRYANT AVE N 80 RANDY & MARIE REED 6421 BRYANT AVE N 81 JAMES & SANDRA ODEEN 5406 67TH AVE N 82 RICHARD /THEODORA BELLCOUR 5412 68TH AVE N 83 ALAN & LINDA HOWELL 7218 NOBLE AVE N 84 WILLOW LANE REALTY 7015 BROOKLYN BLVD 85 WILLOW LANE REALTY 7015 BROOKLYN BLVD 86 WILLOW LANE REALTY 7015 BROOKLYN BLVD 87 WILLOW LANE REALTY 7015 BROOKLYN BLVD 88 WILLOW LANE REALTY 7015 BROOKLYN BLVD 89 WILLOW LANE REALTY 7015 BROOKLYN BLVD 90 WILLOW LANE REALTY 7015 BROOKLYN BLVD 91 WILLOW LANE REALTY 7015 BROOKLYN BLVD 92 EARL BACKER 7018 BROOKLYN BLVD 93 DANIEL & CHERI PARADISE 6945 MAJOR AVE N 94 2. After twenty (20) days from the date of the notice, the property owner(s) will receive a second written notice providing five (5) business days in which to contest the determination of the City Council by requesting, in writing, a hearing. Said request shall be filed with the City Clerk. 3. After five (5) days, if the property owner fails to request a hearing, the tree(s) shall be removed by the City. All removal costs, including legal, financing, and administrative charges, shall be specially assessed against the property. RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICY REGARDING THE USE OF RECYCLED BUILDING MATERIALS IN MUNICIPALLY- FUNDED CONSTRUCTION AND REMODELING PROJECTS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center wishes to promote the purchase of recycled and recyclable materials in order to strengthen markets for recyclable materials; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center passed Resolution No. 90 -127, A Resolution Authorizing a City -wide Recycled Paper Procurement Policy on June 25, 1990, in order to promote strengthening of the recycled paper market; and WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners passed Resolution No. 90- 11- 842R1, a resolution encouraging municipalities to further efforts to close the recycling loop by promoting the purchase of materials with recycled content and to use such materials in the construction and remodeling of municipal facilities, on November 20, 1990. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, adopts the following policy regarding the promotion of the use of recycled building materials in the construction and remodeling of municipal buildings. 1. Standards and specifications for products used in construction or remodeling of municipal facilities will not prohibit the use of products with recycled content. 2. All bid specifications for improvements of construction of municipal facilities will contain the following statement: "The City of Brooklyn Center encourages the use of recycled building materials wherever practical and appropriate provided the product with recycled content meets the required performance specifications and will not negatively impact health, safety, or operational efficiency." 3. The City will cooperate with neighboring City, County, and State governments in an effort to develop consistent, and effective procurement efforts which promote the use of recycled products in construction materials wherever practical and appropriate. RESOLUTION NO, 4. All City departments and agencies, including the Economic Development Authority, will cooperate to achieve the purposes of this policy. 5. The City Manager will ensure that all future bid specifications for construction or improvements to municipal buildings meet the intentions of this policy. 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 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: June 10, 1991 TO: HRG Board Members FROM: Julie Jones, HRG Administrator SUBJECT: City Council Consideration of Recycled Building Materials Policy At the special meeting which the Hennepin Recycling Group Board held on June 10, 1991, the attached Recycled Building Materials Policy was approved by the HRG Board. HRG staff was directed to forward this policy to each HRG City Council for their consideration. As stated in the attached resolution, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution last November which requires cities to approve policies that promote or give equal preference to the purchase of recycled building materials in the construction or remodeling of municipal facilities. The County staff developed a draft policy, which has been rewritten and modified to suit the HRG cities' needs. A Recycled Building Materials Policy must be adopted in some form prior to July 1, 1991, in order for Hennepin County cities to qualify for an additional 10% recycling cost reimbursement in 1991. The maximum reimbursement that the HRG could receive, if such a policy is not adopted, is 70 %. The additional 10% funding that approval of this policy will allow, equals to approximately $50,000 for the Hennepin Recycling Group. JJ:jt cc: Patti Page, Deputy City Clerk, Brooklyn Center Valerie Leone, City Clerk, New Hope Darlene George, City Clerk, Crystal /l Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT FROM THE ROTARY CLUB OF BROOKLYN CENTER --------------------------------------- WHEREAS, THE ROTARY CLUB OF BROOKLYN CENTER has presented the City a gift of eight hundred dollars ($800) and has designated that it be used for the "Entertainment in the Parks" recreation program and flowers in Central Park; and WHEREAS, the City Council is appreciative of the gift and commends the Rotary Club of Brooklyn Center for its civic efforts: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to acknowledge the gift with gratitude; and follows: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the gift of $800 be appropriated as Recreation Programs, "Entertainment in the Parks" $300 Parks Maintenance, Landscape Materials & Supplies $500 Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. /1H Member introduced the following resolution Is and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING CONCEPT OF AN MTC OPTING -IN PROGRAM AND OFFERING BROOKLYN CENTER AS A PILOT -CITY WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center, over the years, has been interested in improving intra- and -inter suburban transit capabilities; and WHEREAS, the current transit system is orientated toward servicing the two central city downtown areas; and WHEREAS, suburban communities are no longer able to "opt - out" of MTC transit services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Brooklyn Center that it supports the concept of an Opting -In program which would allow suburban communities input into transit service for their areas and offers Brooklyn Center as a "Pilot- City" for this program. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Licenses to be approved by the City Council on June 24, 1991: AMUSEMENT DEVICE - OPERATOR Davanni's 5937 Summit Drive Holiday Inn 2200 Freeway Blvd. Lynbrook Bowl 6357 N. Lilac Drive ` Metropolitan Transit Comm. 6845 Shingle Ck. Pwy. < 1 n C , ief of ~ Police n AMUSEMENT DEVICE - VENDOR American Amusement Arcades 850 Decatur Avenue - r (9' of Police ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT `1 J�✓`' Brooklyn Center Country Store 3600 63rd Ave. N. Charank's Mini - Donuts 1274 Desoto St. Betsy Medley 1762 Canyon Lane Patty Pratt 906 - 60th Ave. N. R. J. Food Concessions 59 E. George St. Nancy Rockwood 3404 Silver Lake Road Sanitarian RENTAL DWELLINGS Renewal: Tom and Dorothy Storie 5607 Camden Ave. N. Thomas B. Egan 5239 -41 Drew Ave. N. Patrick Menth 5302 Fremont Ave. N. Lyndon and Carole Carlson 5819 Halifax Ave. N. Joseph A. McFadden 4201 Lakeside Ave. N. JJ316 William and Nancy Dahlquist 4700 Lakeview Ave. N. Henry Ulhorn 5207 E. Twin Lake Blvd. L. H. Hanggi 3725 - 47th Ave. N. Jim Stalberger /Al Juhnke 3129 - 49th Ave. N. Myrna L. Hubert 5300 - 70th Circle N. Director of Planning n ' L and Inspection — SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT Cole's Gift Shop 2200 Freeway Blvd. Sanitarian GENERAL APPROVAL: P. Page, Depujj Clerk