Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1991 06-10 CCP Regular Session
0 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER JUNE 10, 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. April 29, 1991 - Board of Equalization *b. May 13, 1991 - Regular Session 8. Proclamation: a. Declaring June 27, 1991, As SOCM Day 9. Planning Commission Items: (7:05 p.m.) a. 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 -This application was first considered by the Planning Commission at its April 11, 1991, meeting and was tabled with direction to the staff and the applicant to pursue options other than a variance. This matter was brought back before the Planning Commission at its May 30, 1991, meeting at which time the Commission re- reviewed the application and recommended denial of the variance request on the grounds that the Standards for a 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. That ordinance amendment is offered for the City Council's consideration. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- June 10, 1991 1. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Allow a Lesser Buffer Where an Industrial Use Abuts an Institutional Use -This item is offered this evening for a first reading. b. Planning ommission Application o g pp N 91007 submitted by Real Estate Financial Consultants, Inc. and Ivan and Hazel Vetterick requesting 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 land in question would then be transferred by platting to the lot at 4010 65th Avenue North in order to provide enough land area to support four dwelling units on the property at 4010 65th Avenue North -This application was considered by the Planning Commission at its May 16, 1991, meeting and recommended for approval by the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 91 -4. 1. Resolution Regarding Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 91007 Submitted by Ivan and Hazel Vetterick and Real Estate Financial Consultants, Inc. 2. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land (Hamm's Second Addition) -This ordinance is offered this evening for a first reading. C. Planning Commission Application No. 91009 submitted by the Earle Brown Bowl requesting special use permit approval to construct a temporary, seasonal deck capable of seating 0 immediately tel west of the existing Earle Y g 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 -This application was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its May 30, 1991, meeting. d. Planning Commission Application No. 91010 submitted by Marquette Bank Brookdale requesting site and building plan approval to construct a 5,700 sq. ft. addition to the Marquette Bank Brookdale at 5620 Brooklyn Boulevard -This application was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its May 30, 1991, meeting. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- June 10, 1991 10. Ordinances: a. An Ordinance Vacating Water Main Easement in Twin View Meadows -This item is offered this evening for a first reading. b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances Regarding Public Nuisances -This item establishes avenues to address problems dealing with unwanted visitors in school buildings. It was presented for a first reading to the City Council on May 13, 1991, and was tabled in order to obtain additional information. The ordinance is presented for a first reading in an amended format this evening. 11. Discussion Items: a. Earle Brown Days Events b. 1991 -2000 Capital Improvements Program (Review of Draft Copy) C. Staff Report Re: 57th Avenue Drainage Problems d. Staff Report Re: Sewer Repair at Lift Station #1 - Located at southwest corner of Garden City Park 1. Resolution Establishing Emergency Sewer Repair at Lift Station #1, Improvement Project No. 1991 -13 e. Requests for City Council's 1992 Budget -In preparation of the 1992 budget, staff is requesting input from the City Council on items they wish to see included in the budget. (Staff will cost out and prepare necessary documentation.) f. Request from Upper Twin Lake Association for Algae Treatment g. Minneapolis /North Suburban Fire Training Facility h. Proposed League of Cities Constitution Amendments - Adoption of official City position. 12. Resolutions: *a. Declaring Surplus Property - Authorizing advertisement for bids for the sale of the old mobile concession trailer. *b. Authorizing the Transfer of Funds in Order to Vaccinate Certain City Employees Against Hepatitis B and Amending the 1991 General Fund Budget CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -4- June 10, 1991 c. Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Humboldt Avenue /65th Avenue Landscaping, Improvement Project No. 1991 -03, Contract 1991 -D d. Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for 1991 Sealcoating Program, Improvement Project No. 1991 -05, Contract 1991 -F e. Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Diseased Shade Trees (Order No. DST 06/10/91) f. Endorsing the One -Half Cent Optional Sales Tax /Legislative Update *g. Amending the 1991 General Fund Budget and Approving the Purchase of Equipment and Authorizing the Transfer of Funds from Drug Forfeiture Monies -The Police Department will use these funds to purchase transcribers, shields for police cars, radio equipment and file cabinets. h. Amending the 1991 Pay Plan to Recognize a Reorganization in the City Manager's Office *i. Authorizing Execution of an Agreement Between Metropolitan Clinic of Counseling, Inc. and the City of Brooklyn Center for an Employee Assistance Program j. Establishing a Brooklyn Center Ad Hoc City Communications Task Force and Defining Duties and Responsibilities *k. Accepting Bids and Authorizing the Purchase of Rubber Flooring for Park Buildings *13. Licenses 14. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION APRIL 29, 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center Board of Equalization 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, City Assessor Mark Parish, Senior Appraiser Joe DaBruzzi, and Board of Equalization Secretary Ann Odden. PURPOSE OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION The City Manager stated the purpose of the Board of Equalization, indicating state law provided for the City Council to act as the Board. The Board was to provide for equitable assessment of property and building values throughout the City and was the first level of appeal available to citizens. The second and third levels were the County Board and the Minnesota Tax Court, respectively. The Board was to review the assessments brought before it to determine the appropriateness of the assessed values and whether or not the assessor had acted equitably. PROCEDURAL REVIEW OF PROPERTY TAXATION AND CITY ASSESSOR'S REPORT The City Assessor provided a presentation to review the procedure of property taxation. On January 2 of each year, property values are assessed and sales in the past 12 months are reviewed to determine the median ratio. If there have been insufficient numbers of sales of certain properties to determine the median ratio, the window of time in which sales are reviewed is expanded to 24 months or more. The City Assessor stated the City received about 16.5 cents for each tax dollar collected. State law would indicate homes should not be assessed at less than their market value but 90 -105 percent of market value would be an acceptable range. If the City were to 4/29/91 - 1 - go beyond this range, the State or County would provide an across - the -board adjustment. The City Assessor stated the City's median was typically 93 percent and has historically been well within the guidelines. The City Assessor reviewed the trends of market values within the City, noting there had been small increases of four to five percent in certain residential areas, such as along Twin Lakes. Apartment building taxes had decreased from five to fifteen percent in some cases, office buildings were stable or declining as were industrial buildings, and retail property and vacant land were increasing by about five to ten percent. He indicated 25 percent of parcels were reinspected each year. In order to do this, notices were sent to homeowners. In cases where property owners refused to cooperate with reinspections, the City assumed the value. He felt the property valuation in the City was among the most equitable in the metro area. The Board discussed property taxes on apartment buildings and were told the income generated by the building was a factor in determining property taxes, the cost of land and depreciation and market value being the other two factors. Councilmember Pedlar questioned whether apartment owners who failed to maintain their buildings and manage them efficiently were actually being rewarded with lower property taxes. The City Assessor stated the City tried to balance this and not to create a disincentive to maintain. In response to Councilmember Cohen's question, the City Assessor indicated the Civ would assess a vacant four -plex, for example, by trying to determine why the building was vacant and determine the costs to improve the property to make it habitable. The Councilmembers concurred with the current rules on property taxation as explained by the City Assessor. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to accept the Assessor's report. The motion passed unanimously. During the meeting, the City Assessor introduced two Assessment Technicians who were present, Cheryl Cameron and Kay Manning. The Council commended them c their efforts on behalf of the City. Councilmember Scott indicated citizens had commented they had been impressed with their friendliness and graciousness. She felt they way the assessors dealt with the public was a good reflection upon the City. PUBLIC INQUIRY REGARDING LOCAL ASSESSMENTS The City Manager indicated three property owners had requested their cases be heard by the Board of Equalization and were on the agenda for the meeting. 4/29/91 - 2- Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing for the Board of Equalization at 7:46 p.m. He indicated the two cases with appointments, those being the Wiley- Crosby property located at 5621 Indiana Avenue North and Jack Schubert's 50's Grill Restaurant located at 5524 Brooklyn Boulevard, would be heard first. After that time, other cases would be heard on a walk -in basis if there was anyone present who wished to do so, and then a request made by letter from Reolita Paray in regard to her property at 3307 66th Avenue North would be considered. WILEY- CROSBY 5621 INDIANA AVENUE NORTH PID #03- 118 -21 -31 -0001 Joe DaBruzzi, the appraiser in this case, had prepared a report for the Board stating the original value for the 1991 assessment was $248,500. Staff reviewed this appraisal and requested the Board to affirm this value. The property had been inspected and was in good condition with many amenities. The property also has excess land which the appraiser felt could be plotted into five additional lots and sold as four lots at a resale value of $25,000 each and one lakefront lot at a resale value of $53,000. Several comparable sales in the area had been studied to determine the value. Subtracting out the development costs, estimated at $60,000, left a present value of the excess land at $93,000. The present market value of the house with a typical amount of land was $182,000 plus the $93,000 of excess land value indicated the total market value of $275,000. The City Assessor agreed to recommend the original market value as of January 2, 1991, which was $248,500. Mr. Valjean Wiley was in attendance at the meeting and made a presentation to the Board. He did not question the market value of the home but felt the valuation of the excess land resulted in an inequitable assessment. He indicated the property had seen a dramatic increase in property taxes regularly in the past several years and stated there had been an inconsistency in the valuation of the excess land. To illustrate this, he pointed out the land had been valued at $45,000 in 1984; and, in 1986 the assessment was reduced by $11,000. He objected to the perceived lack of continuity in the valuation and felt the lakefront lot was not buildable. Mr. Wiley stated the lakefront lot in question was under the 100 -year flood plain and would require variances before building. He felt his property had been singled out for tax increases since it was the only one of seven in the neighboring area with an increase and that increase was proposed to be 33 percent for 1992. He proposed the Board eliminate its valuation for the fifth, lakefront lot and assess the property similar to neighboring properties. He felt a total assessment of $200,000 or less would be more equitable. The City Assessor commented on the appraiser's report and his recommendation. He indicated extensive study had been done of this property, and an increase had been recommended because the property was uniquely valuable and had been undervalued in 4/29/91 - 3 - previous years. He stated four of the lots were unquestionably buildable and the fifth lot could be built upon, although only one reasonable configuration was possible. This would result in a home being built upon the easternmost side of the lot. In response to Councilmember Cohen's question, the City Assessor indicated state law specified the City must consider "uses to which the land could be put" but did not specify "buildable lots." He indicated if built upon, the lakefront lot would not result in an optimal situation, as the buyer would be limited as to the location of the home, and that location would be approximately 200 feet from the lake. However, given the limited supply of lakefront property, the lot was still very v 1 ?able. Councilmember Pedlar questioned whether the parcel in question could accurately be described as a "?�,kefront lot." However, he felt the comparable values resulted in a fair assessment regardless of this lot. In response to Councilmember Cohen's question, Mr. Wiley indicated he would theoretically sell the property for the assessed value, although his wife would probably not approve. Councilmember Rosene questioned the property's possible undervaluation in the past. Mr. Wiley stated he had been to tax court on the matter during which time the value of the property had been frozen. He felt since the taxes had regularly increased, undervaluation was not possible. The City Assessor noted the tax court decision had actually been a negotiated settlement. The Board discussed Mr. Wiley's proposal that the property be assessed at $200,000 or less. Councilmember Cohen commented he had figured the valuation a number of different ways and felt the $200,000 figure was too low in any event. The City Assessor felt the recommended $248,500 figure was a conservative one. There was a motion by Councilmember Jerry Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Philip Cohen to affirm the recommendation of the City Assessor that the Assessor's Market Value as of January 2, 1991, be $248,500. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Rosene thanked Mr. Wiley for his well - prepared presentation to the Board. The Brooklyn Center Board of Equalization recessed at 9:04 p.m. and reconvened at 9:15 p.m. JACK SCHUBERT, 50'S GRILL RESTAURANT 5524 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD PID #03- 118 -21 -41 -0015 The City Manager reviewed this case for the Board and indicated Mr. Schubert had been unable to attend the meeting. It was requested that Mr. Schubert's letter be read into the record. 4/29/91 - 4 - Dated April 28, 1991, it stated: "Dear Sirs: I am writing this letter to protest the 7% increase ($42,100) in market value proposed for the 50's Grill property located at 5524 Brooklyn Blvd. In light of the current recession, the glut of office and retail space and the fact that there are more restaurants going out of business than are opening up, I think commercial values are down not up. With revenues and incomes down, values have to be down. I don't think it is appropriate for the city to let a small number of sales of property that occur each year dictate the value of the entire base of comparable property in the city. I realize you are in the midst of a budget crunch. Increased revenue from property taxes is not the answer. The bulk of the answer has to be found in productivity improvements, belt tightening and careful cost/benefit analysis of all programs and services. Thank you for thoughtfully considering m point of view. Business demands kept g Y g YP P me from appearing in person tonight. Sincerely, Jack Schubert President 50's Grill" The City Assessor reviewed the report on this item and indicated that although Mr. Schubert did not agree with the City's method of assessing property, it was based upon state law and property taxes were fluid. He noted the tax levy was divided by the tax base. If the tax base eroded, it increased each person's proportionate share of taxes. Therefore, new revenues were not generated, but the tax burden was shifted. He indicated the site contained 42,542 square feet of land on the main parcel plus a partial interest in the private roadway which brought the total square feet to 48,476. Similar facilities in the area were reviewed to ascertain comparable value. He recommended that the Assessor's Market Value of $644,100 as of January 2, 1991, be affirmed. 4/29/91 - 5 Councilmember Cohen noted a number of the comparable properties were located in the Brookdale area and questioned whether that would inflate values. The City Assessor stated that factor had been taken into consideration. The Board discussed the fact that the figures listed were preliminary and came to the conclusion that they were valid estimates, and nothing would be gained by requiring a more in -depth analysis. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott to affirm the Assessor's Market Value of $644,100 as of aanuary 2, 1991. The motion passed unanimously. WALK -INS There was no one present on a walk -in basis who wished to have their property assessment reviewed by the Board of Equalization. LETTER FROM REOLITA PARAY 3307 66TH AVENUE NORTH PID #34- 119 -21- 14 -0065 The City Assessor briefly reviewed this item and requested Ms. Paray's letter be entered into the record. The letter, dated April 22, 1991, stated: 'Dear City Assessor: Re: Property ID 34- 119 -21 -14 -0065 3307 66th Avenue North, Brooklyn Center This letter is in reference to your current valuation of my property referenced above. This property was recently classified as non - homestead residential with market value of $73,500. I recently had this property evaluated for possible sale. Several realtors gave me estimated market value of $73,000 to $75,000. The market P rice is possibly $75,000. I am therefore concerned that your estimation of my property value for tax purposes is a little on the optimistic side. The property has not undergone any change since it was purchased in 1984. As a matter of fact it needs a lot of cosmetic improvements. The properties in the Brooklyn Center area, per my market evaluators, had devalued and therefore, the increase in the value for taxation is not warranted nor is it fair and equitable. I suggest, that prior to setting this value, someone from your department take a closer look into the logic or facts for this valuation analysis. You may wish to review recent closed sales to support your estimation. 4/29/91 - 6- I initially thought of disposing of said property in 1989 -1990, but due to the depressed market condition in the City of Brooklyn Center, my financial advisor thought that I will be losing too much money if I have to sell then. I had kept abreast of the market situation of the city and feel that the value of the properties had indeed been flat if not declining. This is confirmed by the recent sales in the area. In as much (sic) as I am out of the state, appearing in person to the City Board of Equalization to make a protest would be a financial burden for me. This is therefore my formal protest to the valuation as presented. I would like to have this letter forwarded to the City Board of Equalization for appeal. I can be reached during the day at (313) 350 -6335. Please notify me in writing or by telephone should you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Reolita Paray 26656 Summerdale Drive Southfield, MI 48034" The City Assessor's report on this item stated the original value for the 1991 assessment was $73,500. The property had been inspected previously and found to be in average condition. After review of the sales comparisons in the area, the appraiser concluded the value was approximately $77,000. The City Assessor noted the recommended assessment of $73,500 was the lower of the two amounts and was also in line with the estimates Ms. Paray stated she had received from realtors. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to affirm the Assessor's Market Value of $73,500 as of January 2, 1991. The motion passed unanimously. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE OGREN TAX PROPOSAL The City Manager reviewed a memorandum from the North Metro Mayors Association in regard to the Ogren Tax Proposal. Although the total impact of the proposal on the City had not been established, he felt it was the least damaging of the proposals to date and included some ood options. Cities would be wed g p allowed to be more independent and offered flexibility, as well as multiple sources of revenue. He believed the proposal offered the basis for an excellent opportunity and suggested the City might consider support of the plan. 4/29/91 _ 7 - Councilmember Cohen concurred with the City Manager's remarks but cautioned that the positive portions of the proposal could theoretically be undone with future legislation. Is He felt the plan offered uniqueness and creativity. However, the most negative element was that bonding programs would be required to be placed under the levy limits. The City Manager explained this provision would negatively impact the City, affecting the viability of bonds and bond ratings. He stated Springsted, Inc., as well as the City, was in the process of gathering information to oppose this measure of the proposal. Councilmember Scott suggested the Council adopt a formal resolution in support of the proposal. Councilmember Cohen suggested two resolutions be adopted; one supporting the proposal in general and one objecting to the bonding limits. The Council concurred. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar directing staff to prepare a resolution expressing Council support of the concept of the Ogren Tax Proposal. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Rosene directing staff to prepare a resolution in conjunction with the above -named resolution in regard to the Ogren Tax Proposal, specifically objecting to the bonding limits in the proposal. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager noted The North Metro Mayors Association was generating support from other surrounding communities as well. FISCAL DISPARITIES In regard to pending Fiscal Disparities legislation, the City Manager indicated the proposal seemed likely to fail, which would be positive from the City's viewpoint as they opposed the measure. Councilmember Scott commended the City Manager and Councilmember Cohen for all their time spent on behalf of the City in regard to legislative matters. 610/10 BYPASS Mayor Paulson reported he was planning to travel to Washington, D.C. to lobby in regard to the proposed 610/10 Bypass. He requested the Council reaffirm their position on the matter. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to reaffirm the City's support of the 610/10 bypass construction as a nontoll road. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager noted the cost of Mayor Paulson's trip was to be paid by the 610 Crossing Coalition. 4/29/91 - 8 - PUBLIC HEARING C LOSED There was no one else present who wished to address the Board of Equalization, and Mayor Paulson 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 for the Board of Equalization at 9:55 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center Board of Equalization adjourned at 9:57 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Ann J. Odden Northern Counties Secretarial Service 4/29/91 - 9- 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 MAY 13, 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, Public Works Coordinator Diane Spector, City Engineer Mark Maloney, Assistant EDA Coordinator Tom Bublitz, Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone, and Council Secretary Ann Odden. OPENING CEREMONIES Mayor Paulson welcomed students in attendance from Park Center High School. Sharon Van Denbus 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 a chairperson and vice chairperson needed to be appointed by the Council for the Financial Task Force. There was a motion by Mayor Todd Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Scott to appoint Donn Escher as chairperson of the task force, and Pat Boran as vice chairperson. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Paulson commented a conference of the League of Minnesota Cities was upcoming, with the City Manager having further details if Councilmembers were interested. i 5/13/91 _ 1 1 Councilmember Pedlar thanked all who had participated in the clean -up day, and indicated it had been very successful. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Paulson inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items be removed from the consent agenda. Mayor Paulson requested item 11c be removed from the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES APRIL 22, 1991 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the minutes of April 22, 1991, regular session as printed. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 91 -129 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -03, CONTRACT 1991 -C 0 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -130 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS 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 Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -131 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 5/13/91 -2 - t RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1990 -E, SIGNAL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS ON FREEWAY BOULEVARD /65TH AVENUE NORTH, AT SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY, AT HUMBOLDT AVENUE, AND AT DUPONT AVENUE, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 1988 -25, 1990 -11 AND 1990- 12 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -132 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT UNDER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -20, FOR REPLACEMENT OF BOILER BURNERS FOR HVAC SYSTEM SERVING THE CIVIC CENTER 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 Brooklyn Center Community Center 6301 Shingle Crk. Pky. CIGARETTE Cole's Gift Shop/Holiday Inn 2200 Freeway Blvd. FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Blevins Concession Supply Co. 6800 Shingle Crk. Pky. Brooklyn Center Babe Ruth 1600 59th Ave. N. Brooklyn Center Babe Ruth 7112 Bryant Earle Brown Commons 6100 Summit Drive Jerry's Enterprises 5101 Vernon Ave. S. Country Store 3600 63rd Ave. N. Lutheran Church of the Triune God 5827 Humboldt Ave. N. McDonalds 5525 Xerxes Ave. N. Northbrook Alliance Church 6240 Aldrich Ave. N. Orchard Lane School 6201 Noble Ave. N. 1 Potato 2 1319 Brookdale Center Subway 1960 57th Ave. N. 5/13/91 - 3 - ITINERANT FOOD LICENSE Brooklyn Center Park & Recreation 6301 Shingle Crk. Pky. North Star Dodge 6800 Brooklyn Blvd. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS AER, Inc. Box 1146 Air One Mechanical Corp. 6317 Welcome Ave. N. Bell Air Heating 815 West 106th St. C.O. Carlson Air Conditioning Co. 1203 Bryant Ave. N. Ditter, Inc. 820 Tower Drive Donco Air Conditioning 642 Tripp Excel Air Systems 2075 Prosperity Road Precise Heating, A/C & Elec., Inc. 15059 91st Ave. N. Randy Lane & Sons 1501 West Broadway Rapid Heating & Air Conditioning 5514 34th Ave. N. Realistic Heating & Cooling 9077 Van Buren St. NE Rouse Mechanical, Inc. 11348 K -Tel Drive Thompson Air, Inc. 5115 Hanson Court Wenzel Heating & A/C 1955 Shawnee Road MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP Rob Ryan Oldsmobile 6700 Brooklyn Blvd. RENTAL DWELLINGS Initial: Randy McGovern 5830 Admiral Lane Anna Gullord 2309 54th Ave. N. Reolita Paray 3307 66th Ave. N. Renewal: Norman Chazin Northbrook Terrace Apts. Norman Chazin North Lyn Apartments Gary Scherber The Lilacs Gary Scherber 5820 Logan Ave. N. Thomas W. Kotila 5430 Morgan Ave. N. Deep Root Investments/ ROI Properties 6908, 6912 Unity Ave. N. Joseph Veidel 7104 Unity Ave. N. Bobby & Sally Robson 1107 57th Ave. N. Edward Doll 1201 57th Ave. N. Joseph & Madeleine Roche 824 69th Ave. N. 5/13/91 - 4 - SIGN HANGER Arrow Sign Co. 18607 Highway 65 NE Demars Signs 4040 Marshall St. NE Leroy Signs, Inc. 6325 Welcome Ave. N. SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING Sport About 6066 Shingle Crk. Pky. SWIMMING POOLS Earle Brown Farm Apts. 1701, 07 69th Ave. N. Garden City Court Apts. 3407 65th Ave. N. Moorwood Homeowners Assoc. 5809 Lake Curve Lane Riverwood Townhomes Assoc. 6626 Camden Drive N. Timber Ridge Apts. 6507 Camden Ave. N. TAXI CAB Suburban Yellow 3555 5th Ave. S. (Cab #1345) The motion passed unanimously. PRESENTATIONS Ken Schrader, Resident Engineer of the Minnesota Department of Transportation ( MNDOT) explained an improvement project along a 2.5 -mile section of T.H. 100 in Brooklyn Center and answered Council questions regarding the. project. The project would begin on May 20 and work would be done at night to cause the least amount of traffic disruption. Crews would work between the hours of 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. At times, traffic would be reduced to one lane, and the entrance /exit ramps along T.H. 100 would be closed temporarily; however, emergency vehicles would continue to have access at all times. Residents along T.H. 100 would hear noise from the project periodically due to the milling operation, although it would be kept to a minimum. Councilmember Pedlar confirmed the project would be completed by mid -June. He concurred with having the work done at night, although he cautioned MNDOT to expect numerous telephone calls from residents about any noise disturbances, particularly at night. Councilmember Scott also concurred with the idea of having the work performed at night. Mr. Schrader indicated flyers regarding the project and the anticipated noise would be sent to all residents of the area in a public information campaign designed to reduce the possibility of complaints. 5/13/91 - 5 - The City Manager suggested MNDOT consider performing the milling work in the residential areas earlier in the evening. He indicated the City preferred to have as much advance notice about such projects as soon as possible to assist in informing citizens. Mr. Schrader indicated the ramp near the Days' Inn would be repaired, and the bridges near Shingle Creek were also scheduled for repair, although they were part of a separate project to be started about mid -June, 1991. Mayor Paulson announced an award had been received by the City from the County Board of Commissioners for efficiency and cost savings in the area of recycling. The City Manager noted the City was among the least costly in terms of recycling services. ORDINANCES The City Manager presented an Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances Regarding Public Nuisances and Petty Offenses. It was noted the purpose of the amendments would be to address problems dealing with unwanted visitors in school buildings. When such visitors have been charged with trespassing, all cases have been thrown out of the courts based upon the existing language of the City's ordinances. The proposed language was based upon Minneapolis' and Plymouth's codes and found to be workable in the court system. In regard to subdivision 4, Mayor Paulson noted the verbiage "or post hand bills on" appeared twice and suggested deletion of one of the phrases. The City Attorney concurred. Councilmember Rosene noted subdivision 4 regarding defacement did not specifically prohibit defacement of the school building itself, and suggested adding that provision. The City Manager indicated that provision was covered under the title of the subdivision. The City Attorney indicated the amendment was meant to supplement existing law and therefore some aspects of the problem were addressed elsewhere. Mayor Paulson requested the City Manager review the status of the current Ordinance and provide information to the Council on what was currently covered. Councilmember Rosene felt subdivision 1 should be amended to include buses. Councilmember Scott concurred and suggested the verbiage "buses or vehicles owned or leased by the school district" be added. The City Manager indicated he would review this matter. The Council discussed the matter of who would have the authority to evict persons from the premises. Councilmember Rosene felt persons other than principals or assistant principals should have the authority to enforce the trespassing code in certain situations. 5/13/91 - 6- The City Attorney felt "principal's designee" as referred to in the proposed amendment would adequately cover this contingency. Councilmember Scott concurred noting that liability could be involved. In response to Councilmember Rosene's question in regard to subdivision 7, operation of vehicles, the City Attorney commented "vehicles" referred to those requiring a license on highways. Councilmember Pedlar questioned whether those trespassing were not officially guilty until asked to leave. The City Manager indicated this was true but indicated posted signs served that function. Due to the number of Council questions in regard to the proposed Ordinance, the Personnel Coordinator suggested the Council could table the first reading until the matter was reviewed. She noted school would be out soon, so the timing was not a factor, and this would avoid having to republish the Ordinance if or when changes were made. The Council concurred. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar tabling first reading of the proposed Ordinance for the purpose of reviewing the questions generated by the Council. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE The City Manager noted a public hearing was required for the second reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 3 of the Brooklyn Center City Charter. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 3 of the Brooklyn Center City Charter at 7:46 p.m. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. No one appeared to speak, and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 91 -04 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3 OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CHARTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. 5/13/91 - 7 - ORDINANCE The City Manager noted a public hearing was required for the second reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the City Ordinances Relating to Recycling Services for Multifamily Dwellings. Councilmember Cohen noted the proposed Ordinance had been republished due to a change, and suggested the Council scrutinize these situations more carefully in the future to avoid the additional cost incurred in republishing as well as sending a wrong signal to the public on the matter. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the City Ordinances Relating to Recycling Services for Multifamily Dwellings at 7:49 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 7:49 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 91 -05 Member Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATING TO RECYCLING SERVICES FOR MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE The City Manager stated a public hearing was required for the second reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 17 of the City Ordinances Regarding Personnel. Councilmember Pedlar felt the Council should continue to review these matters. Councilmember Rosene indicated the City Manager had concurred to inform the Council each time this Ordinance was invoked and explain the reason for doing so. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 17 of the City Ordinances Regarding Personnel at 7:51 p.m. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. No one appeared to speak, and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing at 7:51 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. 5/13/91 - 8- ORDINANCE NO. 91 -06 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING PERSONNEL The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed. Councilmember Pedlar voted against the motion. ORDINANCE The City Manager stated a public hearing was required for the second reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1 of the City Ordinances Regarding Animals. The Personnel Coordinator handed the Council a revision ertainin to the Ordinance P b in regard to proof of rabies vaccinations, and indicated a section of the Ordinance would need to be republished. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1 of the City Ordinances Regarding Animals at 7:57 p.m. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. No one appeared to speak, and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to close the public hearing at 7:57 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 91 -07 Member Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING ANIMALS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Paulson suggested that staff begin to use more descriptive titles on ordinances to give Council a better indication of the subject matter. ORDINANCE The Director of Planning and Inspection indicated a public hearing had previously been held on this item, which no one had attended. He recommended approval of the ordinance. 5/13/91 - 9- ORDINANCE NO. 91 -08 Member Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND (TWIN VIEW MEADOWS) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. A representative of the developer for Twin View Meadows was present and briefly updated the Council on the status of the project. He indicated model homes would be constructed within approximately two weeks. Councilmember Cohen suggested the developer publicize the project, as it was a unique opportunity for the City. He thanked the developer for his efforts and his responsiveness to the needs of the City. DISCUSSION ITEMS UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT (SDWA) REGULATIONS The City Manager reviewed this item and presented a staff report on the probable impacts and costs of the proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations to Brooklyn Center. He indicated the Lead and Copper Rule had the greatest potential to impact the City, but the final form of the rule was less restrictive and burdensome than originally proposed. The report indicated the City water utility would have little difficulty meeting the other standards in the rules as proposed. Councilmember Cohen commended the staff on a well - prepared report. In response to Councilmember Cohen's question, the Director of Public Works indicated the only possible source of copper in the water would be from the copper connections, and testing had indicated this was not a problem. Councilmember Rosene noted water samples taken from around the City had been a "first draw." He expressed concern about water in various locations, such as City schools, where there were long periods of disuse. The Director of Public Works indicated tests would be conducted in various parts of the City and under various conditions. He stated the City was only responsible for the water supply up the service line, and the plumbing was the responsibility of the property owner. He suggested a public information campaign on this might be a good idea. Councilmember Rosene concurred and suggested the public be informed before the Ordinance regarding this matter was adopted. Mayor Paulson commented the City g g P Y had an excellent delivery and storage system for water, and that water quality was the next area for review. 5/13/91 - 10- I EVERGREEN PARK SCHOOL PLAYGROUND PROJECT The City Manager reviewed this item for the Council, noting that the City was requested to provide $15,000 which would be spent for the Evergreen Park School Playground Project. School District 11 and the City would cooperate to provide the students of Evergreen Park School and the citizens of Brooklyn Center with a new playground. He recommended approval of the item and noted City equipment would be used to haul sand, and any stands removed would be reinstalled. In response to Councilmember Pedlar's question, the City Manager indicated the money would come from the capital improvements fund. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the project as presented by staff and to approve $15,000 funding from the Capital Improvement Fund. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:20 p.m. and reconvened at 8:37 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEMS (CONTINUED) CONTROLLING DRIVEWAY WIDTHS AND PAVING IN FRONT YARDS AND YARDS ABUTTING A PUBLIC STREET The City Manager presented to the Council a draft ordinance for discussion and pictorial evidence of existing situations that illustrated problems and potential consequences of an ordinance. The Director of Planning and Inspection indicated modifying the 50% paving rule would be one issue the proposed ordinance would address. He indicated the main provisions of the ordinance would include: 1. All driveways for single - family and two - family residential dwellings to be hard surfaced such as concrete, asphalt, or a well compacted gravel. 2. Driveways leading to a garage would not be allowed to exceed the width of that garage. 3. Driveways not leading to a garage would be limited to 12' in width. 4. Paved or graveled extensions of authorized driveways would be limited to 12' for parking or turnaround areas. 5/13/91 5. The total area for authorized driveways or paved or graveled extensions would be limited to the above dimensions or 50% of the front and or and Y Y area abutting a public street, whichever is less. He indicated using specific dimensions rather than visual impact to establish standards would make the code more readily enforceable and uniform. He commented the requirement of a hard surfaced driveway would have the most impact on residents and may cause some hardship because of the expense involved. However, he did not recommend allowing any existing conditions to remain, as that would defeat the purpose of the ordinance. Mayor Paulson suggested the Council consider eliminating "well compacted gravel' as a possible surface and requiring either a concrete or asphalt driveway. Councilmember Cohen concurred, indicating "well compacted" would be a difficult term to define. Councilmember Cohen suggested P ested the Council consider the safety impact in cases where houses were located close together, noting citizens tend to have more vehicles per household than when the homes were constructed, in many cases. The City Manager commented regulating the width of the driveways at the street would encourage citizens to enter their driveways at right angles rather than oblique angles which would be safer and prevent excessive wear and tear on the City street. The Director of Planning and Inspection indicated some provision might need to be made for group homes, although that had not been done in the draft ordinance. Councilmember Scott felt such a revision would be necessary. Councilmember Cohen commented overpaving was less of a problem than underpaving and suggested the Council concentrate its efforts on the latter problem. He suggested a factor be included to allow additional paving based upon the square footage of the house or of the property. He felt the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Committee might provide some helpful input on the matter. Councilmember Rosene was sensitive to the economic hardship the ordinance would impose upon certain citizens and felt the City should consider allowing 3 to 4 years for compliance. Councilmember Pedlar concurred with allowing plenty of time for compliance, noting the improvements could cost approximately $3,000 -5,000 in some cases, although he felt the issue was an important one and was in favor of the ordinance. He felt the matter should be reviewed by all the advisory committees and felt the Council should proceed with caution. 5/13/91 - 12- Councilmember Cohen suggested staff try to determine approximately how many unimproved driveways were located in the City and how many of the residents at these locations were also the homeowners. He commented in cases of boulevard encroachments, the City takes care of the problem and then charges the resident, and indicated that would be one possible approach to this situation. Councilmember Rosene felt the City should review the approach of other cities to this problem. He questioned whether some sources of low- interest financing could be made available for the improvements. In response to the Director of Planning and Inspection's comment that a system of permits could be initiated, Councilmember Scott opposed the idea. She felt this would discourage residents from complying. She felt contractors could canvass certain neighborhoods and offer a discount on services, which might help. Councilmember Cohen suggested the matter be reviewed by the advisory committees and then a public informational meeting be held on the matter. The Council concurred, and no further action was required. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE The Council received the staff report with updates on several legislative items. The City Manager indicated a bulletin from the League of Minnesota Cities which explained a proposed freeze on all nonunion local government salaries over $35,000, which he felt would virtually insure unionization of all personnel. In regard to the proposed salary freeze, Mayor Paulson indicated the city of St. Paul was also proposing a freeze and suggested the issue was something the Financial Task Force could review. Councilmember Cohen requested a report on the impact to Brooklyn Center of the proposed salary freeze. He felt this information could be used to facilitate possible amendments favorable to the City. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) PROPOSED UPGRADING OF TRAILS The City Manager reviewed this item briefly for the Council. Two segments of the City's existing trail system were recommended for upgrading, one of the segments being located west of the Hennepin County Government Center complex, and the other segment being located along the south boundary of Centerbrook Golf Course. The City Engineer had a slide presentation which showed the trail near the Government Center with up to six inches of standing water in various locations. He indicated the condition of the trail has gotten worse over the past few years as the trail had subsided. City forces temporarily raised the surface of the trail a few times by adding two inch lifts 5/13/91 - 13 - of asphalt in the hope the trail would stabilize. Eventually a soils engineer concluded that the unstable nature of the underlying soils and the additional weight of the asphalt lifts had aggravated the condition, and the best solution would be to completely remove and replace the sinking portions of the trail. The trail near the Golf Course consisted of a wood chip surface, which in its usual saturated condition was too soft to ride a bicycle on. Paving this segment would allow bicycle traffic to and from the City's main trail system, and was recommended by staff. Because of the nature of the underlying soils, the City Engineer had recommended the City request a proposal from a geotechnical consultant. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -133 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES FOR TRAIL IMPROVEMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -07 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -134 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACTS FOR REMOVAL OF HOUSES ON 69TH AVENUE NORTH, PHASE II, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -02 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Rosene suggested the City investigate the potential recycling of old building materials. CONTRACT FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL The Council discussed this item and questioned the fact that a single bid had been received for this service. The City Engineer indicated a lack of interest on the part of contractors, and the Director of Public Works commented there were few contractors for this procedure. He noted the bidder had also been the low bidder in 1990. Councilmember Pedlar suggested staff try to determine which contractors nearby communities are using for tree removal. In response to Councilmember Rosene's questions, the Director of Public Works indicated the 1991 bid represented a six percent 5/13/91 - 14 - increase due in part to the addition of stump removal to the specifications. He explained there had been some problems with the contractor, but they had been generally responsive, their work acceptable, and they were the lowest qualified bidder. In regard to the dollar amount of the contract, he stated it was a unit price contract based upon an estimated number of trees, and the firm would be paid only for actual number of trees removed. Councilmember Scott commented the Ceres Tree Company, which had performed the service the previous year, had done a good job of clean -up, and she had not received any complaints on the matter. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -135 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR 1991 DISEASED TREE REMOVAL, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -06, CONTRACT 1991 -G The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -136 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, 1991 SEALCOATING, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -05, CONTRACT 1991 -F The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -137 Member Dave Rosene introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENTRY INTO A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT IN THE FORM OF A DECLARATION OF TRUST ESTABLISHING AN ENTITY KNOWN AS "MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL MONEY MARKET FUND" AND AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN CERTAIN INVESTMENT PROGRAMS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. 5/13/91 - 15 - i RESOLUTION NO. 91 -138 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1991 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR PURCHASE OF CENSUS INFORMATION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -139 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED POLICE VEHICLE 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 -140 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING EARLE BROWN DAYS AS A CIVIC EVENT FROM JUNE 18 THROUGH JUNE 30 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. LICENSE TO UTILIZE EXPLOSIVES FOR THE HOWE COMPANY The City Manager briefly reviewed this item, noting the license had been renewed annually for a number of years without any problems. Staff's recommendation for approval was conditioned on: 1. The permit is issued to the Howe Company, 4821 Xerxes Avenue North, Brooklyn Center and is nontransferable. 2. The Howe Company shall continue to use a two- component compound, kinestik, or a similar two - component compound. 3. The Howe Company shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local legislation governing the transportation, storage, handling, and detonation of explosives. 4. The Howe Company shall notify the Chief of Police in advance of all blasting operations. 5/13/91 - 16 - 5. City employees shall have the right to inspect upon reasonable notice given to The Howe Company. 6. Authorization for discharge explosives in the City of Brooklyn Center granted under this permit shall expire March 27, 1992. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to approve the license as recommended and conditioned by staff. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar, and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 10:57 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Ann J. Odden Northern Counties Secretarial Service 5/13/91 - 17 - 8�- PROCLAMATION DECLARING JUNE 27, 1991, AS SOCM DAY WHEREAS, Support Our Country's Military, better known as SOCM, has worked tirelessly since August of 1990 to support the troops in the mideast; and WHEREAS, SOCM was instrumental in the development of airlifts, of food and gifts for all of our troops during the Christmas and Easter holidays; and WHEREAS, SOCM provided comfort, and understanding to the families of the military personnel during this critical period; and WHEREAS, a citizen of Brooklyn Center, Pat Enniga, along with Betty Walters of Osseo, were the original organizers of this group which expanded nationwide; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center wishes to express its pride and thanks to all the members of SOCM and their families. NOW, THEREFORE, I, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, State of Minnesota, do hereby proclaim Thursday, June 27, 1991, as SOCM Day in Brooklyn Center and call upon all of the citizens of Brooklyn Center to recognize their efforts in the development of this much needed organization. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION MAY 16, 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Bertil Johnson, Kristen Mann, and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 11, 1991 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the April 11, 1991 meeting as submitted. Mann Voting in favor. Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Ainas, Man and Holmes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Bernards and Johnson. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO 91007 (Real Estate Financial Consultants, I nc. and Ivan and Hazel Vetterick)_ Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for approval to rezone from C1 to R5 an approximate 30' x 100' strip of land along the back of the property at 6501 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91007, attached). During his presentation, the Secretary reviewed a plat drawing of the two lots in question on an overhead transparency. He also explained the history of the property at 4010 65th Avenue North and the suspension of the rental license and how the property came to be bought by the Vettericks. The Secretary concluded by reviewing the draft resolution of approval of the rezoning with the five reasons listed. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicants whether they had anything to add. Mr. Ivan Vetterick stated that he had nothing to add. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 91007) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. 5 -16 -91 1 s CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Holmes noted the need for parking lot screening and asked whether there was a need to add a condition to the resolution. The Secretary explained that that was required as part of the plat approval and that there was no need to add a condition to the rezoning application. He added that the applicants will bring the plat back to the City Council for final approval. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -4 Member Lowell Ainas introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption. RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 91007 SUBMITTED BY IVAN AND HAZEL VETTERICK AND REAL ESTATE FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC. The motion for the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner Mann and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann, Bertil Johnson, and Mark Holmes and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. APPLICATION NO. 91008 (Welsh Companies Inc.) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for approval of sign variances for three freestanding real estate signs at 2700 Freeway Boulevard, 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway, and 5951 Earle Brown Drive. The Secretary then reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91008, attached) . The Secretary explained that the lack of enforcement over the last few years has been a result of a number of factors including a change of personnel, the complexity of the existing ordinance, and the fact that no permit is required for real estate signs. The Secretary stated that a 32 sq. ft. sign is easy to identify and an ordinance limit of 32 sq. ft. would be fairly simple to enforce. The Secretary reviewed the draft ordinance amendment, including a provision relating to signs painted on commercial vehicles. He concluded by stating that staff do not recommend the variance application because the situation is not really unique and that the hardship being experienced by the applicant is not greater than that experienced by other people trying to lease space in their buildings. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the prohibition on using vehicles as signs would be applicable to garage sale signs that are tacked onto a vehicle. The Secretary stated that it would probably not be considered a violation if it was confined to the property where the garage sale was being conducted. Commissioner Bernards asked about a case where a vehicle might be parked at a corner in 5 -16 -91 2 order to advertise the garage sale. The Secretary stated that that might indeed constitute a violation. Commissioner Bernards inquired as to the permit fee that would apply to a 32 sq. ft. real estate sign if a permit were required. The Planner pointed out that the fee is $30.00 for the first 50 sq. ft. The Secretary stated that he did not have a problem going without a permit for real estate signs. He noted that real estate signs are supposed to be temporary signs and that permits are generally required only for permanent signs. Commissioner Holmes inquired as to the use of trucks and banners for special sales. The Secretary explained that such signery can be allowed by administrative land use permit for a limited time. He explained the background of the ordinance regarding signs painted on commercial vehicles. He noted that there had been a truck parked at Westbrook Mall with a sign on it advertising a business and service within Westbrook Mall and that it was parked for long periods of time and really acted as a freestanding sign. He stated that this type of abuse was precisely what this ordinance was aimed at eliminating. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the real estate signs for the buildings across the street were noncomplying. The Secretary responded in the affirmative and stated that they had been sent letters regarding the violation. He explained that project identification signs sometimes get turned into space for lease signs after the project is built. Commissioner Bernards asked what period of time would be involved in the adoption of a new ordinance. The Secretary stated that it would take about 45 days to adopt a new ordinance, but stated that the old ordinance would not really be enforced as long as the ordinance amendment was being pursued. Commissioner Johnson asked how long it would take to prosecute a noncomplying sign. The Secretary stated that it would be pursued with a misdemeanor tag which must be responded to within seven days. He went on to review the prosecution process and stated that it might go as long as three or four months. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Dick McGinley, of Welsh Companies, asked that the Commission both grant the variance and adopt an ordinance amendment. Chairperson Malecki responded that staff had recommended that the variance be denied, but that the ordinance be amended. She asked the Commission how they felt regarding the request. Commissioner Ainas also stated that the variance should be denied, but that the ordinance should be amended. Other Commissioners generally agreed. Mr. Kent Warden, of the Building Owners and Managers Association of Minneapolis (B.O.M.A.) stated that he felt the ordinance amendment 5 -16 -91 3 i was proper. He stressed that signs are an effective marketing tool and that it would make Brooklyn. Center competitive with other locations along the interstate. Regarding B.O.M.A.'s recommendation for a smaller sign for smaller buildings, he stated that he did not really object to the staff recommendation for a larger sign standard. Commissioner Bernards noted that Mr. Warden had called signs an effective marketing tool. He asked how many leads come from such signs. Mr. McGinley responded that approximately 30% of the business that he gets for leasing space comes from such signs. He stated that for office showroom, office warehouse, and retail space, the user of that space will drive the area looking for space for lease. The Secretary also explained that the variance was submitted a couple of months ago and that the staff has met with representatives and developed a proposed ordinance. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 91008) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. In response to a question from Commissioner Holmes regarding a 1,000 sq. ft. break point for larger or smaller signs in the existing ordinance, the Secretary stated that he did not believe that a 32 sq. ft. sign was really a problem on a wall, even if it is less than 1,000 sq. ft. in area. Mr. Holmes asked what buildings would be affected by the new ordinance. The Secretary responded that commercial and industrial buildings would be affected and also multiple family buildings. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO 91008 (Welsh Companies, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend denial of Application No. 91008, on the grounds that the standards for a variance are not met in this case. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO THE ALLOWABLE SIZE OF SPACE FOR LEASE REAL ESTATE SIGNS AND PROHIBITING SIGNS PAINTED ON COMMERCIAL VEHICLES WHICH ARE IMPROPERLY PARKED. Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Johnson to recommend adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances regarding the allowable size of space for lease signs and prohibiting certain signs painted on commercial vehicles and also noting that no permit should be required for a temporary real 5 -16 -91 4 estate sign. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Secretary then discussed with the Commission the proposal by Sunlite Properties for more parking space or a lesser buffer adjacent to the Berean Church. He stated that the church had expressed some interest in possibly selling some land to Sunlite properties, but that they want to know what the effect would be on the possible expansion of the church in the future. There followed more brief discussion of upcoming business. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Bernards to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:43 p.m. Chairperson 5 -16 -91 5 k r estate sign. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Secretary then discussed with the Commission the proposal by Sunlite Properties for more parking space or a lesser buffer adjacent to the Berean Church. He stated that the church had expressed some interest in possibly selling some land to Sunlite properties, but that they want to know what the effect would be on the possible expansion of the church in the future. There followed more brief discussion of upcoming business. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Bernards to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:43 p.m. Chairperson 5 -16 -91 5 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91007 Applicant: Real Estate Financial Consultants, Inc. and Ivan and Hazel Vetterick Location: 6501 Brooklyn Blvd. and 4010 65th Avenue North Request: Rezoning The applicants request approval to rezone from C -1 to R -5 an approximate 30'x 100' strip of land along the back side of the lot at 6501 Brooklyn Blvd. The land in question would then be transferred by platting to the lot at 4010 65th Av. N. in order to provide enough land area to support four dwelling units on the 4010 65th property. This platting was pursued when both properties were zoned R -5, but was never filed by the previous owner. The apartment building at 4010 65th Av. N. was approved as a three -unit building with a common recreation room in 1982. However, subsequently, the recreation room was converted to a dwelling unit without proper approvals. It has been posted for some years as unlicensed and has not been rented. The reason it has been posted is because the land parcel is only large enough to support three dwelling units at 3600 sq. ft. per unit (the land area requirement for an R -4 building in an R -5 zone). The property under consideration in this rezoning is presently the back 30' of the lot at 6501 Brooklyn Blvd. It is bounded on the east by 6501 Brooklyn Blvd., on the south by the Welcome Community Home, on the west by 4010 65th Av. N., and on the north by a single- family home. The property at 4010 65th Av. N. is zoned R -5. The other surrounding properties are zoned C -1. They were rezoned from R -5 to C -1 in 1989. Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings All rezoning applications are reviewed in light of the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance (attached) . The applicants have submitted a brief letter (attached) in which they comment on each guideline. A recitation of those comments and staff response follows: (a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? Applicants "There is a clear need to make the building useable `as built."' Staff The building which the applicants refer to is the existing three -unit apartment building at 4010 65th Av. North. Although it does not have four legal units, its basic structure is comparable to a standard four -plex. We encouraged the original owner of the property to plat off enough land for a four -unit building in 1982 when the apartment development was being proposed. He preferred, 5 -16 -91 1 Application No. 91007 continued however, to keep as much land as possible on the lot at 6501 Brooklyn Blvd. for future commercial development. It should be noted that the property on which the apartment was built was at one time part of a single parcel that ran between, and fronted on, Brooklyn Blvd. and 65th Av. North. The building has been an enforcement problem and is difficult to market as a three -unit building. It would simply be a more rational use of the building to have a fourth unit and the appropriate land area to support it. (b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? Applicants "The proposed zoning is consistent with adjacent zoning. There are two 4- plexes adjacent to the property. Staff We agree that the proposed R -5 zoning is consistent and compatible with the surrounding C -1 and R -5 zoning districts. (c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Applicants "We are contemplating multiple residential apartment use which is [there] now." Staff The new parcel of approximately 14000 sq. ft. will support four units in a two story building or six units in a three story building. Since the two story building is already in place, the net effect of the rezoning will be to legalize a fourth unit in the existing building. (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? Applicants "The property in question was zoned R -3 and was changed to C -1 in 1989. We want to change 30 100' back to R -3." Staff The applicants are mistaken in referring to the R -3 zone. The property in question was zoned R -5 and the proposal should be to rezone it back to R -5. The main change in zoning in the area was the rezoning to C -1 referred to by the applicants. We do not feel that the C -1 zone bounding this parcel is incompatible with an R -5 zoning of the apartment property. Both the C -1 and R -5 zones have been considered transition zones and, in fact, offices are allowed by special use permit in the R -5 zone. 5 -16 -91 2 Application No. 91007 continued (e) In the case of City - initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? Applicants "N /A Staff Not applicable. (f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district? Applicants "Yes." Staff The land area being rezoned and added to the apartment property at 4010 65th Av.N. will enable that property to meet the density requirements for four dwelling units. (g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? Applicants "No." Staff We would agree that the land in question is not unsuited to service /office use, should the larger parcel in which it is located be redeveloped for that use. However, within the present time frame, it can serve a more useful purpose by supporting a fourth dwelling unit on the 4010 65th property and making that building more fully usable. (h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? Applicants "Not known." Staff: We do not feel that such a minor rezoning of land would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. There is a lack of developable land in most zoning districts in the city. In this case, the land would not result in new development, but would allow for the rational use of the existing apartment building. This seems to be in the best interests of the community. (i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? 5 -16 -91 3 i Application No. 91007 continued Applicants "Yes we believe it is a reasonable solution to a on- going problem." Staff We agree that fitting buildings to land (or vice versa in this case) is one of the central purposes of zoning. We would, therefore, conclude that the proposed rezoning, inasmuch as it furthers valid zoning objectives, demonstrates merit beyond the interests of the owners of the land in question. The applicants have also submitted a letter (attached) in which they briefly explain the background of the zoning and platting of the property as was explained in the beginning of this report. Originally, the property at 4010 65th Av. N. was part of the same land parcel containing 6501 Brooklyn Blvd. The property at 4010 65th was subdivided off in 1982. In 1987, the previous owner, Joe Maas, received preliminary plat approval to transfer the back 30' of the 6501 Brooklyn Blvd. property to the 4010 65th property. That plat was never finaled. The applicants intend to final that plat if this rezoning is approved. All the land was previously zoned R -5. In 1989, the City rezoned 6501 Brooklyn Blvd. and other parcels in that block to C -1. Thus, there is a need to rezone this 30' wide strip of land from C -1 to R -5. It should also be noted that a condition of the preliminary plat approval granted to Joe Maas was that two additional parking stalls be constructed and bounded by curb and gutter in order to meet the parking requirement for the fourth dwelling unit. Conclusion Based on the review of the rezoning guidelines above, we would recommend approval of the proposed rezoning. Most rezonings are considered once by the Planning Commission and then are tabled and referred to the relevant neighborhood advisory group (in this case, it would be the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group) . In this case, in light of the minor extent of the rezoning and the fact that no new development is contemplated, we would recommend that the Commission consider acting on the rezoning request at its first consideration. A draft resolution recommending approval is attached for the Commission's consideration. Submitted b Gary Shallcross Planner proved by, t Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 5 -16 -91 4 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91 -4 RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 91007 SUBMITTED BY IVAN AND HAZEL VETTERICK AND REAL ESTATE FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC. WHEREAS, Application No. 91007, submitted by Ivan and Hazel Vetterick and Real Estate Financial Consultants, Inc., proposes rezoning from C -1 (Service /Office) to R -5 (Multiple Family) the back 30' of the property at 6501 Brooklyn Blvd.; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing at its May 16, 1991 regular meeting when a staff report and testimony regarding the rezoning request were taken; and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning has been reviewed in light of the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 91007, submitted by Ivan and Hazel Vetterick and Real Estate Financial Consultants, Inc., be approved in consideration of the following: 1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the surround land uses in the neighborhood. 2. All permitted uses in the proposed zoning district may be contemplated for the subject property. 3. The resulting property at 4010 65th Avenue North will bear fully the ordinance development restrictions of the proposed zoning district. 4. The proposed rezoning will result in a proper fit between the existing building and land and, therefore, demonstrates merit beyond the interests of the property owners. 5. In light of the above, it is believed that the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines are met and that the proposal is, therefore, in the best interests of the community. i RESOLUTION NO. 91 -4 Date Cha rperson ATTE Secretary The motion for 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. Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91008 Applicant: Welsh Companies, Inc. Location: 2700 Freeway Boulevard, 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway and 5951 Earle Brown Drive Request: Sign variance The applicant requests sign variances for three freestanding real estate signs at 2700 Freeway Boulevard, 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway and 5951 Earle Brown Drive. The signs are all 4' x 8' (32 sq. ft.) space for lease signs. Under the Sign Ordinance, buildings are allowed to have temporary wall signs advertising space for lease; the size of the allowable signs varies depending on the size of the wall and its distance from public right -of -way. Buildings entitled to a wall sign (or signs) may, as an alternative, utilize up to 10 sq. ft. of an existing freestanding identification signs to advertise space for lease (See Section 34- 140.2.1 3 and 4, attached). In the cases being reviewed, the applicant has erected separate freestanding signs advertising space for lease which are not permitted by the ordinance. Applicant's Submittal The applicant, in the person of William Katter, has submitted a letter (attached) in which he states his case for a temporary variance of one year from the provisions of the Sign Ordinance. The letter asks that the three 4' x 8' signs be allowed to remain because these properties are in receivership and Welsh Companies has been charged with the responsibility of leasing as much space as possible over the next year. He states that a 2' x 5' sign would have poor visibility. Mr. Katter also argues that the variance should have no negative effects and in no way constitutes a detriment to the public welfare. He states that it is a means of attracting new business to the community. He adds that other properties in the City have this type of signery and do not conform to the ordinance. Mr. Katter concludes by noting the distressed nature of the overall real estate market and their particular situation as receiver for these properties, and asks that the City aid their efforts by softening the present sign restrictions and granting a variance. Collateral Submittals The applicant is correct in stating that there are numerous other freestanding space for lease signs in the City. The City's ordinance pertaining to these types of signs has not been rigorously enforced for some years. On approximately March 1, 1991, Building Inspector David Fisher sent out a compliance letter to owners of approximately 30 properties in the City. Some have called and /or written expressing why they feel they need this type of signery (see letters attached). We have also met with representatives of B.O.M.A. (Building Owners and Managers Association) of Minneapolis. They have also submitted a brief letter recommending an ordinance amendment to allow the option of a freestanding or wall sign per frontage up to 16 sq. ft. for walls less than 1,000 sq. ft. and up to 32 sq. ft. for walls over 1,000 sq. ft. 5 -16 -91 1 Application No. 91008 continued Staff Response The existing ordinance pertaining to space for lease signs dates to the early 1980's when the building at 5901 John Martin Drive sought a variance from what was then allowed (a 10 sq. ft. wall sign). The ordinance that resulted from that application is fairly complex and is difficult to enforce in practice though it makes sense in theory. While we do not feel the present application meets the standards for a variance, we would recommend that the Commission consider an ordinance amendment that would simplify both enforcement and compliance and would be more in keeping with industry standards. In this vein, we would generally agree with the recommendation of B.O.M.A. We have surveyed other communities and found that provisions vary, but that the B.O.M.A. recommendations are within the range of what is normally allowed and tend to reflect what exists in the community. They are also simpler than the ordinance presently in place. Staff have also discussed whether a permit should be required for space for lease signs. At present, no permit is required. A permit requirement, if properly observed, would allow review of signs before they are erected and would thus ease enforcement. At present, violations must be caught after the fact. Generally, under the ordinance, a sign which requires a permit is a permanent sign. Space for lease signs should not become permanent lest they act_as billboards, advertising a company which may wind up leasing space on some other property, perhaps even in another city. The Commission may wish to give direction on the permit question. We believe that a revised ordinance would mean less noncompliance in any case and enforcement should be easier even without a permit. A draft ordinance is attached for the Commission's review. Submitted by, Gary Shallcross Planner Approved by, .0� WA a ....�.. Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 5 -16 -91 2 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 1991 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Sign Ordinance regarding real estate signs. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ALLOWABLE SIZE OF SPACE FOR LEASE REAL ESTATE SIGNS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 34 -130. PROHIBITED SIGNS 14. Signs painted on a commercial vehicle which is Parked at a commercial premises in such a manner as to constitute a static display adver a business product or service to the traveling public and which is not making a pickup or delivery or being appropriately stored on the premises Section 34 -140. PERMITTED SIGNS 2. Permitted Signs Not Requiring a Permit 1. Real Estate signs as follows: 3. Temporary signs for the purpose of leasing or selling dwelling units in buildings containing two (2) or more units and temporary signs for the purpose of leasing or selling portions of commercial or industrial buildings, such as offices or individual tenant areas are permitted only when vacancies exist and are limited to [walls facing public streets] one freestanding or wall sign per street frontage. The size of signs shall be [determined on the basis of wall area and distance from public right -of- way in the following manner:] no greater than 32 sq. ft. ORDINANCE NO. [a. For buildings with a wall area of 1,000 sq. ft. or less facing a public street, the maximum size sign shall be 10 sq. ft. For buildings with over 1,000 sq. ft. of wall area facing a public street, the maximum size sign shall be 16 sq. ft. b. Buildings eligible for temporary real estate signs under Subsection (a) above shall be entitled to a sign 50% greater in area if the building is over 100 feet from the right -of -way line and 100% greater if the building is over 300 feet from the right -of -way line. 4. Buildings entitled to temporary wall signs as specified in Subsection 34 -140- :2.1 (3) above may utilize up to 10 sq. ft. or 50% of the area (whichever is less) of an existing freestanding identification sign in lieu of all other real estate signs.] Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1991. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) i 1 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION MAY 30, 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace Bernards, Bertil Johnson and Kristen Mann. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairperson Malecki noted that Commissioner Ainas had called to say he would be unable to attend and was excused. Commissioner Holmes arrived at 7:33 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 16 1991 Motion by Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the May 16, 1991 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Sander. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 91009 (Earle Brown Bowl) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for 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 Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91009, attached). The Secretary noted that no food or alcohol would be served at the volleyball courts. Commissioner Bernards asked whether there was any discussion about portable bleachers being placed around the volleyball courts. The Secretary responded in the negative. He stated that the applicant does not expect many spectators. Commissioner Bernards asked about the possibility of tailgating at the volleyball courts. The Secretary responded that that would not be permitted. Commissioner Sander asked whether any food or .beverage would be served to people on the deck through a window in the building. The Secretary responded in the negative. He stated that service would be through two doors immediately adjacent to the deck. Commissioner Sander asked who would monitor the bowling • 5 -30 -91 1 i r alley's security people to know whether they are in fact enforcing the conditions of the special use permit. The Secretary responded that that would probably be something that the police department and code enforcement personnel would handle. Commissioner Johnson stated that the volleyball leagues would have noise and asked what impact this might have on other properties in the area. The Secretary reviewed a map of the area and showed where the Budgetel and Econolodge motels were located. He showed the distances between the volleyball courts and those buildings and added that the rooms are air conditioned and the windows would probably, therefore, be closed. He added that the recommendation of staff is to try the volleyball leagues on a test basis and that if there were problems the operation could either be shut down or not renewed next summer. Commissioner Bernards asked whether there was any undeveloped land in the area which might be affected by the proposal. The Secretary pointed out two vacant parcels, one to the south of James Circle and the other immediately to the east, south of Hardees. The Secretary stated that he did not think the proposal would have any significant effect on the development of those parcels either way, positive or negative. In answer to a question from Commissioner Holmes, the Secretary noted that there was a requirement in the Zoning Ordinance to screen outside commercial activities. He pointed out that approval of the amended special use permit would also involve an exemption from this screening requirement. Commissioner Holmes asked if there would be a railing on the deck. Mr. Mark'Bruer, of Earle Brown Bowl, responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Sander asked how high the deck would be off the ground. Mr. Bruer responded that it would be approximately 12" off the ground. Commissioner Sander asked whether other restaurants would likely ask for such an outside eating area. The Secretary responded that that was a possibility, but that other restaurants cannot show a drop in parking demand on a seasonal basis which the bowling alley has shown through their sales data. Commissioner Sander stated that if the deck were open in September and October, it would really tax the parking capacity of the site. The Secretary stated that the seating on the deck would require 25 parking spaces plus a few more for employees. He added that it was not clear whether the applicant is asking for approval of the deck during September and October or whether it would only be up until Labor Day. He stated that he had conflicting information on that question. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the courts would be locked up when not in use. The Secretary stated that there would be gates leading out of the courts, but that he was not sure whether they would be locked. 5 -30 -91 2 i Commissioner Holmes stated that he was concerned regarding g g a possible traffic hazard because of the proposed location of the volleyball courts. He noted the location of the main entrance drive to the site. The Secretary showed the parking lot on a transparency and reviewed the areas where patrons park. He noted that most of the restaurant customers parked to the west of the building and the bowling customers park to the south of the building. He stated that the area where the volleyball courts would be placed is an area of fairly low activity. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had anything t o add. Mr. Y g Mark Bruer, of Earle Brown Bowl stated tha t the volleyball courts are located where they are because of the parking lot islands which can protect them from oncoming traffic. He stated that they do want people to see the volleyball courts. Mr. Bruer stated that they would cease the deck on Labor Day. He added that there would be no lights on the deck and that service would cease at dark. He stated that there had been some discussion as to whether a wood deck or a concrete deck would be more appropriate and that wood was chosen for aesthetic reasons. In response to a question from Commissioner Bernards regarding securing of the courts, Mr. Bruer stated that the courts would not be secured per se. He stated that there would be a nylon netting around the courts, but that it would not be locked in order to let people out who ventured in. Commissioner Bernards related that he had been responsible for a lighted tennis court at the high school at one time and that a it was a taxing fob. He asked whether problems wouldn't occur with the volleyball courts. Mr. Bruer stated that they had not had problems at their other location in Woodbury and that security personnel would be on duty. Commissioner Sander asked what hours the deck would be open. Mr. Bruer responded that the deck would be open from before lunch through dusk. In response to a question from Chairperson Malecki, Mr. Bruer stated that there are not many spectators at volleyball contests, at least that has been the experience at Woodbury. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the bowling business would pick up as a result of the volleyball leagues. Mr. Bruer stated that it probably wouldn't unless it rained. Chairperson Malecki asked about how feet would be washed to get the sand off of them. Mr. Bruer stated that a garden hose would be used with a children's swimming pool to wash off the excess sand. Chairperson Malecki stated that she had been to the site that day and that sand was getting out of the court area because of the recent rains. She asked how this would be controlled. Mr. Bruer stated that the lot would be swept probably every month to six weeks. Commissioner Sander stated that she was concerned regarding the sand from the players and also sand on the parking lot. She stated that she was not satisfied with the proposed cleaning regimen. There was a discussion of the use of the sweeper. Commissioner Mann stated 5 -30 -91 3 I that she agreed with Commissioner Sander and suggested that the lot needed to be swept about every week. Commissioner Sander asked how the City would monitor the sweeping operation. The Secretary stated that if a roblem arose, they would take action. There then followed a discussion of the service to the deck. It was generally agreed that 10:30 p.m. was an appropriate time to close down service to the deck. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 91009) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Ms. Betty Narveson, of Budgetel, stated that she was concerned with the volleyball portion of the application. She stated that some of the patrons in their hotel opened the windows at night and she was concerned about noise from the volleyball leagues keeping patrons awake or annoying them in some fashion. Chairperson Malecki pointed out that the volleyball leagues would be approved on a trial basis, if at all. She recommended that Budgetel inform the City if there is a problem. The Secretary added that he would encourage Budgetel to contact the Earle Brown Bowl management right away if there is a problem with noise. Commissioner Sander stated that the City needed to know if there was a problem. The Secretary agreed, but stated that he did not want to be contacted every time someone yelled at the volleyball courts. Chairperson Malecki concluded from the staff report that the matter would not necessarily come back for review unless there was a problem. The Secretary stated that a report would be prepared and that it could be brought back to the Planning Commission as well as the City Council if that was desired. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Johnson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Holmes stated that he agreed with the changes that had been discussed so far, but that he felt there would probably be a safety hazard with spectators at tournaments. He also stated that he felt the courts could become an attractive nuisance for kids after dark. Commissioner Bernards stated that he very much liked the outdoor eating area, but that he was more lukewarm to the volleyball proposal. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 91009 (Earle Brown Bowl Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend approval of Application No. 91009, 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. 5 - 30 _ 91 4 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. 4. Volleyball play shall cease not later than 10:30 p.m. 5. The applicant shall sweep parking the arkin 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. 9. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. Any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 10. Alcoholic beverages may not be sold or consumed outside with the exception 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 areas 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. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 5 -30 -91 5 i Commissioner Holmes asked whether the liability on the proposed deck would be the bowling alley's. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. APPLICATION NO. 91010 (Marquette Bank Brookdale) The Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for site and building plan approval to construct a 5,700 sq. ft. addition to the front of the Marquette Bank Brookdale at 5620 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91010, attached) . The Secretary also reviewed recent changes to accesses in the area: to Westbrook Mall off Brooklyn Boulevard and the access change on 56th Avenue North. Commissioner Mann stated that the intersection of the access road and 56th Avenue North is a bad area and asked whether there was any way to require that the access to the bank be off that access road. The Secretary answered that that would only be possible if the bank and Westbrook Mall would agree to such an access. He stated that the present access arrangement on 56th is probably the best of a bad situation. Commissioner Johnson agreed with Commissioner Mann and stated that turning movements in that area are dangerous. In response to a question from Commissioner Bernards regarding the canopy, the Secretary stated that it would come down, but added that the night depository on the north side of the building would remain. Commissioner Sander asked why the site was ever approved without storm sewer service. The Secretary stated that that predated his time with the City. He stated that the bank was built in the early 1960's and that there was obviously -no public storm .sewer in 56th at that time. In response to a question from Commissioner Holmes regarding handicapped access, the Secretary showed the location of the handicapped stalls on the plan and the location of a ramp to the southeast customer entrance. Chairperson Malecki asked how much landscaping there was along the access road to the east. Mr. Loren Hoseck, the architect for the project, stated that there was very little landscaping in that area. Chairperson Malecki asked whether additional landscaping would cause a problem. The Secretary responded that he did not think so. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicants whether they had anything to add. Mr. Loren Hoseck, the architect for the project, and Steven King, a representative of Marquette Bank Brookdale, stated they had nothing further to add, but would answer questions. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the bank would operate at regular hours during construction. Mr. King responded in the .affirmative. Commissioner Sander asked whether there was a full basement under the building. Mr. King responded that there is presently a full basement under the existing building, but that the addition would only be to the main floor. 5 -30 -91 6 Chairperson Malecki asked whether the applicants had an problem PP Y P with the modifications to the plan recommended in the conditions of approval. Mr. Hoseck reviewed the various modifications and stated that some of them had been met already or were unnecessary and that the others would be no problem. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 91010 (Marquette Bank Brookdale) Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Bernards to recommend approval of Application No. 91010, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas, except along the north side of the lot 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. 5 -30 -91 7 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. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 91006 ( Sunlite Properties) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for variance approval to allow a 15' wide buffer between the parking lot at 1601 67th Avenue North and the Berean Evangelical Free Church property at 6625 Humboldt Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91006). The Secretary explained that staff could not address the question of an expansion of the church without a proposed plan for such an expansion. He stated that selling off land to Sunlite Properties would have some effect on potential expansions of the church. The Secretary also reviewed the draft ordinance amendment. Commissioner Bernards asked what was the definition of an institutional use. The Secretary stated that that is not addressed in the ordinance at present, but might be in the future after a group home amendment. He noted that institutional uses included churches and schools primarily. In response to a question from Commissioner Bernards the Secretary stated that institutional uses are similar to C1 uses and that Cl uses are allowed in the R5 zone. He added that an industrial use adjacent to an R5 use is required to have a 15' buffer. PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing on Application No. 91006. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Janis Blumentals, the architect for the applicant, stated that the ordinance amendment would address their concerns. Commissioner Sander stated that she was in favor of denying the variance, but changing the ordinance. There followed a brief discussion in which most of the Commissioners concurred with this opinion. The Secretary stated that the reduced buffer from 50' to 15' could be used for parking, but not for building. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Sander to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. 5 -30 -91 8 Commissioner Sander expressed concern about the possibility of putting a loading area on the east side of the industrial building. Mr. Janis Blumentals explained that that would not be feasible in this circumstance. Commissioner Johnson inquired about the possibility of a conversion of a multiple family building to an institutional use resulting in a nonconforming buffer. The Secretary pointed out that a multiple family site would now also be entitled to a 15' buffer, the same as an institutional use. Commissioner Bernards inquired as to a group home in a single family zone. The Planner stated that up to six clients in a single family home would be classified as a single family use rather than an institutional use. Between 7 and 16 clients would be classified as a multiple family use under state law. Over 16 or 20 clients would then be classified as an institutional use. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 91006 (Sunlite Properties) Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Sander to recommend denial of Application No. 91006 on the grounds that the standard of hardship had not been met in this case. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO BUFFERS. Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Johnson to .recommend adoption of an ordinance amendment relating to required buffers where an institutional use abuts an industrial use to allow a 15' buffer for parking, but not building. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS ( Budgetel) The Secretary then referred the Commission's attention to some plans for a facelift at the Budgetel Inn and for a new canopy. He stated that the plans showed basically cosmetic changes to the exterior and to the roof design, that there were no substantial additions to the building. He noted that the plans showed a roof sign and that this would only be allowed if the freestanding sign for the site were to come down. The Planning Commission concurred that there was no need to bring the matter through the Planning Commission and City Council for site and building plan review. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Bernards to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:46 p.m. Chairperson 5 -30 -91 9 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91009 Applicant: Earle Brown Bowl Location: 6440 James Circle Request: Special Use Permit The applicant requests special use permit approval to build 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 property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by Freeway Boulevard, on the east by Hardees and vacant C2 zoned land, and on the south and west by James Circle. The existing bowling alley is a special use in the C2 zoning district and the proposed seasonal deck and volleyball courts are considered to be an amendment to the bowling alley's special use permit. Applicant's Submittal The applicant has submitted a written report (attached) separately requesting approval of the outside deck and the outside volleyball courts. The main reason and justification for the request is that the bowling business drops off severely from May until Labor Day. Relative to the deck, the applicant proposes to serve (not prepare) food and liquor to patrons on a wood deck that would seat 50 people. They desire to keep the patio open for business until 11:00 p.m. or 12 midnight, weather permitting. They would like to have the patio open for business until the end of October or whenever the weather turns cold. They state that the patio will only eliminate one parking space and will require that one handicapped space be moved. There are no plans for outdoor speakers or music; therefore, they do not expect noise to be a problem. They also note that there will be additional security personnel to insure that food and liquor are consumed only on the patio and not at the volleyball courts. Relative to the request for volleyball courts, the applicant states that there would be volleyball leagues run by a group called VolleyWorld. VolleyWorld specializes in organizing and running volleyball leagues and runs one at another bowling center owned by the applicant in Woodbury, Minnesota. The league play would be conducted from 5:30 p.m. to approximately 10:30 p.m. (the last match would start at 9:30 p.m.) Monday through Thursday from May through August. Friday, Saturday and Sunday are to be held open for open play, special exhibitions, and tournaments. Earle Brown Bowl would not earn money off the volleyball leagues, however, they expect some increased sales from the increased traffic. 5 -30 -91 1 Application No. 91009 continued The volleyball courts are to be located in the parking lot to the south of the building. The area used is approximately 90' square and takes up the space for 33 parking stalls. An 8' high net is to surround the two courts with doors placed at each of the four corners. The actual playing area consists of two 30' x 60' courts with a 10' wide neutral area between each court and to the outside netting. The playing area will be lighted with two light poles g g P each, containing two 400 watt high pressure sodium bulbs mounted about 10' above the existing parking lot lights. The courts will be dismantled and the sand and railroad ties will be removed by Labor Day. As to the sand, the applicant states that they have had no problem with sand washing away at their Woodbury location. They also point out that they are very concerned about sand inasmuchas it can cause serious problems on a bowling lane. They will have a place for players to wash themselves off and they also keep their own sweeper to sweep the lot. There will be no outside speakers or music at the volleyball courts. They plan to have every participant sign a waiver form before they can play volleyball. In addition, they have taken out additional insurance on the participants. Staff Analysis Staff's concerns generally fall into the categories of parking, drainage, noise, and sanitation. a) Parking The volleyball courts will temporarily eliminate 33 spaces and the deck one space. Coupled with the loss of these 34 spaces, there will be an increased parking demand of perhaps 30 spaces for the seating and employees with the deck and perhaps 24 spaces for the volleyball courts (at one space per player). Offsetting the loss of 34 spaces and the need for 54 new spaces is the decline in parking demand from the cessation of league bowling. The bowling alley contains 36 lanes and the parking requirement for these lanes is 180 spaces based on 5 spaces per lane. The applicant has submitted detailed sales data which indicates that bowling sales from May through August are approximately 66% to 75% below the level for the months of league play. This would suggest that approximately 120 parking spaces would be unneeded during the months of May through August. This more than offsets the 88 spaces that must be made up by loss of spaces and new business. After Labor Day, league bowling resumes and the volleyball courts will be removed. However, the applicant wishes to continue to have the deck up during September and October. The Commission may wish to discuss this question in light of the sales data submitted. While September and October are not the peak bowling months, they are fairly active months and we would be inclined to recommend against having the deck up during times when bowling leagues are active. 5 -30 -91 2 Application No. 91009 continued However, the Commission might consider allowing it during September and October on a trial basis for this year. b) Drainage Our concern with drainage is over the possibility that sand from the volleyball courts may be carried by rains into the storm sewer system. The closest catch basin to the volleyball courts is approximately 35' to the southeast. This is close enough that some sand could wash into the storm sewer. The applicant has stated that sand has not been a problem at their Woodbury location. They have also pointed out that they have their own sweeper and have an incentive to keep the sand cleaned up. On the basis of these assurances, we would be willing to recommend in favor of the proposal on a trail basis for this year. If sand does become a serious problem, we would recommend that the permit be revoked or that other measures be taken to eliminate the sand flow problem. c) Noise Of the two activities (dining and volleyball) it is the volleyball matches that will probably generate the most noise. The potential impact might be felt by patrons of the nearby hotels. These rooms are all air conditioned and it is unlikely that noise from the volleyball matches could be particularly noticeable. We would certainly recommend that play cease when the 9:30 p.m. match is completed (approximately 10:30 p.m.). d) Sanitation Our concern with sanitation is over the possibility of food falling through cracks in the deck to the ground below and possibly inviting a rodent infestation. We have talked with Sanitarian Mary Fandrey about this possibility. She has indicated that a concrete patio would be preferable, from a sanitation standpoint, but that Hennepin County has allowed such decks at other eating establishments and there has not been a problem. She is willing to allow the deck on a trial basis and see how it functions. If after the first year there are sanitation problems, we would recommend that the special use permit be modified to require a concrete patio rather than a wood deck. Recommendation Altogether, the proposal appears to meet the concerns of staff. We would recommend approval of the proposal on a trial basis, subject to at least 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. 5 -30 -91 3 Application No. 91009 continued 2. Seating on the deck shall be limited to 50 seats and service shall terminate no later than midnight. 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. 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 regular 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 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. 9. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. Any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 10. Alcoholic beverages may not be sold or consumed outside with the exception 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 areas 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. 5 -30 -91 4 I Submitted by, Gary Sha lcross Planner Approved by, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 5 -30 -91 5 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91010 Applicant: Marquette Bank Brookdale Location: 5620 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Site and Building Plan Location /Use The applicant requests site and building plan approval to construct a 5,770 sq. ft. addition to the front of the Marquette Bank Brookdale at 5620 Brooklyn Boulevard. The property in question is zoned C2 (Commerce) and is bounded on the north by Westbrook Mall, on the east by a private road serving Westbrook Mall and Bakers Square, on the south by 56th Avenue North, and on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard. Banks are a permitted use in the C2 zoning district. Access /Parking The present access off 56th Avenue North is proposed to stay where it is near the southeast corner of the site. It is over 50' wide, divided by a median. It is located approximately 60' west of the private access road serving Westbrook Mall. Across the street, another private access road opens onto 56th roughly in between these two driveways. Ideally, accesses should line up across from one another or be offset at least 125 That was not feasible here and it was felt that the present driveway location provided some separation from the private access drive on the north side of 56th without complicating the turn lane onto Brooklyn Boulevard. There is also access between this bank site and Westbrook Mall to the north via a driveway connection in the northeast corner of the site. The plan proposes 101 parking spaces, including 3 handicapped spaces. The existing building requires 66 spaces, using the retail formula for the main floor and the office formula for the basement. The proposed addition is 5,770 sq. ft. and requires 32 stalls at the retail parking formula. Total required parking, therefore, comes to 98 stalls. The proposed plan, therefore, slightly exceeds that requirement. Landscaping The landscape plan calls for numerous trees and shrubs positioned in appropriate locations around the site. The total point value of new plantings is 467 points. The plan calls for 10 Shademaster Honeylocust, 6 Greenspire Linden, 13 Douglas Fir, 12 Adams Crabapple, 17 Spring Snow Crabapple and over 300 shrubs including Cardinal Dogwood, Mint Julep Juniper, and thornless Japanese Barberry. The existing parcel is approximately 2.1 acres. The point requirement under the landscape point system for this parcel is 208 points. The proposed plan, therefore, meets the point requirement. 5 -30 -91 1 Application No. 91010 continued Grading /Drainage /Utilities The existing building is situated on the north side of the site, high above the street level of 56th Avenue North. By adding to the front of the building, the average grade from the main floor to the street becomes steeper. We have advised the architects for this project that parking lot grades leading to the access on 56th should not exceed 5 %. The plan, for the most part, accomplishes this objective through the use of retaining walls, steps, and a handicapped ramp in front of the building's southeast elevation. The slope in front of the building is approximately 5% or less. However, the slope appears to be steeper at the access drive and on the east side of the site. The City Engineer must approve the final grading plan and will work out these details with the architects. The site has no access to public storm sewer. All drainage will flow toward the southeast portion of the site onto 56th Avenue North and travel overland to storm sewer in Xerxes Avenue North. A spillway has been shown at the southeast corner of the parking lot. Measures should be taken to prevent erosion in the adjacent greenstrip through which the runoff will flow. We have asked for locations of on -site utilities, but they have not as yet been shown. The existing building is served by City water and sewer. A fire line will have to be added to fire sprinkler the entire building as required by the Fire Code. Building The proposed expansion will almost double the size of the main floor. Much of the space is to be used for offices and a reception and waiting area. The entrance at the southeast corner of the existing building will remain as primarily an employee entrance. The main customer entrance will be moved to a barrel vaulted entry way on the southeast side of the addition. A matching barrel vault on the southwest elevation of the building will be over a conference room. The building exterior is to be a new face brick with generous clear tinted glass windows. The plans also propose a new standing seam metal roof in a hipp design. As mentioned earlier, the building is to be fire sprinklered in accordance with the Fire Code. Lighting /Trash An existing freestanding light fixture is indicated in the middle of the double row of parking east of the building. Two more light poles are shown west of the building. The plan does not indicate any new exterior lighting or how existing lighting may be relocated. We are pursuing this question with the principal architect for the project. Two trash dumpsters and a fenced .enclosure are shown in the northeast corner of the site. 5 -30 -91 2 Application No. 91010 continued Recommendation Altogether, the plans are generally in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 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 lot 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. 5 -30 -91 3 Application No. 91010 continued b) Modification of the site plans to provide for a method of erosion control in the greenstrip adjacent to the spillway at the southeast corner of the lot. C) Proposed lighting. d) Modification of proposed grades so as not to encroach on the existing sidewalk along 56th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard. e) Existing and proposed site utilities. Submitted by, Gary Shallcross Planner Approved by, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 5 -30 -91 4 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 9 pp 1006 Applicant: Sunlite Properties Location: 1601 67th Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance from Section 35- 413.1a of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a buffer strip of 15' between the parking lot at 1601 67th Avenue North (an industrial site) and the site of the Berean Evangelical Free Church at 6625 Humboldt Avenue North. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 100' buffer, but a 50' buffer was approved by variance in 1977. The industrial site is zoned I -1 and is bounded by 67th Avenue North and the Spec. 7 Industrial Building on the north, by the Berean Evangelical Free Church on the east, and by Hoffmann Engineering on the south and west. This application was considered by the Commission at its April 11, 1991 regular meeting and was tabled with direction to the applicant and staff to pursue options other than a variance (See copies of the April 11, 1991 minutes and Planning Commission Information Sheet attached). Staff met with the applicant and his architect in late April and discussed the option of Sunlite Properties purchasing more land from the church and possibly pursuing a building addition as well as expanded parking. We also discussed the possibility of an ordinance amendment pertaining to buffers adjacent to institutional uses. The applicant approached the church about the possibility of acquiring more land in early May. The church board met May 9 to consider the possibility and indicated it would be interested in selling land if it would not adversely affect a possible expansion of the church. Before this question could be addressed, Mr. Steffens of Sunlite Properties approached his industrial tenants and learned from them that there was no desire for additional space. Given that fact, Mr. Steffens decided he was not interested in purchasing any additional land from the church. We are, therefore, left at this point with the option of pursuing the variance or possibly an ordinance amendment pertaining to buffers where industrial uses abut institutional uses. A draft ordinance amendment is attached for the Commission's consideration which would allow for a 15' wide buffer where an I -1 or I -2 use abuts an institutional use. Institutional uses are considered comparable to C1 service /office uses in their land use impacts and in their treatment with respect to off -site accessory parking. No buffer is required where I -1 or I -2 abuts C1. 5 -30 -91 1 Application No. 91006 continued We do not recommend approval of the variance application for the reasons outlined in the previous staff report. We do not believe that the lack of convenient parking is a true hardship as that term is used in the Zoning Ordinance. The circumstances have been created by persons presently or formerly having an interest in the property in question. For these reasons, we conclude that the variance request does not meet all the standards for a variance and we, therefore, recommend denial of the application. We would, however, recommend that the attached ordinance amendment at least be considered as a means of resolving the issue. Submitted by, C ai Gary Shallcross Planner roved by, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection I 5 -30 -91 2 DRAFT CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 1991 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the required buffer when an industrial use abuts an institutional use. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES TO ALLOW A LESSER BUFFER WHERE AN INDUSTRIAL USE ABUTS AN INSTITUTIONAL USE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -413. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS IN I -1 AND I -2 DISTRICTS. 1. Buffer and Setback Where a proposed I -1 or I -2 development abuts any residential district (R1 through R7) either at a property line or a public street line, buffer provisions shall be established according to the following: a. Where I -1 or I -2 development abuts R1, R2, R3 at a property line, the protective strip shall be no less than 100 feet in width, except that the buffer strip when an I -1 or I -2 use abuts an institutional use shall be no less than 15 feet. The protective strip shall not be used for parking, driveway, off - street loading or storage and shall be landscaped. The landscaped treatment shall contain an opaque fence or wall which shall not extend within 10 feet of any street right -of -way. The fence or wall design must be approved by the City Council as being in harmony with the residential neighborhood and providing sufficient screenin g of the industrial area. The fence or wall shall be eight feet in height. The protective strip shall contain no structures other than the approved fence or wall. b. Where I -1 or I -2 abuts R1, R2, or R3 at -a public street line, the protective buffer strip shall be no less that 50 feet in width, except that the buffer across the street from an institutional n titutional use shall be no less than 15 feet in width The rotective buffer - [,1 p strip shall not be used for parking, off - street loading, storage, or any other industrial activity, and shall be landscaped. Activity areas shall be effectively screened from view of the residential district in a manner to be approved by the City Council. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1991. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 6/10/9 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 91006 - Sunlite Properties ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: 000,00 - . . Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: ' No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached x ) Planning Commission Application No. 91006 submitted by Sunlite Properties is a request for variance approval 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. This application was first considered by the Planning Commission at its April 11, 1991 meeting and was tabled with direction to the staff and the applicant to pursue options other than a variance. This matter was brought back before the Planning Commission at its May 30, 1991 meeting at which time the Commission re- reviewed the application and recommended denial of the variance request on the grounds that the Standard for a Variance were not met. The Planning Commission, however, recommended approval of the ordinance amendment which would allow a lesser buffer where an industrial use abuts an institutional use in an R1 zoning district. That ordinance amendment is offered for the City Council's consideration. Attached are minutes, information sheets, ordinance amendment and map of the area from the April 11 and May 30 Planning Commission meetings for the Council's review. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended denial of the variance and approval of the ordinance amendment at its May 30, 1991 meeting. 0 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. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The otion passed. APPLICATION NO. 91006 (Sunlite Properties) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for variance approval to allow a 15' wide buffer between the parking lot at 1601 67th Avenue North and the Berean Evangelical Free Church property at 6625 Humboldt Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91006). The Secretary explained that staff could not address the question of an expansion of the church without a proposed plan for such an expansion. He stated that selling off land to Sunlite Properties would have some effect on potential expansions of the church. The Secretary also reviewed the draft ordinance amendment. Commissioner Bernards asked what was the definition of an institutional use. The Secretary stated that that is not addressed in the ordinance at present, but might be in the future after a group home amendment. He noted that institutional uses included churches and schools primarily. In response to - - a question from Commissioner Bernards the Secretary stated that institutional uses are similar to C1 uses and that C1 uses are allowed in the R5 zone. He added that an industrial use adjacent to an R5 use is required to have a 15' buffer. PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing on Application No. 91006. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Janis Blumentals, the architect for the applicant, stated that the ordinance amendment would address their concerns. Commissioner Sander stated that she was in favor of denying the variance, but changing the ordinance. There followed a brief discussion in which most of the Commissioners concurred with this opinion. The Secretary stated that the reduced buffer from 50' to 15' could be used for parking, but not for building. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Sander to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. 5 -30 -91 8 Commissioner Sander expressed concern about the possibility of putting a loading area on the east side of the industrial building. Mr. Janis Blumentals explained that that would not be feasible in this circumstance. Commissioner Johnson inquired about the possibility of a conversion of a multiple family building to an institutional use resulting in a nonconforming buffer. The Secretary pointed out that a multiple family site would now also be entitled to a 15' buffer the same as an institutional use. Commissioner Bernards inquired as to a group home in a single family zone. The Planner stated that up to six clients in a single family home would be classified as a single family use rather than an institutional use. Between 7 and 16 clients would be classified as a multiple family use under state law. Over 16 or 20 clients would then be classified as an institutional use. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO 91006 (Sunlite Properties) Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Sander to recommend denial of Application No. 91006 on the grounds that the standard of hardship had not been met in this case. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO BUFFERS. Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Johnson to recommend adoption of an ordinance amendment relating to required buffers where an institutional use abuts an industrial use to allow a 15' buffer for parking, but not building. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. L-- DISCUSSION ITEMS ( Budgetel) The Secretary then referred the Commission's attention to some plans for a facelift at the Budgetel Inn and for a new canopy. He stated that the plans showed basically cosmetic changes to the exterior and to the roof design, that there were no substantial additions to the building. He noted that the plans showed a roof sign and that this would only be allowed if the freestanding sign n g for the site were to come down. The Planning Commission concurred that there was no need to bring the matter through the Planning Commission and City Council for site and building plan review. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Bernards to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Th g e motion passed unanimously. he Planning g Commission adjourned at 9:46 p.m. Chairperson 5 -30 -91 9 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91006 Applicant: Sunlite Properties Location: 1601 67th Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance from Section 35- 413.1a of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a buffer strip of 15' between the parking lot at 1601 67th Avenue North (an industrial site) and the site of the Berean Evangelical Free Church at 6625 Humboldt Avenue North. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 100' buffer, but a 50' buffer was approved by variance in 1977. The industrial site is zoned I -1 and is bounded by 67th Avenue North and the Spec. 7 Industrial Building on the north, by the Berean Evangelical Free Church on the east, and by Hoffmann Engineering on the south and west. This application was considered by the Commission at its April 11, 1991 regular meeting and was tabled with direction to the applicant and staff to pursue options other than a variance (See copies of the April 11, 1991 minutes and Planning Commission Information Sheet attached). Staff met with the applicant and his architect in late April and discussed the option of Sunlite Properties purchasing more land from the church and possibly pursuing a building addition as well as expanded parking. We also discussed the possibility of an ordinance amendment pertaining to buffers adjacent to institutional uses. The applicant approached the church about the possibility of acquiring more land in early May. The church board met May 9 to consider the possibility and indicated it would be interested in selling land if it would not adversely affect a possible expansion of the church. Before this question could be addressed, Mr. Steffens of Sunlite Properties approached his industrial tenants and learned from them that there was no desire for additional space. Given that fact, Mr. Steffens decided he was not interested in purchasing any additional land from the church. We are, therefore, left at this point with the option of pursuing the variance or possibly an ordinance amendment pertaining to buffers where industrial uses abut institutional uses. A draft ordinance amendment is attached for the Commission's consideration which would allow for a 15' wide buffer where an I -1 or I -2 use abuts an institutional use. Institutional uses are considered comparable to C1 service /office uses in their land use impacts and in their treatment with respect to off -site accessory parking. No buffer is required where I -1 or I -2 abuts C1. 5 -30 -91 1 Application No. 91006 continued We do not recommend approval of the variance application for the reasons outlined in the previous staff report. We do not believe that the lack of convenient parking is a true hardship as that term is used in the Zoning Ordinance. The circumstances have been created by persons presently or formerly having an interest in the property in question. For these reasons, we conclude that the variance request does not meet all the standards for a variance and we, therefore, recommend denial of the application. We would, however, recommend that the attached ordinance amendment at least be considered as a means of resolving the issue. Submitted by, 1 Gary S allcross Planner roved by, N ......,...�� . C,�.. Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection i 5 -30 -91 2 DRAFT CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 1991 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the required buffer when an industrial use abuts an institutional use. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES TO ALLOW A LESSER BUFFER WHERE AN INDUSTRIAL USE ABUTS AN INSTITUTIONAL USE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: DISTRICTS. Section 35 -413. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS IN I -1 AND I -2 1. Buffer and Setback Where a proposed I -1 or I -2 development abuts any residential district (R1 through R7) either at a property line or a public street line, buffer provisions shall be established according to the following: a. Where I -1 or I -2 development abuts R1, R2, R3 at a property line, the protective strip shall be no less than 100 feet in width, except that the buffer strip when an I -1 or I -2 use abuts an institutional use shall be no less than 15 feet. The protective strip shall not be used for parking, driveway, off - street loading or storage and shall be landscaped. The landscaped treatment shall contain an opaque fence or wall which shall not extend within 10 feet of any street right -of -way. The fence or wall design must be approved by the City Council as being in harmony with the residential neighborhood and providing sufficient screening f the industrial g real area The fence or wall shall be eight feet in height. The protective strip shall contain no structures other than the approved fence or wall. b. Where I -1 or I -2 abuts R1, R2, or R3 at' "a public street line, the protective buffer strip shall be no less that 50 feet in width, except that the buffer across the street from an institutional use shall be no less than 15 feet in width r,1. The protective buffer strip shall not be used for parking, off- street loading, storage, or any other industrial activity, and shall be landscaped. Activity areas shall be effectively screened from view of the residential district in a manner to be approved by the City Council. i Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1991. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) 0 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION APRIL 11, 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann, and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairperson Malecki noted that Commissioner Bernards and Johnson were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 28, 1991 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the February 28, 1991 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. , APPLICATION NO. 91006 (Sunlite Properties Inc. Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for 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 Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91006, attached). Commissioner Ainas asked if the church property were rezoned, what other properties in the City would be affected. The Secretary stated that no other properties would be affected that he could think of. Commissioner Ainas asked whether there were any other churches adjacent to industrial property. The Secretary responded in the negative. Commissioner Holmes asked for a clarification of the problem with the parsonage. The Secretary pointed out that the parsonage is a single family use which is permitted in the R1 zone whereas the church is a special use in the R1 zone. He stated that if the church property were zoned R5, the single family use would become nonconforming and the church would still be a special use. Commissioner Holmes asked another question regarding the east entrance to the building. The Secretary showed the location of the east entrance to the building. Mr. Janis Blumentals, the architect representing the applicant, explained the tenant layout within the building. He explained that the owner of the building wants to 4 -11 -91 1 make parking for the tenant which would use the east entrance visible from that entrance. Commissioner Sander arrived at 8:05 p.m. Mr. Blumentals asked the Commission what would be considered a hardship. He stated that it was really a question of degree. He stated that whether the church is spot zoned or left over zoned was really a question of semantics. He stated that he felt the variance was not unreasonable. Chairperson Malecki asked Mr. Blumentals about the possibility of Sunlite Properties buying additional land from the church property to maintain a 50' buffer. Mr. Blumentals stated that that would cost money. He pointed out that the applicant had looked at providing more spaces along the east side of the building which would have involved an even more extensive variance. He stated that the applicant had concluded that this would not be feasible. Commissioner Holmes asked who would be using the east entrance. Mr. Jerry Steffens, of Sunlite Properties Inc., stated that it would be office employees. Commissioner Mann asked whether there was any way to get to the new office area from the north entrance. Mr. Blumentals stated that this would require employees to go through one tenant space to get to another. He stated that one of the purposes of this variance request was to eliminate the internal public corridor. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 91006 Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing on Application No. 91006 and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the p g g application. Hearing no one, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Holmes asked if the industrial building had enough parking at present. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Chairperson Malecki stated that she felt the parking situation was more of an inconvenience rather than a hardship for the applicant. She added that she did not feel the City wanted more R5 zoning along Humboldt Avenue North. Commissioner Holmes asked what would happen if the church left and the property were reused. He asked whether single family would be allowed. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Holmes concluded that there were various options before the Commission, including: a rezoning of land, a revision to the Zoning Ordinance, the granting of a variance and acquisition of more land. He stated that he also was concerned about safety for the employees and wondered what precedent would be set if a variance were granted. 4 -11 -91 2 Chairperson Malecki stated that the Commission was already dealing with the precedent set in 1977 by granting the variance to allow a 50' buffer instead of the required 100' buffer. She stated that the Commission has to decide whether the variance standards are met. Commissioner Ainas stated that he felt the variance standards were not met. He recommended as an alternate that the church property be rezoned to I -1. Commissioner Holmes asked whether there was another option. The Secretary stated that the City could amend the ordinance to allow a lesser buffer where an industrial use abuts an institutional use. He stated that there was no great harm to the church site except possibly to the parsonage. He stated that the problem is the lack of a 100' buffer in this area. Commissioner Ainas stated that an I -1 zoning of the church property would be compatible with the adjacent land uses and would allow for redevelopment in the future. Mr. Blumentals stated that he felt a single family use would not be a good use of the property on the church site if the church were moved. Commissioner Sander asked what zones churches exist in. The Secretary answered that they are mostly located in the R1 zone. He pointed out, however, that the Spiritual Life Ministries operation is located in the industrial park. He pointed out that churches are allowed by special use permit in the R1, R2, R5 and I -1 zones and are a permitted use in the C1 and C2 zones. He stated that the Commission has to look at the question of whether these two parking lots next to each other would be a problem. He reviewed the standards for a variance and stated that some of them could perhaps be met. He added that the ordinance could be amended relative to buffers adjacent to institutional uses. He stated that if the property were converted to single family, the industrial site was already nonconforming relative to the R1 zone by virtue of the granting of a variance. He asked the Commission to give the staff direction on where to go with this application. He stated that if the Commission recommended denial of the variance, the staff could bring back a resolution outlining the reasoning or could bring back a rezoning application for the church property if the church acquiesced. He added that another possibility was to draft an ordinance amendment. The Planner noted the existence of the parsonage adjacent to the I -1 property and wondered whether an ordinance amendment would cover this situation or whether it would have an effect on the Howe Fertilizer site which also abuts single - family homes. Commissioner Mann asked for a clarification of the east entrance. Mr. Blumentals stated that when the building was built, the east entrance was a fire exit. He stated that now the applicant wishes to make the east entrance a separate entrance for a tenant space. He added that the Commission does have the option of recommending approval of the variance. 4 -11 -91 3 Commissioner Holmes stated that he did not believe the application met the standards for a variance. He recommended that the application be tabled and that some other resolution of the problem be pursued. He stated that he did not believe the church property should be zoned R1. Chairperson Malecki asked Commissioner Holmes if he was sympathetic to an ordinance amendment. Commissioner Holmes responded that he was open to that as well. Commissioner Mann stated she did not feel the standards were met in this case. She expressed a preference that the applicant acquire land from the church and rezone it and thereby provide the same 50' buffer. Commissioner Ainas stated that he would also recommend denying the variance, but direct staff to prepare an ordinance change or to rezone the church to I -1. He stated that he did not favor tabling the application. Commissioner Sander also stated that she preferred to deny the variance and seek some other resolution of the issue. The Secretary asked the Commission whether they prefer to move the application on or whether to bring it back in 30 days with some other resolution of the issue. Commissioner Ainas noted that a rezoning would be a separate application. The Secretary stated that an ordinance amendment was also a possibility and could be brought back with a resolution to deny the variance. Chairperson Malecki wondered if tabling the application made sense if an ordinance amendment were not the preferred vehicle for resolving the issue. She stated that she did not like any of the options except for the applicant to acquire more property. Mr. Blumentals stated that, if the Commission were going to vote to deny the variance, he would prefer that the application be tabled. " ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 91006 (Sunlite Properties Inc. WITH DIRECTION TO PURSUE OTHER OPTIONS Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sander to table Application No. 91006 and to direct staff to pursue with the applicant other possible vehicles for resolving the buffer issue other than a variance. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Secretary stated that staff could pursue all possibilities with the applicant including rezoning, land acquisition, and an ordinance change. Commissioner Mann asked whether I -1 properties are required to provide any green area. The Secretary responded that a 15' greenstrip is required adjacent to public right -of -way. ADJOURNMENT `Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sander to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Chairperson 4 -11 -91 4 i � v N � • a� M �1 1� o /—OPEN SPACE #'`y �� �'� �i • • O �i ♦ � 1 a a a M Blumentals0 — _ -- _.-- — 330• ��O _ — _ =- - - -� � 6205 Earle Brown Drive — . -- Suite 120 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 (612) 561 -5757 z � � J„ _7 New _ N.� = XI�iTIk� rIj D11 � ' M IN II I I i i i ��7DlTlONRL: �. ]ThFKI NO � I i�FF�Nti �utwlN6 -- :. (07 V M. NDK ?H Ems. 22. H91 ® N)=1� 1 �fS•DDI� IGNr'�L� �, 7 r, . -- IG Ntt 1' v - _xlhl 1 " IZEtyjcC L 3✓Xlh"I: �ENGE~ Y. _ -- — N��J. -- IE.VI/ F CU� PAVih� uU it SPe _ Z t t � � t I a1 i � d' i � ! � � I • r7 Z I _ lu t= ! / .� t ® NEW �� �x 12 Gu�> � &vTTEI; TO WATCff � � - VEKIi�( I FIELD l 1^JCI>T Wr�LI` _ It l t= SfDC�i NF-Vj P zr -ltJ�. f - 0 - NEW pwl tI & L� NC:;4,, Ah SHC)jN. - '[ A - LL C NEW P / A ^ `JI�J yJ v � j✓c SLCFED Td Dk'�+Iq -/2(7f f L A f \l Nom paT 6 15T F,1 Z H."2 P-Eq'o. � -NEW he D A�i 'P TG �L r�IF'l_F LAWN Oct - ThZEE NF-1kj PF �JUNv. - rEM�GEi_ �Xl °�f. ltzfzl�ATla! s��"iEr ✓, A-2 E K�L(ID TG reol,1IL %G: Lcmr` LE IIZf`i��� iGt� -ALL NEW —e7 P,r P ZuTo2l�zuo(� 51�O�y� CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 1991 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the required buffer when an industrial use abuts an institutional use. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES TO ALLOW A LESSER BUFFER WHERE AN INDUSTRIAL USE ABUTS AN INSTITUTIONAL USE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -413. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS IN I -1 AND I -2 DISTRICTS. 1. Buffer and Setback Where a proposed I -1 or I -2 development abuts any residential district (R1 through R7) either at a property line or a public street line, buffer provisions shall be established according to the following: a. Where I -1 or I -2 development abuts R1, R2, R3 at a property line, the protective strip shall be no less than 100 feet in width. The protective strip shall not be used for parking, driveway, off - street loading or storage and shall be landscaped. Parking may be permitted in the buffer strip where an I -1 or I -2 use abuts an institutional use provided it does not extend to within 15 feet of the property line. The landscaped treatment shall contain an opaque fence or wall which shall not extend within 10 feet of any street right - of -way. The fence or wall design must be approved by the City Council as being in harmony with the residential neighborhood and providing sufficient screening of the industrial area. The fence or wall shall be eight feet in height. The protective strip ORDINANCE NO. shall contain no structures other than the approved fence or wall. b. Where I -1 or I -2 abuts R1, R2, or R3 at a public street line, the protective buffer strip shall be no less that 50 feet in width, shall contain no structures other than screening devices, shall not be used for parking, off - street loading, storage, or any other industrial activity, and shall be landscaped. Parking may be permitted in the buffer strip where an I -1 or I -2 use abuts an institutional use provided it does not extend to within 15 feet of the property line. Activity areas shall be effectively screened from view of the residential district in a manner to be approved by the City Council. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after i adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1991. i Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) q0' / CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 1991 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the required buffer when an industrial use abuts an institutional use. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES TO ALLOW A LESSER BUFFER WHERE AN INDUSTRIAL USE ABUTS AN INSTITUTIONAL USE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -413. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS IN I -1 AND I -2 DISTRICTS. 1. Buffer and Setback Where a proposed I -1 or I -2 development abuts any residential district (R1 through R7) either at a property line or a public street line, buffer provisions shall be established according to the following: a. Where I -1 or I -2 development abuts R1, R2, R3 at a property line, the protective strip shall be no less than 100 feet in width. The protective strip shall not be used for parking, driveway, off- street loading or storage and shall be landscaped. Parking may be permitted in the buffer strip where an I -1 or I -2 use abuts an institutional use provided it does not extend to within 15 feet of the property line. The landscaped treatment shall contain an opaque fence or wall which shall not extend within 10 feet of any street right - of -way. The fence or wall design must be approved by the City Council as being in harmony with the residential neighborhood and providing sufficient screening of the industrial area. The fence or wall shall be eight feet in height. The protective strip ORDINANCE NO. shall contain no structures other than the approved fence or wall. b. Where I -1 or I -2 abuts R1, R2, or R3 at a public street line, the protective buffer strip shall be no less that 50 feet in width, shall contain no structures other than screening devices, shall not be used for parking, off - street loading, storage, or any other industrial activity, and shall be landscaped. Parking may be permitted in the buffer strip where an I -1 or I -2 use abuts an institutional use provided it does not extend to within 15 feet of the property line. Activity areas shall be effectively screened from view of the residential district in a manner to be approved by the City Council. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1991. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 6/10/ Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 91007 - Real Estate Financial Consultants, Inc. and Ivan and Hazel Vetterick DEPT. APPROV_ Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection ********************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** * 7 y . MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: d '������` ,•� ` Y No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached x ) Planning Commission Application No. 91007 submitted by Real Estate Financial Consultants, Inca and Ivan and Hazel Vetterick is a request 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 land in question would then be transferred by platting to the lot at 4010 65th Avenue North in order to provide enough land area to support four dwelling units on the property at 4010 65th Avenue North. This application was considered by the Planning Commission at its May 16, 1991 meeting and was recommended for approval by the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 91 -4. A resolution regarding the disposition of Application No. 91007 and an ordinance amending Chapter 35 regarding the zoning designation of certain land is offered for the Council's consideration. Attached are minutes, information sheet, Planning Commission Resolution No. 91 -4, and map of the area for the Council's review. The rezoning and conveyance of this 30' x 100' strip of land so that it becomes part of 4010 65th Avenue North will rectify a longstanding problem with the property. This action and the addition of two parking stalls and some modification to the inside of the building will make the property a legitimate four plex which it should have been when developed in 1982. The then developer was apprised of the potential problems of a three -unit building with a ® common recreation instead of a fourth unit. The developer chose not to include enough land area at that time and the situation has been a problem since. SUMMARY E %PLANATION Page 2 June 10, 1991 Recommendation Approval of the application and Planning Commission Resolution No. 91 -4 was recommended by the Planning Commission at its May 16, 1991 meeting. MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION MAY 16, 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Bertil Johnson, Kristen Mann, and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 11, 1991 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the April 11, 1991 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Bernards and Johnson. The motion passed. / APPLICATION NO. 91007 (Real Estate Financial Consultants Inc. and 4/ Ivan and Hazel Vetterick) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for approval to rezone from C1 to R5 an approximate 30' x 100' strip of land along the back of . the property at 6501 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91007, attached). During his presentation, the Secretary reviewed a plat drawing of the two lots in question on an overhead transparency. He also explained the history of the property at 4010 65th Avenue North and the suspension of the rental license and how the property came to be bought by the Vettericks. The Secretary concluded by reviewing the draft resolution of approval of the rezoning with the five reasons listed. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicants whether they had anything to add. Mr. Ivan Vetterick stated that he had nothing to add. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 91007) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, she called for a motion to close the 'public hearing. 5 -16 -91 1 order to advertise the garage sale. The Secretary stated that that might indeed constitute a violation. Commissioner Bernards inquired as to the permit fee that would apply to a 32 sq. ft. real estate sign if a permit were required. The Planner pointed out that the fee is $30.00 for the first 50 sq. ft. The Secretary stated that he did not have a problem going without a permit for real estate signs. He noted that real estate signs are supposed to be temporary signs and that permits are generally required only for permanent signs. Commissioner Holmes inquired as to the use of trucks and banners for special sales. The Secretary explained that such signery can be allowed by administrative land use permit for a limited time. He explained the background of the ordinance regarding signs painted on commercial vehicles. He noted that there had been a truck parked at Westbrook Mall with a sign on it advertising a business and service within Westbrook Mall and that it was parked for long periods of time and really acted as a freestanding sign. He stated that this type of abuse was precisely what this ordinance was aimed at eliminating. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the real estate signs for the buildings across the street were noncomplying. The Secretary responded in the affirmative and stated that they had been sent letters regarding the violation. He explained that project identification signs sometimes get turned into space for lease signs after the project is built. Commissioner Bernards asked what period of time would be involved in the adoption of a new ordinance. The Secretary stated that it would take about 45 days to adopt a new ordinance, but stated that the old ordinance would not really be enforced as long as the ordinance amendment was being pursued. Commissioner Johnson asked how long it would take to prosecute a noncomplying sign. The Secretary stated that it would be pursued with a misdemeanor tag which must be responded to within seven days. He went on to review the prosecution process and stated that it might go as long as three or four months. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Dick McGinley, of Welsh Companies, asked that the Commission both grant the variance and adopt an ordinance amendment. Chairperson Malecki responded that staff had recommended that the variance be denied, but that the ordinance be amended. She asked the Commission how they felt regarding the request. Commissioner Ainas also stated that the variance should be denied, but that the ordinance should be amended. Other Commissioners generally agreed. Mr. Kent Warden, of the Building Owners and Managers Association of Minneapolis (B.O.M.A.) stated that he felt the ordinance amendment 5 -16 -91 3 CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Holmes noted the need for parking lot screening and asked whether there was a need to add a condition to the resolution. The Secretary explained that that was required as part of the plat approval and that there was no need to add a condition to the rezoning application. He added that the applicants will bring the plat back to the City Council for final approval. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -4 Member Lowell Ainas introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption. RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 91007 SUBMITTED BY IVAN AND HAZEL VETTERICK AND REAL ESTATE FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC. The motion for the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner Mann and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann, Bertil Johnson, and Mark Holmes and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91007 Applicant: Real Estate Financial Consultants, Inc. and Ivan and Hazel Vetterick Location: 6501 Brooklyn Blvd. and 4010 65th Avenue North Request: Rezoning The applicants request approval to rezone from C -1 to R -5 an approximate 30 100' strip of land along the back side of the lot at 6501 Brooklyn Blvd. The land in question would then be transferred by platting to the lot at 4010 65th Av. N. in order to provide enough land area to support four dwelling units on the 4010 65th property. This platting was pursued when both properties were zoned R -5, but was never filed by the previous owner. The apartment building at 4010 65th Av. N. was approved as a three -unit building with a common recreation room in 1982. However, subsequently, the recreation room was converted to a dwelling unit without proper approvals. It has been posted for some years as unlicensed and has not been rented. The reason it has been posted is because the land parcel is only large enough to support three dwelling units at 3600 sq. ft. per unit (the land area requirement for an R -4 building in an R -5 zone). The property under consideration in this rezoning is presently the back 30' of the lot at 6501 Brooklyn Blvd. It is bounded on the east by 6501 Brooklyn Blvd., on the south by the Welcome Community Home, on the west by 4010 65th Av. N., and on the north by a single- family home. The property at 4010 65th Av. N. is zoned R -5. The other surrounding properties are zoned C -1. They were rezoned from R -5 to C -1 in 1989. Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings All rezoning applications are reviewed in light of the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance (attached) . The applicants have submitted a brief letter (attached) in which they comment on each guideline. A recitation of those comments and staff response follows: (a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? Applicants "There is a clear need to make the building useable `as built."' Staff The building which the applicants refer to is the existing three -unit apartment building at 4010 65th Av. North. Although it does not have four legal units, its basic structure is comparable , to a standard four -plex. We encouraged the original owner of the property to plat off enough land for a four -unit building in 1982 when the apartment development was being proposed. He preferred, 5 -16 -91 1 Application No. 91007 continued however, to keep as much land as possible on the lot at 6501 Brooklyn Blvd. for future commercial development. It should be noted that the property on which the apartment was built was at one time part of a single parcel that ran between, and fronted on, Brooklyn Blvd. and 65th Av. North. The building has been an enforcement problem and is difficult to market as a three -unit building. It would simply be a more rational use of the building to have a fourth unit and the appropriate land area to support it. (b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? Applicants "The proposed zoning is consistent with adjacent zoning. There are two 4- plexes adjacent to the property. Staff We agree that the proposed R -5 zoning is consistent and compatible with the surrounding C -1 and R -5 zoning districts. (c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Applicants "We are contemplating multiple residential apartment use which is [there] now." Staff The new parcel of approximately 14000 sq. ft. will support four units in a two story building or six units in a three story building. Since the two story building is already in place, the net effect of the rezoning will be to legalize a fourth unit in the existing building. (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? Applicants "The property in question was zoned R -3 and was changed to C -1 in 1989. We want to change 30 100' back to R -3." Staff The applicants are mistaken in referring to the R -3 zone. The property in question was zoned R -5 and the proposal should be to rezone it back to R -5. The main change in zoning in the area was the rezoning to C -1 referred to by the applicants. We do not feel that the C -1 zone bounding this parcel is incompatible with an R -5 zoning of the apartment property. Both the C -1 and R -5 zones have been considered transition zones and, in fact, offices are allowed by special use permit in the R -5 zone. 5 -16 -91 2 Application No. 91007 continued (e) In the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? Applicants "N /A Staff Not applicable. (f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district? Applicants "Yes." Staff The land area being rezoned and added to the apartment property at 4010 65th Av.N. will enable that property to meet the density requirements for four dwelling units. (g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? Applicants "No." Staff We would agree that the land in question is not unsuited to service /office use, should the larger parcel in which it is located be redeveloped for that use. However, within the present time frame, it can serve a more useful purpose by supporting a fourth .dwelling unit on the 4010 65th property and making that building more fully usable. (h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? Applicants "Not known." Staff: We do not feel that such a minor rezoning of land would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. There is a lack of .developable land in most zoning districts in the city. In this case, the land would not result in new development, but would allow for the rational use of the existing apartment building. This seems to be in the best interests of the community. (i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? 5 -16 -91 3 Application No. 91007 continued Applicants "Yes we believe it is a reasonable solution to a on- going problem." Staff We agree that fitting buildings to land (or vice versa in this case) is one of the central purposes of zoning. We would, therefore, conclude that the proposed rezoning, inasmuch as it furthers valid zoning objectives, demonstrates merit beyond the interests of the owners of the land in question. The applicants have also submitted a letter (attached) in which they briefly explain the background of the zoning and platting of the property as was explained in the beginning of this report. Originally, the property at 4010 65th Av. N. was part of the same land parcel containing 6501 Brooklyn Blvd. The property at 4010 65th was subdivided off in 1982. In 1987, the previous owner, Joe Maas, received preliminary plat approval to transfer the back 30' of the 6501 Brooklyn Blvd. property to the 4010 65th property. That plat was never finaled. The applicants intend to final that plat if this rezoning is approved. All the land was previously zoned R -5. In 1989, the City rezoned 6501 Brooklyn Blvd. and other parcels in that block to C -1. Thus, there is a need to rezone this 30' wide strip of land from C -1 to R -5. It should also be noted that a condition of the preliminary plat approval granted to Joe Maas was that two additional parking stalls be constructed and bounded by curb and gutter in order to meet the parking requirement for the fourth dwelling unit. . Conclusion Based on the review of the rezoning guidelines above, we would recommend approval of the proposed rezoning. Most rezonings are considered once by the Planning Commission and then are tabled and referred to the relevant neighborhood advisory group (in this case, it would be the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group) . In this case, in light of the minor extent of the rezoning and the fact that no new development is contemplated, we would recommend that the Commission consider acting on the rezoning request at its first consideration. A draft resolution recommending approval is attached for the Commission's consideration. .Submitted b Gary Shal`lcross Planner proved by, .••....... C.a•�..,... Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 5 -16 -91 4 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91 -4 RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 91007 SUBMITTED BY IVAN AND HAZEL VETTERICK AND REAL ESTATE FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS INC WHEREAS, Application No. 91007, submitted by Ivan and Hazel Vetterick and Real Estate Financial Consultants, Inc., proposes rezoning from C -1 (Service /Office) to R -5 (Multiple Family) the back 30' of the property at 6501 Brooklyn Blvd.; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing at its May 16, 1991 regular meeting when a staff report and testimony regarding the rezoning request were taken; and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning has been reviewed in light of the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 91007 submitted by Ivan and Hazel Vetterick and Real Estate Financial Consultants, Inc., be approved in consideration of the following: 1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the surround land uses in the neighborhood. 2. All permitted uses in the proposed zoning district may be contemplated for the subject property. 3. The resulting property at 4010 65th Avenue North will bear fully the ordinance development restrictions of the proposed zoning district. 4. The proposed rezoning will result in a proper fit between the existing building and land and, therefore, demonstrates merit beyond the interests of the property owners. 5. In light of the above, it is believed that the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines are met and that the proposal is, therefore, in the best interests of the community. f I RESOLUTION NO. 91 -4 D eateat ' Cha rperson Secretary The motion for 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. '4CS im UEd was N s; Mr -- S NO HCz low OR oft NO MINE sm r ♦ . ... u��nu ; _. Run uc to anIucu��n� 1i�r -"►` tlifltj i WINE ■■■ � ra � N � nun �� � �� �l�� �•�� •,� . ... � � . � �`► � ' � � --*�►' - atttrQ'�i,,/Ilt�r tttta mini OUR I : t• :•:;:; ■■ ■� �.: W ���N1��uN � mil• ,� , it Issue =a Kill Lij 1 q� j t ► ���I� 4100 mum 101" ■tt s .. ;. �� .0� !/r ��5� �t /� I�j� I�ti ttt . •. �►� � ..g ... etrrr rnmu■�. ' ° •��r�'� �� ta�� /ll�a��. s WROW PUMN ��� � �����•,� � � ..�...�■r INS �.1C3a7 ■t■ /Ci�.�. `'��= � �t��ii / /fit► IN WAR was ANN MM M MEN MOM MW SWIN air Wrte.• �t., !ZE NO WIN i �� X1111/ i e s� �� \• nun . . Ipw � ■ .uu N�1u1 � M M mm — '' � [MIN '� •, i iii; J . Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 91007 SUBMITTED BY IVAN AND HAZEL VETTERICK AND REAL ESTATE FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC. WHEREAS, Application No. 91007 submitted by Ivan and Hazel Vetterick and Real Estate Financial Consultants, Inc. proposes rezoning from C1 (Service /Office) to R5 (Multiple Family) an approximate 30' x 100' strip of land on the back of the property at 6501 Brooklyn Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on May 16, 1991 when a staff report and testimony regarding the rezoning request was taken; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 91007 by the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 91 -4; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly called public hearing on the matter at its June 10, 1991 meeting when the Planning Commission's recommendation and public testimony were received; and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning has been reviewed in light of the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained .in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Application No. 91007, submitted by Ivan and Hazel Vetterick and Real Estate Financial Consultants, Inc., is hereby approved in consideration of the following: 1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the surrounding and uses in the neighborhood. g g 2. All permitted uses in the proposed zoning district may be contemplated for the subject property. 3. The resulting property at 4010 65th Avenue North will bear fully the ordinance development restrictions of the proposed zoning district. 4. The proposed rezoning will result in a proper fit between the existing building and land and, therefore, demonstrates merit beyond the interests of the property owners. s RESOLUTION NO. 5. In light of the above, it is believed that the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines are met and that the proposal is, therefore, in the best interests of the community. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for 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 Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 1991 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the zoning classification of certain land. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND (HAMM'S SECOND ADDITION) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -1140. MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R5). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (R5) Multiple Family Residence District zoning classification. Lot 1, Block 1, Hamm's 2nd Addition. Section 35 -1170. SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT (Cl). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (Cl) Service /Office District zoning classification. Lot 2, Block 1, Hamm's 2nd Addition. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective-after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1991. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 91007 SUBMITTED BY IVAN AND HAZEL VETTERICK AND REAL ESTATE FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC. WHEREAS, Application No. 91007 submitted by Ivan and Hazel Vetterick and Real Estate Financial Consultants, Inc. proposes rezoning from C1 (Service /Office) to R5 (Multiple Family) an approximate 30' x 100' strip of land on the back of the property at 6501 Brooklyn Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on May 16, 1991 when a staff report and testimony regarding the rezoning request was taken; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 91007 by the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 91 -4; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly called public hearing on the matter at its June 10, 1991 meeting when the Planning Commission's recommendation and public testimony were received; and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning has been reviewed in light of the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Application No. 91007, submitted by Ivan and Hazel Vetterick and Real Estate Financial Consultants, Inc., is hereby approved in consideration of the following: 1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the surrounding land uses in the neighborhood. 2. All permitted uses in the proposed zoning district may be contemplated for the subject property. 3. The resulting property at 4010 65th Avenue North will bear fully the ordinance development restrictions of the proposed zoning district. 4. The proposed rezoning will result in a proper fit between the existing building and land and, ( therefore, demonstrates merit beyond the interests of the property owners. t RESOLUTION NO. 5. In light of the above, it is believed that the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines are met and that the proposal is, therefore, in the best interests of the community. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for 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. qb a CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 1991 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the zoning classification of certain land. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND (HAMM'S SECOND ADDITION) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -1140. MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R5). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (R5) Multiple Family Residence District zoning classification. Lot 1, Block 1, Hamm's 2nd Addition. Section 35 -1170. SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT (Cl). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (Cl) Service /Office District zoning classification. Lot 2, Block 1, Hamm's 2nd Addition. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after .adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1991. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 6/10 91 Agenda Item Number (� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Appliction No. 91009 - Earle Brown Bowl ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: .00= Z3 , Agft No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached x ) • Planning Commission Application No. 91009 submitted by the Earle Brown Bowl is a request for 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 application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its May 30, 1991 meeting. Attached are minutes, information sheet, drawings, and map of the area from that meeting for the Council's review. Recommendation Approval of the application was recommended by the Planning Commission subject to the 11 conditions listed in the minutes. MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION MAY 30, 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace Bernards, Bertil Johnson and Kristen Mann. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairperson Malecki noted that Commissioner Ainas had called to say he would be unable to attend and was excused. Commissioner Holmes arrived at 7 :33 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 16, 1991 Motion by Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the May 16, 1991 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Sander. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 91009 (Earle Brown Bowl) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for 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 Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91009, attached). The Secretary noted that no food or alcohol would be served at the volleyball courts. Commissioner Bernards asked whether there was any discussion about portable bleachers being placed around the volleyball courts. The Secretary responded in the negative. He stated that the applicant does not expect many spectators. Commissioner Bernards asked about the possibility of tailgating at the volleyball courts. The Secretary responded that that would not be permitted. Commissioner Sander asked whether any food or beverage would be served to people on the deck through a window in the building. The Secretary responded in the negative. He stated that service would be through two doors immediately adjacent to the deck. Commissioner Sander asked who would monitor the bowling 5 -30 -91 1 alley's security people to know whether they are in fact enforcing the conditions of the special use permit. The Secretary responded that that would probably be something that the police department and code enforcement personnel would handle. Commissioner Johnson stated that the volleyball leagues would have noise and asked what impact this might have on other properties in the area. The Secretary reviewed a map of the area and showed where the Budgetel and Econolodge motels were located. He showed the distances between the volleyball courts and those buildings and added that the rooms are air conditioned and the windows would probably, therefore, be closed. He added that the recommendation of staff is to try the volleyball leagues on a test basis and that if there were problems the operation could either be shut down or not renewed next summer. Commissioner Bernards asked whether there was any undeveloped land in the area which might be affected by the proposal. The Secretary pointed out two vacant parcels, one to the south of James Circle and the other immediately to the east, south of Hardees. The Secretary stated that he did not think the proposal would have any significant effect on the development of those parcels either way, positive or negative. In answer to a question from Commissioner Holmes, the Secretary noted that there was a requirement in the Zoning Ordinance to screen outside commercial activities. He pointed out that approval of the amended special use permit would also involve an exemption from this screening requirement. Commissioner Holmes asked if there would be a railing on the deck. Mr. Mark Bruer, of Earle Brown Bowl, responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Sander asked how high the deck would be off the ground. Mr. Bruer responded that it would be approximately 12" off the ground. Commissioner Sander asked whether other restaurants would likely ask for such an outside eating area. The Secretary responded that that was a possibility, but that other restaurants cannot show a drop in parking demand on a seasonal basis which the bowling alley has shown through their sales data. Commissioner Sander stated that if the deck were open in September and October, it would really tax the parking capacity of the site. The Secretary stated that the seating on the deck would require 25 parking spaces plus a few more for employees. He added that it was not clear whether the applicant is asking for approval of the deck during September and October or whether it would only be up until Labor Day. He stated that he had conflicting information on that question. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the courts.would be locked up when not in use. The Secretary stated that there would be gates leading out of the courts, but that he was not sure whether they would be locked. 5 -30 -91 2 Commissioner Holmes stated that he was concerned regarding a possible traffic hazard because of the proposed location of the volleyball courts. He noted the location of the main entrance drive to the site. The Secretary showed the parking lot on a transparency and reviewed the areas where patrons park. He noted that most of the restaurant customers parked to the west of the building and the bowling customers park to the south of the building. He stated that the area where the volleyball courts would be placed is an area of fairly low activity. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Mark Bruer, of Earle Brown Bowl, stated that the volleyball courts are located where they are because of the parking lot islands which can protect them from oncoming traffic. He stated that they do want people to see the volleyball courts. Mr. Bruer stated that they would cease the deck on Labor Day. He added that there would be no lights on the deck and that service would cease at dark. He stated that there had been some discussion as to whether a wood deck or a concrete deck would be more appropriate and that wood was chosen for aesthetic reasons. In response to a question from Commissioner Bernards regarding securing of the courts, Mr. Bruer stated that the courts would not be secured per se. He stated that there would be a nylon netting around the courts, but that it would not be locked in order to let people out who ventured in. Commissioner Bernards related that he had been responsible for a lighted tennis court at the high school at one time and that it was a taxing job. He asked whether problems wouldn't occur with the volleyball courts. Mr. Bruer stated that they had not had problems at their other location in Woodbury and that security personnel would be on duty. Commissioner Sander asked what hours the deck would be open. Mr. Bruer responded that the deck would be open from before lunch through dusk. In response to a question from Chairperson Malecki, Mr. Bruer stated that there are not many spectators at volleyball contests, at least that has been the experience at Woodbury. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the bowling business would pick up as a result of the volleyball leagues. Mr. Bruer stated that it probably wouldn't unless it rained. Chairperson Malecki asked about how feet would be washed to get the sand off of them. Mr. Bruer stated that a garden hose would be used with a children's swimming pool to wash off the excess sand. Chairperson Malecki stated that she had been to the site that day and that sand was getting out of the court area because of the recent rains. She asked how this would be controlled. Mr. Bruer stated that the lot would be swept probably every month to six weeks. Commissioner Sander stated that she was concerned regarding the sand from the players and also sand on the parking lot. She stated that she was not satisfied with the proposed cleaning regimen. There was a discussion of the use of the sweeper. Commissioner Mann stated 5 -30 -91 3 that she agreed with Commissioner Sander and suggested that the lot needed to be swept about every week. Commissioner Sander asked how the City would monitor the sweeping operation. The Secretary stated that if a problem arose, they would take action. There then followed a discussion of the service to the deck. It was generally agreed that 10:30 p.m. was an appropriate time to close down service to the deck. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 91009) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Ms. Betty Narveson, of Budgetel, stated that she was concerned with the volleyball portion of the application. She stated that some of the patrons in their hotel opened the windows at night and she was concerned about noise from the volleyball leagues keeping patrons awake or annoying them in some fashion. Chairperson Malecki pointed out that the volleyball leagues would be approved on a trial basis, if at all. She recommended that Budgetel inform the City if there is a problem. The Secretary added that he would encourage Budgetel to contact the Earle Brown Bowl management right away if there is a problem with noise. Commissioner Sander stated that the City needed to know if there was a problem. The Secretary agreed, but stated that he did not want to be contacted every time someone yelled at the volleyball courts. Chairperson Malecki concluded from the staff report that the matter would not necessarily come back for review unless there was a problem. The Secretary stated that a report would be prepared and that it could be brought back to the Planning Commission as well as the City Council if that was desired. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Johnson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Holmes stated that he agreed with the changes that had been discussed so far, but that he felt there would probably be a safety hazard with spectators at tournaments. He also stated that he felt the courts could become an attractive nuisance for kids after dark. Commissioner Bernards stated that he very much liked the outdoor eating area, but that he was more lukewarm to the volleyball proposal. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 91009 (Earle Brown Bowl Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend approval of Application No. 91009, 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. 5 -30 -91 4 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. 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. 9. The special p ial use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. Any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 10. Alcoholic beverages may not be sold or consumed outside with the exception 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 areas 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. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 5 -30 -91 5 Commissioner Holmes asked whether the liability on the proposed deck would be the bowling alley's. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. 5 -30 -91 6 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91009 Applicant: Earle Brown Bowl Location: 6440 James Circle Request: Special Use Permit The applicant requests special use permit approval to build 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 property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by Freeway Boulevard, on the east by Hardees and vacant C2 zoned land, and on the south and west by James Circle. The existing bowling alley is a special use in the C2 zoning district and the proposed seasonal deck and volleyball courts are considered to be an amendment to the bowling alley's special use permit. Applicant's Submittal The applicant has submitted a written report (attached) separately requesting approval of the outside deck and the outside volleyball courts. The main reason and justification for the request is that the bowling business drops off severely from May until Labor Day. Relative to the deck, the applicant proposes to serve (not prepare) food and liquor to patrons on a wood deck that would seat 50 people. They desire to keep the patio open for business until 11:00 p.m. or 12 midnight, weather permitting. They would like to have the patio open for business until the end of October or whenever the weather turns cold. They state that the patio will .only eliminate one parking space and will require that one handicapped space be moved. There are no plans for outdoor speakers or music; therefore, they do not expect noise to be a problem. They also note that there will be additional security personnel to insure that food and liquor are consumed only on the patio and not at the volleyball courts. Relative to the request for volleyball courts, the applicant states that there would be volleyball leagues run by a group called VolleyWorld. VolleyWorld specializes in organizing and running volleyball leagues and runs one at another bowling center owned by the applicant in Woodbury, Minnesota. The league play would be conducted from 5:30 p.m. to approximately 10:30 p.m. (the last match would start at 9:30 p.m.) Monday through Thursday from May through August. Friday, Saturday and Sunday are to be held open for open play, special exhibitions, and tournaments. Earle Brown Bowl would not earn money off the volleyball leagues, however, they expect some increased sales from the increased traffic. 5 -30 -91 1 Application pp No. 91009 continued The volleyball courts are to be located in the parking lot to the south of the building. The area used is approximately 90' square and takes up the space for 33 parking stalls. An 8' high net is to surround the two courts with doors placed at each of the four corners. The actua 1 � playing area consists of two 30 x 60 courts with a 10' wide neutral area between each court and to the outside netting. The playing area will be lighted with two light poles each, containing two 400 watt high pressure sodium bulbs mounted about 10' above the existing parking lot lights. The courts will be dismantled and the sand and railroad ties will be removed by Labor Day. As to the sand, the applicant states that they have had no problem with sand washing away at their Woodbury location. They also point out that they are very concerned about sand inasmuchas it can cause serious problems on a bowling lane. They will have a place for players to wash themselves off and they also keep P their own sweeper to sweep the lot. The re re will be no outside speakers or music at the volleyball courts. They plan to have every participant sign a waiver form before they can play volleyball. In addition, they have taken out additional insurance on the participants. Staff Analysis Staff's concerns generally fall into the categories of parking, drainage, noise, ise, and sanitation. a) Parking The volleyball courts will temporarily eliminate 33 spaces and the deck one space. Coupled with the loss of these 34 spaces, there will be an increased parking demand of perhaps 30 spaces for the seating and employees with the deck and perhaps 24 spaces for the volleyball courts (at one space per player). Offsetting the loss of 34 spaces and the need for 54 new spaces is the decline in parking demand from the cessation of league bowling. The bowling alley contains 36 lanes and the parking requirement for these lanes is 180 spaces based on 5 spaces per lane. The applicant has submitted detailed sales data which indicates that bowling sales from May through August are approximately 66% to 75% below the level for the months of league play. This would suggest that approximately 120 parking spaces would be unneeded during the months of May through August. This more than offsets the 88 spaces that must be made up by loss of spaces and new business. After Labor Day, league bowling resumes and the volleyball courts will be removed. However, the applicant wishes to continue to have the deck up during September and October. The Commission may wish to discuss this question in light of the sales data submitted. While September and October are not the peak bowling months, they are fairly active months and we would be inclined to recommend against having the deck up during times when bowling leagues are active. 5 -30 -91 2 Application No. 91009 continued However, the Commission might consider allowing it during September and October on a trial basis for this year. b) Drainage Our concern with drainage is over the possibility that sand from the volleyball courts may be carried by rains into the storm sewer system. The closest catch basin to the volleyball courts is approximately 35' to the southeast. This is close enough that some sand could wash into the storm sewer. The applicant has stated that sand has not been a problem at their Woodbury location. They have also pointed out that they have their own sweeper and have an incentive to keep the sand cleaned up. On the basis of these assurances, we would be willing to recommend in favor of the proposal on a trail basis for this year. If sand does become a serious problem, we would recommend that the permit be revoked or that ha other measures be taken to eliminate the sand flow problem. c) Noise Of the two activities (dining and volleyball) it is the volleyball matches that will probably generate the most noise. The potential impact might be felt by patrons of the nearby hotels. These rooms are all air conditioned and it is unlikely that noise from the volleyball matches could be particularly noticeable. We would certainly recommend that play cease when the 9:30 p.m. match is completed (approximately 10:30 p.m.). d) Sanitation Our concern with sanitation is over the possibility of food falling through cracks in the deck to the ground below and possibly inviting a rodent infestation. We have talked with Sanitarian Mary Fandrey about this possibility. She has indicated that a concrete patio would be preferable, from a sanitation standpoint, but that Hennepin County has allowed such decks at other eating establishments and there has not been a problem. She is willing to allow the deck on a trial basis and see how it functions. If after the first year there are sanitation problems, we would recommend that the special use permit be modified to require a concrete patio rather than a wood deck. Recommendation Altogether, the proposal appears to meet the concerns of staff. We would recommend approval of the proposal on a trial basis, subject to at least 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. 5 -30 -91 3 Application No. 91009 continued 2. Seating on the deck shall be limited to 50 seats and service shall terminate no later than midnight. 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. 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 regular 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 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. 9. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. Any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 10. Alcoholic beverages may not be sold or consumed outside with the exception 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 areas 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. 5 -30 -91 4 Submitted by, Gary Sha lcross Planner Approved by, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 5 -30 -91 5 :3�° T � �.. ■■ ii ii � ■■ ii ii o •• �� ii ii ■ ■ r .� i i i i ►�• �' � �� ,� ��, � � iii i • /.i ii ii ii � ��:• _ � - - �� ii ii i i � ■ ■■ MOM mommummon son In MIME ON N MON son } 1♦i min N ■ ■ ■ ■■1�■li `� Ti i OPEN SPACE 0 . / ► BROOKLYN CENTER ♦♦ miGH SCHOOL , Noun �i ii �i i • - • . • . � saOs s�rawr- .�•�e'� l ■� ��' •• r sA• i� 7 • t� s'i�J�S ` c � s ��� � ii .i �/ Fr i ......_ � � - �— • . �.._ _ __ __._._ - c i • ,� fig" '' � � � � +Rr t ♦., V r r = t 1 \ 1 ,'.�- � , r , � ''.,; �• - .=�" Wlt� Vd/ , UN j dy Gl�!- �dS�t' � �� +. i \Gti � r g• . � � � s = mil lllf� -Lr: — - - --- iii' � � r d .,tt o ' } � r r r,' ' TqqlW 14. FAW mor a � �k „f {' � h ` ,It �.\ .�`,,, � • ' { Y EARL BROWN BOWL Patio - Extension P Ilown O Patio @ +12' elevation Down E03 KDO�� T \ Notei Patio Side Rails ��� At 44' Off Deck Elevation iA ! r J y n 3 rep r i j� Wt W/ UNcf� �aNOC'�' i i `a ' r � .• �, ,. i 1' F <1• 1. � 1 ; �.. 1 - •.. ", • r /s!{�1 � �R /,� S L 1. 7T1 _ I . r �• y �< r t .• 'v _! -�.� . _ A E U' N �`� vi: !' � � � f �..� {� i.• iwa t a , t •G�, t 'r�, i. j t . *L4 on r at' / , y, ��•i ' � . ' ia��}t�ti�+i a 1 I r + •. '� =. -�'Y^ r. i.'P l's. 1 �_ `� � { T #'��. t + , i , tAr' t .1 y ' � {,. ♦i '�.'JI! s '�'!Y ?�2 ."__ \' ' .`7 1Y . +..,.,i .> ,y .. i i +T �•�.�+� l . ` r'Y. M� Fe.:. ,' r f � v r r� �v+ t ,t. - .ar ' �1 • � �.:{ r ' c �:. � 1 .. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 6/10/9 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 91010 - Marquette Bank Brookdale ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: .� No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached x ) • Planning Commission Application No. 91010 submitted by Marquette Bank Brookdale is a request for site and building plan approval to construct a 5,700 s . ft. addition to the q Marquette Bank Brookdale at 5620 Brooklyn Boulevard. This application was considered by the Planning ommission at its M 30 g y , 1991 meeting. Attached are minutes, information sheet, drawings and map of the area from that meeting for the Council's review. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended approval of the application subject to the 11 conditions listed in the May 30, 1991 Planning Commission minutes. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the liability on the proposed deck would be the bowling alley's. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. APPLICATION NO. 91010 (Marquette Bank Brookdale) The Secretar introd y uced the next item of business, a request for site and building plan approval to construct a 5,700 sq. ft. addition to the front of the Marquette Bank Brookdale at 5620 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91010, attached). The Secretary also reviewed recent changes to accesses in the area: to Westbrook Mall off Brooklyn Boulevard and the access change on 56th Avenue North. Commissioner Mann stated that the intersection of the access road and 56th Avenue North is a bad area and asked whether there was any way to require that the access to the bank be off that access road. The Secretary answered that that would only be possible if the bank and Westbrook Mall would agree to such an access. He stated that the re p sent access arrangement on 56th is probably the best of a bad situation. Commissioner Johnson agreed with Commissioner Mann and stated that turning movements in that area are dangerous. In response to a question from Commissioner Bernards regarding the canopy, the Secretary stated that it would come down, but added that the night depository on the north side of the building would remain. Commissioner Sander asked why the site was ever approved without storm sewer service. The Secretary stated that that predated his time with the City. He stated that the bank was built in the early 1960's and that there was obviously -no public storm ..sewer in 56th at that time. In response to a question from Commissioner Holmes regarding handicapped access, the Secretary showed the location of the handicapped stalls on the plan and the location of a ramp to the southeast customer entrance. Chairperson Malecki asked how much landscaping there was along the access road to the east. Mr. Loren Hoseck, the architect for the project, stated that there was very little landscaping in that area. Chairperson Malecki asked whether additional landscaping would cause a problem. The Secretary responded that he did not think so. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicants whether they had anything to add. Mr. Loren Hoseck, the architect for the project, and Steven King, a representative of Marquette Bank Brookdale, stated they had nothing further to add, but would answer questions. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the bank would operate at regular hours during construction. Mr. King responded in the -affirmative. Commissioner Sander asked whether there was a full basement under the building. Mr. King responded that there is presently a full basement under the existing building, but that the addition would only be to the main floor. 5 -30 -91 6 i Chairperson Malecki asked whether the applicants had any problem with the modifications to the plan recommended in the conditions of approval. Mr. Hos eck PP reviewed the various modifications and stated that some of them had been met already Y or were unnecessary and that the others would be no problem. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 91010 (Marquette Bank Brookdale) Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Bernards to recommend approval of Application No. 91010, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving reas except along the north side g p g of the lot 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. 5 -30 -91 7 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. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, L ernards, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The otion passed. APPLICATION NO. 91006 (Sunlite Properties) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for variance approval to allow a 15' wide buffer between the parking lot at 1601 67th Avenue North and the Berean Evangelical Free Church property at 6625 Humboldt Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91006). The Secretary explained that staff could not address the question of an expansion of the church without a proposed plan for such an expansion. He stated that selling off land to Sunlite Properties would have some effect on potential expansions of the church. The Secretary also reviewed the draft ordinance amendment. Commissioner Bernards asked what was the definition of an institutional use. The Secretary stated that that is not addressed in the ordinance at present, but might be in the future after a group home amendment. He noted that institutional uses included churches and schools primarily. In response to - -a question from Commissioner Bernards the Secretary stated that institutional uses are similar to C1 uses and that C1 uses are allowed in the R5 zone. He added that an industrial use adjacent to an R5 use is required to have a 15' buffer. PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing on Application No. 91006. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Janis Blumentals, the architect for the applicant, stated that the ordinance amendment would address their concerns. Commissioner Sander stated that she was in favor of denying the variance, but changing the ordinance. There followed a brief discussion in which most of the Commissioners concurred with this opinion. The Secretary stated that the reduced buffer from 50' to 15' could be used for parking, but not for building. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING -Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Sander to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. 5 -30 -91 8 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91010 Applicant: Marquette Bank Brookdale Location: 5620 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Site and Building Plan Location /Use The applicant requests site and building plan approval to construct a 5 sq. ft. addition to the front of the Marquette Bank Brookdale at 5620 Brooklyn Boulevard. The property in question is zoned C2 (Commerce) and is bounded on the north by Westbrook Mall, on the east by a private road serving Westbrook Mall and Bakers Square, on the south by 56th Avenue North, and on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard. Banks are a permitted use in the C2 zoning district. Access /Parking The present access off 56th Avenue North is proposed to stay where it is near the southeast corner of the site. It is over 50' wide, divided by a median. It is located approximately 60' west of the private access road serving Westbrook Mall. Across the street, another private access road opens onto 56th roughly in between these two driveways. Ideally, accesses should line up across from one another or be offset at least 125 That was not feasible here and it was felt that the present driveway location provided some separation from the private access drive on the north side of 56th without complicating the turn lane onto Brooklyn Boulevard. There is also access between this bank site and Westbrook Mall to the north via a driveway connection in the northeast corner of the site. The plan proposes 101 parking spaces, including 3 handicapped spaces. The existing building requires 66 spaces, using the retail formula for the main floor and the office formula for the basement. The proposed addition is 5,770 sq. ft. and requires 32 stalls at the retail parking formula. Total required parking, therefore, comes to 98 stalls. The proposed plan, therefore, slightly exceeds that requirement. Landscaping The landscape plan calls for numerous trees and shrubs positioned in appropriate locations around the site. The total point value of new plantings is 467 points. The plan calls for 10 Shademaster Honeylocust, 6 Greenspire Linden, 13 Douglas Fir, 12 Adams Crabapple, 17 Spring Snow Crabapple and over 300 shrubs including Cardinal Dogwood, Mint Julep Juniper, and thornless Japanese Barberry. The existing parcel is approximately 2.1 acres. The point requirement under the landscape point system for this parcel is 208 points. The proposed plan, therefore, meets the point requirement. 5 -30 -91 1 Application No. 91010 continued Grading /Drainage /Utilities The existing building is situated on the north side of the site, high above the street level of 56th Avenue North. By adding to the front of the building, the average grade from the main floor to the street becomes steeper. We have advised the architects for this project that parking lot grades leading to the access on 56th should not exceed 5 %. The plan, for the most part, accomplishes this objective through the use of retaining walls, steps, and a handicapped ramp in front of the building's southeast elevation. The slope in front of the building is approximately 5% or less. However, the slope appears to be steeper at the access drive and on the east side of the site. The City Engineer must approve the final grading plan and will work out these details with the architects. The site has no access to public storm sewer. All drainage will flow toward the southeast portion of the site onto 56th Avenue North and travel overland to storm sewer in Xerxes Avenue North. A spillway has been shown at the southeast corner of the parking lot. Measures should be taken to prevent erosion in the adjacent greenstrip through which the runoff will flow. We have asked for locations of on -site utilities, but they have not as yet been shown. The existing building is served by City water and sewer. A fire line will have to be added to fire sprinkler the entire building as required by the Fire Code. Building The proposed expansion will almost double the size of the main floor. Much of the space is to be used for offices and a reception and waiting area. The entrance at the southeast corner of the existing building will remain as primarily an employee entrance. The main customer entrance will be moved to a barrel vaulted entry way on the southeast side of the addition. A matching barrel vault on the southwest elevation of the building will be 'over a conference room. The building exterior is to be a new face brick with generous clear tinted glass windows. The plans also propose a new standing seam metal roof in a hipp design. As mentioned earlier, the building is to be fire sprinklered in accordance with the Fire Code. Lightinq /Trash An existing freestanding light fixture is indicated in the middle of the double row of parking east of the building. Two more light poles are shown west of the building. The plan does not indicate any new exterior lighting or how existing lighting may be relocated. We are pursuing this question with the principal architect for the project. Two trash dumpsters and a fenced enclosure are shown in the northeast corner of the site. 5 -30 -91 2 Application No. 91010 continued Recommendation Altogether, the plans are generally in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 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 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 lot 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. 5 -30 -91 3 I Application No. 91010 continued b) Modification of the site plans to provide for a method of erosion control in the greenstrip adjacent to the spillway at the southeast corner of the lot. C) Proposed lighting. d) Modification of proposed grades so as not to encroach on the existing sidewalk along 56th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard. e) Existing and proposed site utilities. Submitted by, == nn Gary Shallcross Planner Approved by, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 5- 30-91 4 MAN MEMBER JIM WE- F4FAF, all 1,• ����� `� ormolmom INN "R �1 /III II�IIIII /� /: l asg :� m: ►� y �I► .� .III. , . ►: —„s c� �C s mm will mom MOM N NO s !� j�MR mom OEM ME OW■ MOR OEM ME OWN MOR rom ME MEN ME SOME MOM .,, •. �� �IIII .MME .... MENS M . MEN MEN Na � ��. • MENO MEN OEM ME MEN MEM mini mom t • � �= MEN ME SOME MENIMM mum oil WIMP IM on � VIII � .0 � //� • - :� �• . �j � /�� ���-. Iii �.'�. QW f = -�' ���� III /�I�v � • ; . :. � � '` • 111 ����� � �i �■ �� % "Nt S� �. ♦ice :fit+ • ■ P �� •: OEM NINE as NUIIIII/1I/���■. =Wig ,•". a � � �� � iii AP ME MOM Eta 0 OF ` tM- r. I . MEN mill � — — HUUAReSET6ACK— DIMTTR 1 ; D—t IDQ I I 1 1 I 1 I EXISTING BANK BUILDING l O �- - IT PROPOSED BANK EXPANSION IA - 1 -- D 1 w e - N4 1 — I 11 � u -1 I T SETNACK PLANNING AND I f I `� DESIGN INC PARKING INFORMATION PARKING 96 H DC _PARKI 3 TOTAL PARKING 99 �� awn .. n...•�...�.�.n NORTH ACCESt: ROAD IRALDING INFORMATION MIN, PARKING SPACES REQ'D EXIST. MAIN LEVEL t0FI IF • 1.I PE■ 1000 11 SITE PLAN EXIST. LOWER LEVEL toss SP • E fit 1000 11 1ilR ADDITION SI /I SP s.s P at 1 000 /s rotrN TOTAL 1P1Et s1 or ["TIRE sU1LDING TO it SPRINKLED SITE'S PLAN I I Ij I tflltRt I I i I l , waAMN I I I •_ Y. NERD CASMER IRIf TING I IAISTING i r a o I _ ADDITION I i � wNTWG I 4. I-- ---1-- -- _ �_ ❑ E[ I r(o rosin A D 0IT IO N r_ _T RlCVTION O KTNE III[SIOFM � r V ` l REAL ISTATE / \ RDISOMNlI/AUOIT CONAIMDI uNDf V \ NOV( OMMERCUI IOAN ATM \ -/ coupm �' P l N N N I N C AND DESIGN INC \ OJMMUDUI LOANS / �... \\ co- wins / RE FLOOR PLAN NEW STANDING SIAM MITAS ROOF IACI .RICK C1 /AR TIN11D G1AS3 TEXTURED ACCENT .RICK �� I iII --- I I I I I I -� a ' 1 r` SOU ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION IIR' 1 T-0• S /R• I fd 1 I NORTH E LE VA TION yr I r RIE C CHO 1 M D DESIGN SIGN INC fi SOUTHWEST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION 1n• I r -a yr 1 rd BUILDING- ELEVATIONS i !► i • w� .� ?� ..• ����ta .T. �r 4 i �' «. •..•.fMc 4Wxa/M An h�lr:r OEM i yp � �• - v K-70 ki W TT�f7R�TR7 LI �t �' s Di�:Tnn S > _._ _�_ �� _�� - 4�: -t:-" � r. °�� �<o.m.". a.rtl.•rrr,nw, t it - -- \= = _� / / .. - -_ �i- . r m, s.< =w .waurt _r Rr -.W - /• W{ _ _ -..... __ / — i. N• / /� - Dlnlnmrw:r � cwK�rn nnr�clmr. 1•••, m•• ca.nrrt wAU rmnao+anr•vno &M Tauma,w COM1LmMUlLM - - - - 356 75 - N97-44T53 ' M NOT F !!t r� _ —• —�— — _ _ — _ ro �� , 1 < 1 - STORY BRICK BUILDING GRADING • PLAN BANX �.� — ...__ —__ _`__`•___.. —_. ttllln � T ,� Il. plv,i,rn<,..Il 0 -- „1 an _ I Tj Tl, .I -- - a soa � ,..°. -- � — 4 aro ._ ® PLANT SCHEDULE s 's ° m.. n .l. LLO.0 -. •sb a...ar r can s.. .. s. w Lw ' I 1,-- 2 _ m <. <..l. c..... .• eAr .1. 1 -pl um- �..-- • — — - -- ti�.,b• ,1 r ,—.. ��'• n r a_ - - ----- r--fl-.II a• • 10' Bal P.Y a a. O.wJ � brvr].WMIfL, _ TH - — — A ENU_ E - i M. •. S rl • Se-.• Ei. WII W ._"_.r _ W - . -� ��_u ...0 - y. -. ^ . - .F }. a NOR r.. -n .... c..... tw• r eae Fdi F.. Sn.. y� y..�y m �° � ,} � _ ! . � `.`v, � . e..a.... n..... 1 rvr e r . ... >�Iw � . .�. � �. • � - n n Io ' .Y I,,r.� r ,. / 61T —NOW, ` 1 ,uREACE ' co A• n Oa Ani ••a[nG XMeaa tai. n°a w \ ;U �'a °•.^� n• _ 35®:'FS - Tf 8 T 4fl 53 - � 0� STORY BRICK BUILDING \ —IT nooa - L�ya ,ee], �•ra _B�ru.aiROU, ,u nlE i LLL L . L � �� �^ a) IIa _ / eeos � � b [�: <nr ntlt.. �l� 1� 4 y5 i / ,..+ { ^ mi l I a/v t+I� Nbaa. ,sc]t attxt .ee0e , 'CIS . _�'t«�t4 �t C ' I J i / I Kaltt�m N[ Utz d T m [ i La \ �_ ...� [ t Wit•• '� • 650 — — — y ou T • 1 '� p � -� \,yes � ...�e _— . - 0 z4l eta \ 2 I a ntr TH - _AVENUE 9 of -D PREPARED f k D r " --�• -- -- `"�`F �� -- z s ` MARQUETTE BANK BRO04D4LE �,✓...: ".+f. /710' CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council meeting Date 6/10/9 Agenda kem Number le! L REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: ORDINANCE VACATING WATER MAIN EASEMENT IN TWIN VIEW MEADOWS DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP, DIRECTOA OF PUBL WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW RECOMMENDATION: e No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes • As per Document No. 4064501, dated August 14, 1973, the City of Brooklyn Center obtained a water main easement across a portion of Section 10, T.118N, R.21W., then owned by Tri -State Land Company. Recently, that property was purchased by Mr. Rick Hartmann and replatted as TWIN VIEW MEADOWS. As part of the approved development of the subdivision, a portion of the previously installed water main was relocated to accommodate a new lot. The relocated water main is contained in an easement which was dedicated via the new plat. The remainder of the existing water main which lies. within the boundaries of the new plat is contained in City -owned property (Outlots A & B) or dedicated public right -of -way (see attached Map). The City will retain the existing easement which lies within Outlot B, TWIN VIEW MEADOWS. Accordingly, Mr. Hartmann is now requesting the vacation of the portion of the existing water main easement (Doc. No. 4064501) which lies within Lot 13, Block 2, Outlot A and 51st Avenue North of TWIN VIEW MEADOWS. The private utility companies providing service to the area are currently reviewing this request. Staff are also reviewing locations of any City -owned utilities to determine if the City should retain any portions of this easement. City Council Action Required An ordinance is provided for consideration and first reading by the City Council. If,the first reading is conducted, the proposed ordinance will be published along with a notice of public hearing. After the second reading and public hearing, the City Council would then consider final adoption of the ordinance. Portion of the plat "TWIN VIEW MEADOWS" OUTLOT B OUTLOT A -' • EASEMENT TO BE RETAINED - EASEMENT TO BE VACATE m � 1 / IN --- --- __ -_____ I 1 / 308.15 N00°00'00 "E - -- — r 99 D+ n 1 �� NOG °37'Zq•W. �\ -+ w �° � \� 1 1 v� I � SIC .i'.•�� /.1/ "' ' I 50.22 WATER MAIN EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 4064501 NOIo 52 36 "E 0 — _ C, _16041 _P I�ti �o I c) O I w ; •P: ; N N01 ° 52.36_�E i -O _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - __ _ _ J _ - _ - _ _ OI 14500 __.____ _ - _._._.-1 C911 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ; I I I to I J U O 45 f `) - - - --- - -_ -. -- _ _! I _- - -_ -__ °D ' I 14500 _._ _ _I I , - I O I O O OI 0 fir, I I °� I F• 1 p I 7 L— O 0° 6 ,9 I `/1 1 ' SS I N01 ° 52'36 ° E ; I N01 ° 52'36 • E � 35 25 _. _.__.- _- _ -_ -___ _ �I_4 145.00 ----------- /) J /n vltnl r, l O W 1 U I -. O OI 0 O o � m l n `° I ' u_ I I r I U 1 I 45 r ro l I NOI°52'3fi•E N01 °52'3fiE� v ._._-`_._.. ....-- __-_.________ 06 -04 -91 it ------- 40 1 —_1 4oae a. "-..,�• Merila & Associates, Inc. 8401 73rd Avenue North, Suite 63 y , Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55428 -1508 Telephone (612) 53 3-7595 Fax (612) 533 -1937 37 March 21, 1991 Mr. Mark Maloney City Engineer City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: TWIN VIEW MEADOWS Merila Project No. 90 -178 Enclosed is a copy of the watermain easement, Document 4064501. Field location of the existing 8 -inch watermain on March 18, 1991, determined that the watermain is not within the attached described easement. This will require relocation of the watermain and vacation of that portion of the easement contained within the Twin View Meadows subdivision (see attached boundary description). It is therefore requested that the city initiate the easement vacation process as soon as possible. The watermain will be relocated within the utility easement of Lot 13, Block 2 of Twin View Meadows. If you have any questions, please contact me. Very truly yours, MERILA & ASSOCIATES, INC. n C. Johnso , ?.E. Vice President JCJ:mel cc: Rick Hartmann Dave Price ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING l 0 cc, CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of at P.M. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider An Ordinance Vacating A Water Main Easement in TWIN VIEW MEADOWS, Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3350 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING A WATER MAIN EASEMENT IN TWIN VIEW MEADOWS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the portion of the water main easement obtained by the City via Doc. No. 4064501, described as: A strip of land 15 feet in width being 7.5 feet one each side of the following described center line: Commencing at the Northeast corner of the N %2 of Government Lot 2 in Section 10, Township 118 North, Range 21 West, thence West along the North line of said Government Lot 2 a distance of 1000.9 feet more or less to a point in the Southeasterly line of Lake Drive extended Southwesterly, which point is the actual point of beginning of the line to be described: thence deflecting to the left 89 33' 00" for a distance of 667.3 feet more or less to a point on the South line of said N% of Government Lot 2: thence to the right 28 30' 00" to a point in a line running parallel with and 50 feet distant Northeasterly (measured at right angles) from the center line of the main track of the Soo Line Railroad Company's railroad as the same is now located, maintained and operated over and across said Government Lot 2 and there terminating: which lies within the areas depicted as Lot 13 Block 2 Outlot A and 51st Avenue North on recorded plat of TWIN VIEW MEADOWS is hereby vacated. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , Mayor, Todd Paulson ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 6-10-91 Agenda Item Number r O b REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING PUBLIC NUISANCES * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Geral R. Barone, Personnel Coordinator MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOAIMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached * * * * * * * * * * * ** * SUNINI[ARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • At its May 13, 1991, meeting, the city council considered an ordinance amendment regarding public nuisances related to trespassing on school property and requested additional information before approving the ordinance for a first reading. Attached is the ordinance as presented on May 13, as well as an alternate that has been revised following review of existing statutes and recommendations from City Attorney Charlie LeFevere (see Mr. LeFevere's attached letter dated May 22, 1991). Mr. Paul Durand, associate principal at Brooklyn Center High School, will be present at the meeting to field any questions or concerns the city council may have regarding this ordinance. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Review and consider for a first reading an Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances Regarding Public Nuisances. i 5 -13 -91 ORIGINAL CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER lob Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be. held on the day of , 1991 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway to consider an amendment to Chapter 19 regarding public nuisances and petty offenses. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING PUBLIC NUISANCES AND PETTY OFFENSES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 19 -217. CONDUCT IN OR NEAR SCHOOL BUILDINGS OR GROUNDS. Subdivision 1. DEFINITIONS. As used in this section the following terms shall mean: a. "Public school" shall be any school building school grounds play area parking lot or athletic field owned or leased by a public school district b. "School official" shall be the principal assistant or associate principal school security person any schoolteacher, or the principal's designee Subdivision 2. PROHIBITION. No person shall trespass in or upon any public school by remaining upon said school premises after being ordered to leave the public school by a school official Subdivision 3. PERMISSION REQUIRED FOR RE- ENTRY. No person, having been ordered by a school official to leave a_public school and having left said premises shall re- enter said public school without the written permission of the school principal or the school official who gave the order to leave the public school Subdivision 4. DEFACEMENT OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS. No person shall mark with ink paint chalk or other substance, or post hand bills on or in any other manner deface or iniure fences, trees lawns or fixtures appurtenant to or located on the public school or post hand bills on such fences trees or fixtures No signs ORDINANCE NO. shall be placed or posted anywhere on a public school without the express permission of a school official. Subdivision 5. BREACH OF PEACE ON SCHOOL GROUNDS. No Person shall make or assist in making any noise disturbance diversion or activity by which peace quiet and good order of the public school are disturbed. Subdivision 6. FIGHTING AND BRAWLING ON SCHOOL GROUNDS. No _person shall engage in threaten to engacre in, or assist in engaging in any riot, fight brawl tumultuous conduct or act of violence in a public school. Subdivision 7. OPERATION OF VEHICLES. No person shall operate or be in actual physical control of any motor vehicle in or upon any public school premises except for the purpose of using designated parking areas for parking in connection with a school or school sanctioned function. The parking areas shall be as designated and appropriately marked by the principal of each school Section 19 -1805. PENALTY. Any person found quilty by a lawful authority of violating any provision of this chapter of the ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $700 and by imprisonment for not longer than 90 days or both, together with the costs of.prosecution. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 1991. Todd Paulson Mayor i ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) 6 -10 -91 ALTERNATE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER lob Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 1991 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway to consider an amendment to Chapter 19 regarding public nuisances and petty offenses. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING PUBLIC NUISANCES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 19 -217. CONDUCT IN OR NEAR SCHOOL BUILDINGS OR GROUNDS. Subdivision 1. DEFINITIONS. As used in this section the following terms shall mean: a. "Public school" shall be any school building school grounds play area parking lot or athletic field owned or leased by a public school district b. "School official" shall be the principal, assistant or associate principal school security person any schoolteacher, or the principal's designee Subdivision 2. PROHIBITION. No person shall trespass in or upon any public school by remaining upon said school Premises after being ordered to leave the public school by a school official. Subdivision 3. PERMISSION REQUIRED FOR RE- ENTRY. No Person, having been ordered by a school official to leave a public school and having left said premises shall re- enter said public school without the written permission of the school principal or the school official who gave the order to leave the public school Subdivision 4. DEFACEMENT OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS. No Person shall mark with ink, paint chalk or other substance, or post hand bills on or in any other manner deface or injure fences trees lawns or fixtures appurtenant to or located on the public school No signs ORDINANCE NO. shall be placed or posted anywhere on a public school without the express permission of a school official. Section 19 -1805. PENALTY. Any person found guilty by a lawful authority of violating any provision of this chapter of the ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $700 and by imprisonment for not longer than 90 days or both, together with the costs of prosecution. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 1991. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) HOLMES & GRAVEN CHARTERED Attorne at Law 470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 DBERT A. ALSOP (612) 337 -9300 JULIE A. LAWLER PALI. D. BAERTSCHI Facsimile (612) 337 -9310 CHARLES L. LEFEVERE RONALD H. BATTY JOHN M. LEFEVRE, JR. MARY J. BRENDEN ROBERT J. LINDALL STEPHEN J. Bt BC1, LAURA K. MOLLET ROBERT C. CARLSON DANIEL R. NELSON CHRISTINE M. CHALE BARBARA L. PORTWOOD JOHN B. DEAN WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL MARY FRANCES SKALA MARY G. DOBBINS JAMES M. STROMMEN ST EFANIE F NC N. GALEY STEVEN M. TALLEN DAVID L. GRAVEN JAMES J. THOMSON, JR. CORRINE A. HEIN'E 337 -9215 LARRY M. WERTHEIM JAMES S. HOLMES BONNIE L. WILKINS DAVID J. KENNEDY JOHN R. LARSON OF COUNSEL YY "k:LLINGTON H. LAW ROBERT L. DAVIDSON JOHN G. HOESCHLER May 22, 1991 Ms. Geralyn Barone City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: School Trespass Ordinance Dear Geralyn: You have asked for me to review the City Code and state law provisions relating to issues covered in the draft school trespass ordinance to determine whether some of the subjects covered are already adequately addressed in existing law. First, with respect to the trespass ordinance, Minn Stat S 609.605, makes it a misdemeanor to intentionally trespass on the premises of another and, without claim of right, refuse to depart from the premises on demand of the lawful possessor. I assume that the difficulties which some prosecutors have experienced in prosecuting trespass cases under this law arise, in part, from the fact that school property is public property. This fact may create a certain expectation in people's minds about their right to be on the premises. Therefore, it may be difficult to prove that they are not on the property without a claim of right and therefore, have the required criminal intent. Minn Stat 3 123.35, gives the school board of an independent school district the general charge of the school houses in the district. Prosecutors may also have difficulty in prosecuting cases if there is an unclear delegation of authority from the school board to school employees to exclude people from school property or to order them to leave if they are on school property. Therefore, the trespass sections of the Ordinance may very well make it easier to prosecute school trespass cases. Subdivision 4 of the proposed ordinance deals with defacement of school buildings. Brooklyn Center City Code Section 19 -211, provides that every person who willfully injures, damages, or destroys the property, whether real or personal of i� Mr. Geralyn Barone May 22, 1991 Page 2 another without their consent is guilty of a misdemeanor. Likewise, Minn Stat. S 609.595, makes it a crime to intentionally cause damage to physical property of another without their consent. Therefore, much of the conduct prohibited in Subd. 4 of the proposed ordinance is already covered under city ordinance and state law. However, there may be some cases in which it is unclear whether conduct prohibited in Subd. 4 of the draft ordinance is also a violation of the City Code or state law provisions quoted above. For example, a defendant might successfully argue that posting hand bills on property or writing a message on school property in chalk does not constitute a willful damage or destruction of school property. Therefore, I believe that Subd. 4 may be helpful in protecting school property and preventing the unauthorized use of school property for marking or posting messages. The subdivisions of the draft ordinance dealing ith breach of ace on school g Pe grounds and fighting and brawling on school grounds are covered in several sections of Minnesota law. Minn Stat H 609.221 through 609.224, makes assault, in varying degrees a crime. Minn Stat � 609.705 makes it an unlawful assembly Yl g � > > Y when three or more persons assemble with an intent to commit any unlawful act by force or with intent to carry out any purpose in such manner as will disturb or threaten the public peace, or without unlawful purpose, but the participants so conduct themselves in a disorderly anner as to disturb or threaten the public Y A peace. Under Section 609.715, of the Minnesota Statutes, it is unlawful to be present at a place of unlawful assembly and refuse to leave when so directed by a law enforcement officer. Minn. Stat. S 609.702, makes it unlawful at a public or private place, knowing or having reasonable grounds to know that it will tend to alarm, anger or disturb or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, to engage in brawling or fighting or to disturb an assembly or meeting which is not unlawful in its character, or engage in offensive, obscene or abusive language or in boisterous and noisy conduct tending unreasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others. I believe that these statutory provisions adequately cover the conduct which is addressed in the draft ordinance sections on breach of peace and fighting and brawling. Therefore, I would recommend that those subdivisions be deleted from the draft ordinance. Finally, the section dealing with operation of vehicles in the draft ordinance prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle on any school premises except for the purpose of using designated parking areas for parking in connection with a school or school sanctioned function. Minn Stat 5 123.352, gives school boards the authority to make and enforce rules for the regulation of traffic and parking on property owned, leased, or operated by the school board. Under Subd. 3 of that section, every police officer or designated employee of the Board shall have the authority to enforce rules adopted pursuant to this Section after the posting of signs which are in conformity with the rules of the State Highway Commissioner. Any violation of rules adopted pursuant to Section 123.352, is a petty misdemeanor. It appears to me that the school board is given adequate authority to determine what restrictions or regulations are appropriate f or its property. Additionally, problems may arise from a strict enforcement of the ordinance in its current form since no parking on any school property is allowed except in connection with a school or school sanctioned function. There may be times when school parking lots Mr. Geralyn Barone May 22, 1991 Page 3 are used by the public for such purposes as using nearby parks, playground equipment and the like. If the school board has not undertaken to prohibit such activities, it may not be necessary or appropriate for the City to do so. For these reasons, I would recommend that the Section on Operation of Vehicles also be deleted from the draft ordinance. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Very truly yours, Charles L. LeFevere CLL:rsr BR291 -004 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date Agenda Item Number • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: EARLE BROWN DAYS EVENTS DEPT. APPROVAL: Sue LaCrosse, Program Supervisor MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ************************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached !� The Earle Brown Days Craft show is scheduled June 28 & 29 in the Heritage Center Mall area. If ,* necessary, they will use either the Heritage Center parking lot for exhibit space and Earle Brown Drive for parking, or use Earle Brown Drive for exhibit space and the parking lot for parking. Permission is requested to close Earle Brown Drive as shown on map if needed for exhibit space. Permission is requested to cover the no parking signs along Earle Brown Drive and use it as parking if necessary. Police Chief Lindsay and Fire Chief Boman have indicated there would be no problem for emergency vehicle access either way. • RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION 0 I 3 HIP ODROMEY / 3 0 n p n Q STABLE 0A%UC-C "H'.BARN. Su�e . -- � �y BLA KSMITH _. � SHOF, O 'C ARN ) G' I IARN - Covered Walk & T nel . _ BARN Carriage._ Guest House C House PUMPHOUSE Ea I Brow BUNKHOUSE Gazebo For Hans Ho e 0 25 50 �0 -_ BED & BREAKFAST. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 6/10/ 91 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: 1991 -2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (REVIEW OF DRAFT COPY) DEPT. APPROVAL: Z /-? SY KNAPP, DIR R OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: P ^�! No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes ) • Analysis of the City's Municipal State Aid Street funds (including both "regular" and "local" MSA funds) has shown that during the 1990 -92 period, total funding available will be approximately $8.2 million, while estimated expenditures will total approximately $6.9 million. Because City Council members have expressed the concern that the remaining fund balance would in inadequate to allow the City enough flexibility to proceed with other needed improvements to the MSA system and with sidewalk and trail system improvements, the City Council has supported a proposal to sell an MSA supported bond issue to assure that adequate funds are available to allow improvement of other MSA streets and sidewalks and trails. Accordingly, it is proposed to sell a $3.0 million revenue bond issue, to be supported by future MSA allocations. It is noted that: (1) with the sale of an MSA supported bond issue, the apportionment formula will increase the City's annual apportionment by approximately one -half of the interest costs; and that (2) as a result of the bond sale and other factors, the City's annual MSA allocation is expected to increase from $829,821 in 1991 to approximately $980,000 in 1995. The combination of the bond sale and the increased annual allocation will give the City adequate flexibility to complete an ambitious program of improvements to the City's MSA street system, trail system and sidewalk system (see details listed in the CIP). On June 24 the City Council will be asked to officially authorize the MSA bond sale, with bids on the bonds to be opened on August 12. At that time, the Council will also be asked to approve a 10 -year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Purposes of a Capital Improvement Program The purposes of a CIP include: to evaluate the City's long -term needs; • to demonstrate that the City has the financial capability to attain its objectives; and • to demonstrate to potential bond buyers that the City has a financial planning process which assures that its finances will remain sound while meeting the needs. Proposed Improvements The preliminary 1991 -2000 CIP lists numerous Public Works improvements, Parks and Recreation improvements, and other facilities and equipment, with a total cost estimate of over $40 million. Many of these have been included in detailed reports which have previously been submitted to the Council (i.e. - the water supply system evaluation, the Public Utility rate studies, the 5 -year MSA street program, the Storm Drainage Utility study, recommendations from the Park and Recreation Commission, and staff recommendations for improvements to public buildings, the trail and sidewalk system report, etc.). However, there are also a number of improvements which have had little discussion by the Council. For example, an "MIS Strategic Plan" is currently being developed by the City's Data Processing Committee for presentation to the City Council in the near future. Staff will be prepared to review this CIP in detail at the June 10 meeting. It is important to emphasize that the development and approval of a CIP in no way commits the Council to any of the projects listed, or limits the Council to those projects. It is primarily a demonstration that the City has the financial capacity to fund the stated level of expenditures, so that the needs of the community can be met. As presented, we believe this CIP lists various improvements chronologically • in the years that staff believes them to be appropriate and financially manageable. Inherently, however, the plan must be flexible, to respond to unanticipated needs and to react to the changing needs, priorities, technology and mandates. Examples of the "future considerations" which must be given to individual projects included in this CIP are: • Before proceeding with construction of the "2MG Reservoir and Pumping Station ", with a $3.3 million estimated cost to the Water Utility fund, the City will wish to consider in detail whether this cost is justified or whether, alternatively, to maintain a lesser level of service which may include water use restrictions and reduced fire fighting potential. • Before any extensive residential street improvement program can be started, the funding sources must be identified. This CIP assumes a combination of (1) special assessments, (2) funding for related storm drainage improvements from the Storm Drainage Utility fund, and (3) funding from a "Transportation Utility" (assuming the 1992 legislation will allow cities to create such a utility, and that the City Council would adopt it). • Details of Storm Drainage Utility improvements will be developed within the "Local Plan" which will be developed in 1991 -92. These improvements can only be accomplished if SDU rates are increased substantially. • Most of the Park improvements and Public Building improvements listed are dependent, not only on City Council approval, but also on voter approval of • future bond issues. The CIP suggests that a bond issue for public buildings be considered in 1992 because the existing Park bonds will be retired in 1993 - thereby allowing a "leveling out" of the City's debt service tax levy. Most importantly, each individual project or improvement will continue to be considered individually by the City Council on the basis of its merits and public input, and will ultimately be approved or disapproved by the City Council Summary This CIP is presented to the City Council for review and discussion at the June 10 meeting. Both the City staff and the City's bond consultant believe that this report and the "Debt Analysis" (which is being prepared by Springsted Inc. and will, be presented at the June 24 meeting) show that the City is well positioned to meet its capital improvement needs while retaining a very sound financial position. Staff believes that the overall level of improvements shown in the CIP represents the level that is necessary to maintain the City's infrastructure in good condition, and to rovide those new facilities which are necessary P n cess r to support pubic services Y PP P The Council may wish to suggest revisions, additions or deletions to the items listed in the CIP, for consideration before it is adopted on June 24. It is recommended that the Council's emphasis to be assure that important items be included. If major cost items are to be added, City staff and our bond consultant will include funding source recommendations into the CIP as presented for Council approval on June 24. As noted above, adoption of the CIP on June 24 will demonstrate to potential bond buyers that the City has a financial planning process which assures that its finances will remain sound, while meeting the City's needs. At the same time, the • CIP will provide a comprehensive, but flexible, statement of the City's goals, objectives and priorities. J P Finally, issuance of the $3 million bond sale will assure that the City will be able to continue an ambitious program of Municipal State Aid Street improvements, and trail and sidewalk system improvements. City Council Action Required Review and discussion...... Provide direction to staff to finalize the CIP for adoption on June 24. • i 0 RELIMINAR'i l 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 x TABL OF CONT Page INTRODUCTION ...................... ............................1 -2 I. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS A. Public Works Street Improvements ............ ............................... 9 -10 Sidewalk/ Trail Improvements ....... ............................... 11 WaterUtility ............... ............................... 12 -13 Sanitary Sewer Utility .......... ............................... 14 -15 Storm Drainage Utility ........... ............................... 16 B. Parks and Recreation ............... ............................... 17 C. Facilities and Equipment Government Buildings ......... ............................... 18 -19 Data Processing ............. ............................... 20 -21 Vehicles and Equipment .......... ............................... 22 TABLES Table 1: Summary By Functional Area .............................. 4 Table 2: Summary By Fund ...... ............................... 5 Table 3: Cash Balance Analysis ... ............................... 6 -8 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 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 ANALYSIS Preliminary June 10, 1991 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 bond consultant, Springsted Incorporated, has also prepared a General Obligation Debt Analysis Study. Because of the usefulness of this long range debt analysis and its relationship to the CIP, the analysis is incorporated into this report (i.e. - Part II)'. 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 'Springsted's report will be presented to the City Council on June 24. -1- i Preliminary June 10, 1991 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. -2- Preliminary June 10, 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. -3- y TABLE 1 - Capital Improvement Program - Summary by Functional Area "Where The Funds Would Be Spent" 06- Jun -91 f991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 -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 $1,391,000 $1,127,000 $4 378 $535,000 $1,478 ___ $ , 3114 , 000 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 48,000 SUBTOTAL $126 $138 $35,000 $110 $310 $353,000 PARK IMPROVEMENTS $0 $9,500 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $1,110,000 PUBLIC BUILDINGS $0 $2,700,000 $940,000 $0 $0 $450,000 STREET IMPROVEMENTS: Sealcoating 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000 Signals 0 125,000 250,000 300,000 0 0 Regular MSA Account #2613 Street Projects 2,200,000 3,159,000 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 72, 0 170 0 0 0 SU BTOTAL $2,422,000 _$3 $2,170 $2,039 $1, 847,000 $5, 934,00 0 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT: Data Processing 78,000 198,000 458,000 358,000 310,000 270,000 City Vehicles 1 182,500 240,000 166,000 186,000 1, 636,000 SUBTOTAL $259 ,000 $380,500 $ $524,000 $49 $ GRAND TOTAL $4,198,000 $7,789,000 $8,231,000 $3,218,000 $4,141,000 $12,867,000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SUMMARY BY FUNCTIONAL AREA Storm Utility (5.0 %) Sanitary Utility (7.6 %) Public Buildings (10.1 %) Parks (2.8 %) Water Utility (17.1 %) Sidewalk/Trails (2.7 %) _. __............. __ .... ............... _ __. Vehicles (6.4 %) State Aid Streets (28.3 %) Data Processing (4.1 %) Other (6.0 %) Local Streets (9.9 %) TABLE 2 - Capital Improvement Program - Summary by Fund "Where the Funds Would Come From" 06- Jun -91 199Y 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996- 2000' WATER UTILITY $700,000 $459,500 $4,005,0001 $543,000 $507,000 $2,103,750 Improvement Projects 700,000 452,0001 3,725,0001 288,000 257,000 2,026,500 Other Capital Outlay 0 7,500 280,000 255,000 250,000 77,250 SANITARY SEWER UTILITY $628,000 $611,500 $537,000 $141,000 $1,030,000 $420,750 Improvement Projects 628,000 604,0001 532,000 136,000 1,030,000 263,500 Other Capital Outlay 0 7,5001 5,000 5,000 0 157,250 STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY $63,000 $ 161,000 $691,000 $485,000 $525,000 $2,237,000 Improvement Projects 63,000 161,000 626,000 485,000 395,000 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 j 250,000 1,250,000 MSA- REGULAR ACCOUNT #2613 $2,000,000 $161,000 $404,000 $512,000 $1,015,000 $1,662,000 Improvement Projects 2,000,000 161,0001 404,000 512,000 1,015,000 1,662,000 MSA - LOCAL ACCOUNT #2611 $198,000 $211,000 $ 161,000 $512,000 $308,000 $561,000 Improvement Projects 198,000 211,000 161,000 512,000 308,000 561,000 MSA - LOCAL ACCOUNT #2600 $0 $0 $120,0001 $0 $0 $0 Improvement Projects 0 0 120,000 0 0 0 MSA - BONDS ACCOUNT #2612 $200,000 $2,800,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Improvement Projects 200,000 2,800,000 0 0 0 0 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND $0 $1,450,000 j $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 GENERAL FUND $ 409,000 $525,000 $461,000 $410,000 $276,000 $2,321,500 Improvement Projects 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000 Other Capital Outlay 259,000 375,000 311,000 260,000 126,000 1,571,500 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS $0 $160,000 $425,000 $301,000 $230,000 $1,026,000 Improvement Projects 0 160,000 425,000 301,000 230,000 1,026,000 OTHER GOVERNMENTS $0 $0 $190,000 $50,000 $0 $0 Improvement Projects P 1 0 0 190,000 50,000 0 0 I GRAND TOTAL $4,198,000 $7,789,000 $8,231;000 $3,218,000 $4,141,000 -5- 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 $4,758,906 $4,618,882 $4,553,964 $4,515,546 Revenues Investment Interest 325,420 308,880 333,123 323,322 318,777 1,484,489 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 700,000 459,500 4,005,000 543,000 507,000 2,103,750 Debt Service 48,610 46,855 364,000 356,000 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 $4,758,906 $4,618,882 $4,553,964 $4,515,546 $4,490,524 01 SANITARY: SEWER UTILITY Balance Jan 1 $3,666,664 $3,229,419 $2,821,675 $2,522,272 $2,642,782 $1,873,124 Revenues Investment Interest 279,482 226,059 197,517 176,559 184,995 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 628,000 611,500 537,000 141,000 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 $2,821,675 $2,522,272 $2,642,782 $1,873,124 $3,170,704 STORM '' >DRAINAGE >UTILITY Balance Jan 1 $0 $27,300 $96,027 ($9,391) $81,312 $135,863 Revenues Investment Interest 1,911 6,722 (657) 5,692 122,510 User Fees 282,000 447,816 726,360 726,360 726,360 3,631,800 Other Expenditures Capital Outlays 63,000 161,000 691,000 485,000 525,000 2,237,000 Operating Costs 80,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 2,500,000 Management Costs 111,700 120,000 47,500 50,000 52,500 375,000 Balance Dec 31 $27,300 $96,027 ($9,391) $81,312 $135,863 ($1,221,827) 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 11995:< ::.::: 1996 -2000 TRANSPORTATION UTILITY;: {PROPOSED)I- 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 i MUNICIPAL STATE AID - cREGULAR ACCOUNT #2613 Balance Jan 1 $1,633,835 $463,835 $746,702 $882,569 $920,436 $459,303 Revenues Intergovernmental 830,000 871,000 967,000 977,000 981,000 4,937,000 Expenditures Capital Outlays 2,000,000 161,000 404,000 512,000 1,015,000 1,662,000 Debt Service 427,133 427,133 427,133 427,133 2,135,665 Balance Dec 31 $463,835 $746,702 $882,569 $920,436 $459,303 $1,598,638 MUNICIPAL STATE AID BONDS ACCOUNT #2612 Balance Jan 1 $0 $2,800,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenues Bond Proceeds 3,000,000 0 Expenditures Capital Outlays 200,000 2,800,000 0 Balance Dec 31 $2,600,000 $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 199L' 1992 :7993 1994 1995 1996' -2000 MUNICIPAL STATE A1D .— LOCAL ACCOUNT #261.1 Balance Jan 1 $452,974 $366,974 $155,974 $0 $0 $0 Revenues Special Assessments 0 Other 112,000 0 Expenditures Capital Outlays 198,000 211,000 155,974 0 0 0 Other 0 Balance Dec 31 $366,974 $155,974 ($0) $0 $0 $0 MUNICIPAL STATE' AID —LOCAL ACCOUNT #2600 i Balance Jan 1 $2,687,085 $2,906,889 $3,136,059 $3,241,476 $2,956,379 $2,855,326 01 Revenues Investment Interest 219,804 229,170 230,442 226,903 206,947 1,041,704 Other Expenditures Capital Outlays 0 0 125,026 512,000 308,000 561,000 Other Balance Dec 31 $2,906,889 $3,136,059 $3,241,476 $2,956,379 $2,855,326 $3,336,029 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Balance Jan 1 $4,322,531 $4,625,108 $2,248,866 $3,136,286 $3,355,826 $3,590,734 Revenues Investment Interest 302,577 323,758 157,421 219,540 234,908 1,375,527 Bond Proceeds 1,670,000 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 $2,248,866 $3,136,286 $3,355,826 $3,590,734 $4,741,261 Preliminary June 10, 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. -9- Preliminary June 10, 1991 • Construction of streets 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 projects to enhance the appearance of the City. 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 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- Preliminary June 10, 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 system 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, i.e.: (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- Preliminary June 10, 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 -12- Preliminary June 10, 1991 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. -13- l Preliminary June 10, 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 cost for or ewers stem O &M and improvements are financed through sewer use Y Y P g charges, connection charges and lateral assessments. Sewer use charges and connection charges are adjusted annually based on a comprehensive rate study analysis sis which reviews operation, maintenance, depreciation and construction costs, as well as sewage treatment -14- Preliminary June 10, 1991 charges from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (which provides wastewater treatment for the entire Twin City metro area). A co of the Utility Rate Stud conducted in 1990 is attached as Exhibit C to this report. re PY Y Y P -15- Preliminary June 10, 1991 5. Storm Drainage Utility 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. -16- Preliminary June 10, 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. -17- Preliminary June 10, 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 0 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 -18- r Preliminary June 10, 1991 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. -19- Preliminary June 10, 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 -20- Preliminary June 10, 1991 • 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. i Preliminary June 10, 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. �. -22- EXHIBIT A Detailed Schedules of Improvements TABLE A - Capital Improvement Program - Detail of Capital Outlays Water Utility Capital Improvements 06- Jun -91 199V7 1992 1 1993 1994 1 1995,:11996-2000. FUND >SOUR CE` 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 $700,000 $400,000 1 $3,675,000 $180,000 1 $225,000 $t ,7as,000 FUND SOURCES: Water Utility 700,000 400,000 3,675,000 180,000 225,000 1,749,000 TOTAL $700,000 $4 00,000 $ 3 675,000 $180,000 $225 000 $1 749,000 r,.: � + : !._— E.��•l E'' E — E — �_E__E` -- E -- :! t if E E E E E E �1 ! �` � uro.rr io aua ..,, Ii11111 �. I'i��N3nrN a�•� �:��'.'�', `- I dd ISS ISS �/� _'1 '—' - _ .4- 'I !iii 111111': ' 1111 fLA1IL I ' - ....� -t ..11�' � � r� T `.l.l. 11 I II 11 v • � Li l Ia. �' Illlll'1W Z "I�- I } :'i �rl.x..+ I lu l �lil ! r '1 1 fly i' til 11151 Ifs _ ►� LO 0 i ui c 6 tL r 111LL :1 :I, E' '� �! � - � � � '�! ' i ' 1111LLlfl _ ~ N .,M,.. I, i , „I '. �CuTiIQIi`i I W ull,ul 11 �- 11 ,� 7 cn 1 z O) O) lllillll��i it --�� :•s 3 ' �i:,ruCPi _11;1f111111:f �u��!!!!!t!1 1 , _ t I 1 - i i , } O U ! I I I I I I I I I I I! w Ir � l` 4 2 e,., e.,e, �\< r ll Illlll �11�+. rrrrrJ ... �,� IIlflI 11 1 I � 1 lll,fi lr ; t (� j � � ,. ►� _ ; F— • F" Q .,..a•.'P. = l� .,i � � � '.� % �.l �., i 111 hilt __� _ � o O `1L a . . 1—M IF �\ 11YiUlll '• !L lu 111E j i "I � �� I i I � fi�lf F 0 1 ' � r rr i . 1 r p�hL�= LU ., „..., i li�il��f.l�il'�° l rli �1-, lh� 1 `N. ,�,., � � �, �, � ' �11 ��• � � �+ r � _':.' � ��1 �` ��_�� 1,i1IP i. l ;i r I „ ; it ILI,II,�'',� (�, ib <<• Il �> '. I •, r• � �_ w � � ,�/ .I, �� �l � ' ,.; .,,.,,.. I I ( I i; n ,,1,1,x,.• Y — " �. - iL t ,. • ZW ''' - - - -- ' } � � I r 1 I •..:. I, I l llr i 15 I r r bi � � :°.,, ��.>� -, .�.� z w .`�• I .... , , — I ,• .. :.• l ^r-��r,�1 'l�I(11�” C l\, I I — � �_�_ 1 ��•• / ��� I (I I I F... ." - u....,,T. Q �, i ,I , i,j r�71�. .� 1 17 i I• h 1 b ..� r, � i' r+Y I t I 5 ! '' ..? a: •S..i., ..... 3:1....1. rr , � � _ I � � , , I, ! I!i L! I ,I � I ,! ► r lt ! ! Viii r fl �I �• �'�_._ �+•,. —' : I I � � � Illii2111��1l �I�r!{ �{ II�II{ �ill ilri��l �ll rl �ti��21�111�lirl ti ��llq� ►Iil��l�ttt; : u� TABLE B — Capital Improvement Program — Detail of Capital Outlays ` Sanitary Sewer Utility Capital Improvements 06— Jun -91 T991 1'992 1993 1994 1995 1996 -2000 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 $528 $130,000 $1 o? $140 FUND SOURCES: Sanitary Sewer Utility 628,000 602,000 528,000 130,000 1,028,000 140,000 TOTAL 1 $628,0001 $602,000 1 $528,000 1 $130,000 1 $1,028,000 $140,000 MAP B: SANITARY SEWER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS rgue 9 `��� anoorwr v.� w r fc a T. - 7 I Lrl t j � .1 x z 1 2 SAMTARY SEWER MAN COMFCipM e AETRCPOIRAN NrFRCEarea 7— SkWARY SEWER LFT STATION � \ y - � � &'istirg &n ftcetry Sewer System O� 7E) Comprehensive Plan PRIORITY 1 1991 -1995 TABLE C — Capital Improvement Program — Detail of Capital Outlays Storm Sewer Utility Capital Improvements 06- Jun -91 17777 1991 1992 1993: 1994 1995 19915 2000 FUND SOURCE All Storm Drainage EXPENDITURES: utili 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 $125,0001 $175,0001 $225,0001 $225,0001 $1,225 FUND SOURCES: Storm Drainage Utility 63,000 125,000 175,000 225,000 225,000 1,225,000 TOTAL $63 000 $125,000 $175,000 $225,000 $225,000 $1,225,000 MAP Q EXISTING STORM SEWER SYSTEM Fpsa 8 t S e _ • -� 1 r - 27 ~ "'mi •� � /''� - J".'^- r•v! -k /, ! rH I S �x 2a48 24.,.,'36,�. y1 ,A2 iH { 21 1 I �' is 2. C s o _Uj 19 21 m L S •5 v a' 33� r .!' j - _ . �.. , s i - .. \._} �.' _ � s.. )!!F � ;� I .� - - _�• x y 3 — 43 w as is a ..... - -I-c i, 7:•� fi0 _ -�/ ;,;:- '— .e a 81 ;- y 3 .z 3E: 3o 127 �z7 Is- a is i ,e A �. . ��`" ��� -,. •�� •� • ( y _ STORM SEWER Existing Storm Sewer System %7 C CCo [��n m Comprehensive Pan TABLE D Capital Improvement Program - Detail of Capital Outlays Sidewalk and Trail Improvements 06- Jun -91 1'991 1'992 1993 1994 1995 1996 --2000 FUND SOURCE 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 I 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 0 Local State Aid O N - STR E ET TRAI L: 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 $126,000 1 $13s o00 $35,000 $110,000t 310,000 $353,000 FUND SOURCES: State Aid - Local Accounts #261142600 126,000 138,000 35,000 60,000 310,000 353,000 General Fund Other Governments 0 0 0 50,000 0 TOTAL $126 $138,090L $ $1 $310 000 $353 000 MAP D: SIDEWALK & TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS ri i / 1 1 ` �-._ --------- 1 I � 1 1 , _ _ 1 1 1 t M _ — — r _IL -------- ----- - - - - -- - -- - �1 ,1 A ; _ CEHYER MAE I. SIDEWALKS EXISTING ON STREET TRAILS EXISTING OFF STREET TRAILS ` L� �� ` --- - -- - -• PROPOSED ON STREET TRAILS - "" ` " _ • - - - - - -- PROPOSED OFF STREET TRAILS -- - -�'�/ `•J t 1 _ anw was s - - -- -- - - UAP c 1 , Comprehensive Plan cJ PRIORITY 1 1991 -1995 PRIORITY 2 1996 -2000 TABLE E — Capital Improvement Program Detail of Capital Outlays Park Improvements 06— Jun -91 t'991 1992 1993' 1994 1995 1996 -2000 FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURES: Playground Equipment Replacement 9,500 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 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 $o $9,500 $10,0001 $10,000 $106000 1 $1,110,000 FUND SOURCES: General Fund 0 9,500 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 GO Bonds 0 0 0 0 0 1,060,000 TOTAL $o $s,5oo $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $1 110 000 111 I/ 9W ID ! • /• - /•' 1 - 1�..... -- i °. t•.- :i:;:as `° HY1 Ili[ftllill Wflli�'t>1(. I � 111 I III a I= t � .... , j I„I 1171 r _ iT (IIIIB EIfIiTfl f}It$ID LIIIIJ mmm E- + W E J O C L'31 c) O r 4 _ Iniill QIIIIIEhTni [IIEIEI➢EI�EI _ L7 IIIIII[EflUtIll l i� i l� � (_. m 01 O w Ii(1� ��:.: n [1111DIlitu itlfTTbla ui "ail(, „ l r N �I�][ IIIl 111�f EIlIfIdIIl 1I1GI11IIlf�flllllID_[llll[lF ►� i (IiE(�UiiliiIi lli J!_llti �[I&ifID�fIfSDE HIA[IIIII111 w � �IIIIII'iIFIIlu111lfi (IID`uliiu -: ,, hiuulil9 � Fw1ti,11 ' IfElUiuiil[II ➢IDI� EH��iui I-- I34t3[] Rllill[IJ , 1 [nnii [1$tIIiI'IIIIIID� — O I�u�lElli R 1 -� ( 01 •" • °"' L�I$ll�MiEirll 11 Rd L h � =F -•� rt � —` , ' �. [�ii frl�i111(I�tYf$t�IffITJ[IfilIII3 � o E � 0 r r ..,,...� E3ilID1"" _r: I [h�iIlD[IIllIID(@E 4 —: 0 CL �- = :• ---' ��,��� ���t�� _ QIUI _ CM � � I r�[IIIIII9IIIEIII9I�I�� F-�-� Q m IT Rv [1TI[I1i8EIi1IIIIIIIIIIII EIJiu' -- LIIiIIIf S — ,� °� ITF 1( r ll� l l ti. Y .m .,YW. --� � s � •,' 1 � -, 77111) llllll r., �.. C\ -ra d• �� f1IF� AITl111TDI �? -I .� .� 1 I .; �'� �IIIIIIQIN ,I �IIIiI «. «:•I ��� �d�C;_4ii4 "I I�IlElllillllllG 1h1D111. � ,„ I ,11[IiI1If[IIIIIII©1 ' ��Il11 I - -, M [�� (� .,... " �Ill1I➢[IIIIIiIJ(�l�(�ID 1�a � \ '�`��Il - �I1�IB[11� CAD% . ... , -: � � tEiJ� ®� - w 1 Mill E 1 � HH MI 2 r1 •, yam - [ IISIT SIIIIlII71`- "-- -1 " '� / � III i I " ;iiil:: ; ;::1 il:iii.i.a It'I:� ! .i. 1'. � .i ! 7* .i » SI`:i � � �.,, "Ni �gl�iil(I���r3 �_ 11 �/ "�� �I9ii lli diu �i�11���1Jii�1�11iuG��1i���, l��i�il it�l l ilililJ�ll�ilti����l lt �aifEEi!ifllii�Jl —'_1 — r— -!r TABLE F — Capital Improvement Program Detail of Capital Outlays Public Building Improvements 06— Jun -91 1991 1992 1993` 1994 !! 1995 <1996 =2000 FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURES: City Hall Remodelling 1,500,000 0 1 /2 GO Bonds, 1 /2 Capital Projects Fund COMMUNITY CENTER Senior Center /Elevator 1,000,000 0 t/, GO Bonds, Y, Capital Projects Fund Water Slide 200,000 0 Capital Projects Fund Public Works Storage Building 450,000 Y< Water, Y. Sewer Utilities, 1 /, Capital Project FIRE STATIONS East Station 610,000 0 Y, GO Bonds,'/, Capital West Station 330,000 0 Projects Fund TOTAL EXPENDITURES $01 X00,000 $940,000 $0 $o $450,000 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 $0 $ 2,700,000 $940,000 j $0 $0 $450,000 TABLE G — Capital Improvement Program — Detail of Capital Outlays Street Improvements 06— Jun -91 1991 1992 1 1993 1994 1995 1996 -2000 FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURES: SEALCOATING 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000 General Fund SIGNALS 69th and France Avenues 125,000 0 MSA— Regular #2613 Brooklyn Blvd & TH100 Northbound Ramp /Lilac Dr 150,000 0 Transportation Utility Brooklyn Blvd & 51st Avenue 150,000 0 Transportation Utility Summit & Earle Brown W (Target) 125,000 0 Special Assessments Shingle Creek Pkwy and Parkway Circle 125,000 0 Special Assessments REGULAR MSA ACCOUNT #26.13 STREET PROJECTS 69th Avenue, Brooklyn Blvd to Shinqle Creek Pkwy 2,200,000 3,159,000 0 MSA — Regular #2613 2,000,000 36,000 0 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 73,000 0 MSA —Bonds #2612 200,000 2,800,000 0 Water Utility 52,000 0 Sanitary Sewer Utility 2,000 0 Storm Drainage Utility 36,000 0 Special Assessments 160,000 0 57th Avenue, Logan to Lyndale 1,100,000 0 MSA — Regular #2613 404,000 0 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 126,000 0 Water Utility 50,000 0 Sanitary Sewer Utility 4,000 0 Storm Drainage Utility 326,000 0 Hennepin County 190 0 TABLE G — Capital Improvement Program — Detail of Capital Outlays Street Improvements (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 —Local #2611/ #2600 156,000 0 Water Utility 95,000 0 Sanitary Sewer Utility 5,000 0 Storm Drainage Utility 135,000 0 Special Assessments 150,000 0 Nobel Avenue, Brooklyn Blvd to N City Limits 87,000 0 MSA — Regular #2613 51,000 0 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 (4,000) 0 Water Utility 13,000 0 Sanitary Sewer Utility 1,000 0 Storm Drainage Utility 0 0 Special Assessments 26,000 0 69th Avenue, Shingle Creek Pkwy to Oliver & Bridge 1,197,000 0 MSA — Regular #2613 1,015,000 0 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 (2,000) 0 Water Utility 32,000 0 Sanitary Sewer Utility 2,000 0 Storm Drainage Utility 45,000 0 Special Assessments 1 05,000 0 France Avenue, 69th to N City Limits 349,000 MSA — Regular #2613 188,000 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 18,000 Water Utility 31,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility 2,000 Storm Drainage Utility 45,000 Special Assessments 65,000 53rd Avenue France to 55th Avenue 403,000 MSA — Regular #2613 196,000 MSA —Local #2611/ #2600 51,000 Water Utility 36,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility 2,000 Storm Drainage Utility 51,000 Sp ecial Asse ssments 67,000 Y TABLE G - Capital Improvement Program - Detail of Capital Outlays Street Improvements (State Aid Street Projects, con't) Brooklyn Boulevard At Lilac Drive 571,000 MSA- Regular #2613 474,000 MSA -Local #2611 23,000 Water Utility 17,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility 1,000 Storm Drainage Utility 24,000 Special Assessments 32,000 51st Avenue, Brooklyn Blvd to Xerxes 71,000 MSA - Regular #2613 40,000 MSA -Local #2611 8,000 Water Utility 5,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility 1,000 Storm Drainage Utility 8,000 Special Assessments 9,000 69th Avenue, Oliver to Dupont 867,000 MSA - Regular #2613 544,000 MSA -Local #2611 63,000 Water Utility 45,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility 3,000 Storm Drainage Utility 64,000 Special Assessments 148,000 Humboldt Avenue, 69th to N City Limits 423,000 MSA - Regular #2613 220,000 MSA -Local #2611 45,000 Water Utility 31,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility 2,000 Storm Drainage Utility 45,000 Special Assessments 80,000 OTHER STREET PROJECTS 1 /2 Transportation Utility, Neighborhood Street Replacement 500,000 500,000 500,000 2,500,000 1 /4 Special Assessments 1 /4 S torm Drain Utilit y TABLE G - Capital Improvement Program - Detail of Capital Outlays Street Improvements (State Aid Street Projects, con't) LANDSCAPING West River Road Streetscape 72,000 0 MSA -Local #2611 Co Rd 10 Streetscape 100,000 0 1 /2 MSA-2600, Special Assessments Xerxes Avenue Streetscape 70,000 0 MSA -Local #2600 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2,422 $3 434,000 1 $,2170 $2,039,000 $1,847,000 $8,618 FUND SOURCES: MSA - Regular #2613 2,000,000 161,000 404,000 512,000 1,015,000 1,662,000 MSA - Local #2611 72,000 73,000 126,000 452,000 (2,000) 208,000 MSA - Local #2600 0 0 120,000 0 0 0 MSA - Bonds #2612 200,000 2,800,000 0 0 0 0 Water Utility 0 52,000 50,000 108,000 32,000 165,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 2,000 11,000 Storm Drainage Utility 0 36,000 451,000 260,000 170,000 862,000 Special Assessments 0 160,000 425,000 301,000 230,000 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, 0 01 0 TOTAL $2,422,000 $3,434, $2,170,000 $2,039,000 $1,847 000 $5,934 000 I I � I BROOKLYN PARK Alf- ' IY y I :. �` 9/ A L -� H_i fop I•YL Ob ��= �� CRYSTAL �I ( • ��� � liil eYL� �� \ Ol �tcu.JL•�t n10 l! I6`L ' ;:v�'!S" 1275 ... 1 ':1�L�� r ���• r ` .vt - I I � O - � uy il■ zs' u m¢`•- " -S�_' y -- ��n.,,>v - - -- �L.� _ uu�cea ) / 06 1� je cn Q.IG9�\ Y � /QO cI"[•�IYIt �L' YL�� tI� ,£oy ,L.� .Pi��'\ _ r C:: "5# :. I�r r .. 1 5 ttIN7 1(L ] • v tniM�. nlL ¢un�� ( le!Lw - LY11�_Z 1 I onLwl — // { 4 "YL t t / 4 q ( _ L - � - 1 n. •n _ �'ie�� I AIL ` �F a Qt p p 'C. „o �t` Jli /) As - _ _��.�� ✓ aflrL �W_ X )r_1Gvi - I I u Y �OS69 0 y ( ♦/� �If f "11 lry - -lf 11 S� ^ Y ' S" V' ' , J h J � �, ��.cr�. •.e 9 I J 3 �� _� I � +y;�� � ° ozE.�`' - n a j � ',. � IUSSfLL . I m rA7 �� �rt� tt� is ; ,I �� , °oQ {y{J� � t fR t 41 I • / .�. !_� z ]l. - MIL T n " 05: M 46 p. 2823 eaen . 1�. •�t, J,� )�a." eu : py I C O!YLw ao m m � ti _ :.. --. Ii ^l J �, I O �C " >1G h. �]�O� Iu c •�OOLII�',,oy �01t 9 4 ar'�IYt e i�s _ p _ 44 .. .. p n ]II O / K RW!�r __Jr __ __ ��g,,, - 111!I. d b lt•. IC NCU • y� ± [u..s ' 9 . -L[L. N 0.ti•srlr� 1 t 1 ( �L @- ]1 e s II 11 NYY �4 I 1 o Q: "s= ...i.t lln �,Q�lll I o i ~ l� _ 1. ��.. v IZ OW Z N � r 11 II•� I L °`• ,m ''� F �l _ � - J : • vv ;;4 , 6 .1 v II -.. __ �'" InrL. II S II _]r_ N II, I�1 "!nh' •�� h.. �� O • s l - O J (O Z A! e�eL•BGO I )� L. .,�= 1i Yl. 1 h 1[ Ilo. �' J �`L n � J it � 'r•� ��97� ' „ ��'�� • a ti N F V/ W- ytn- Y I L/hBLl Arl n OOOCZ pA Q � ¢ ] 19200 Z (Ivy (Y -1 11 N Y _ .. - n �E ,1�, t„ 40.1 IS 6"5511 A , � m y - p s U &3 O � FRIDIEY `1Sl t ( Hwrr �{R(ui 0 a TABLE H - Capital Improvement Program - Detail of Capital Outlays Data Processing Equipment 06- Jun -91 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995. 1996 -2000 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 $198000 $458,000 $ 358,000 1 $310,0001 $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 $78 000 1 $198,000 $458 ,000 $358,000 $310,000 $270,000 TABLE I — Capital Improvement Program — Detail of Capital Outlays - City Vehicles 06- Jun -91 1991 1992 1993 1994 !I .. 1 9 9 5 1996 -2000 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 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 $182, $240,000 $166, $ $1 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 $181,0001 $182,500 1 $ $166,000 $186,000 1 $1,636,000 EXHIBIT B 1990 Water Utility Rate Study CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF B:FROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 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: 14=Q 01�3 sesuLwcaarr ��� � b 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 PU RATES: h2oopt2ldfs Water Utility : Recommended Rates: Showing 1993 Bond Issue to Pay For Reservoir /Pumping Station 15- Nov -90 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 "1992 1993 1994 EXPENDITURES 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 206,429 207,444 108,058 216,281 225,589 216,868 223,375 230,076 236,978 244,067 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 94,089 200,227 149,672 229,327 253.2 248,580 294,000 296 305,000 320,00 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 242 ,731 234,996 195,8 183,321 20_6, 194,9 162,710 147,793 145,029 148 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)1 /2 Interest Earnings 242,731 234,996 195,819 183,321 206,704 194,945 162,710 147,793 145,029 (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) 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 EFFECT ON CASH & 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) UU PU RATES: h2oopt2 /dfs 15- Nov -90 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 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 158,054 162,796 167,680 172,710 177,892 163,228 Interest on Debt 256,000 248,000 240,000 232,000 224,000 216,000 Depreciation Expense 320,000 320,000 350,000 3 350,000 350, 000 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 135, 12 120,041 86,397 90, 87 TOTAL REVENUES $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 $ $152,257 6) 1/2 Interest Earnings (120,575) (122,587) (1 19,959) (145,603) (133 ,849) (128,341) NET INCOME OR LOSS ($145,296) ($21,299) $83,911 $18,838 $28 $23,91 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) Z Restricted Inv 3,700,000 3,700,000 3.700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 Unrestricted Inv ( (3,698,981) (4,440,069) (4,246,231) ( (4, 059,603) U3 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. i 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. 112 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 C 1990 Sanitary Sewer Utility Rate Study f CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE: 569 -3300 C 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. Summary The rate schedule adopted in 1987 was based on the following hree objectives: g J o 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. o 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 o 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. h 19B6ALl,1MEAtCAClfY e 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: I 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:sewproil /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 $138,217 $140,303 Contractual Service 154,878 146,060 140,708 171,656 178,826 187,767 197,156 207,013 217,364 Supplies & Materials - 7,349 2,349 15.695 21,501 20,163 21,771 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 108,196 99,906 91.041 98,454 89,221 97,133 219,590 165,000 180,000 Subtotal: City O &M Expense $370, 493 $ 355,738 $355,499 $400,658 $413,119 $438,132 $588,167 $550,381 $581,925 MWCC Charges $806,390 $850,889 $926,083 $1,049,939 $1,086,314 $1,173,219 $1,272,124 $1,348,451 $1,429,359 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,176,883 $1,206,627 $1,281,582 $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 7,117 7,132 7,079 7,024 6,959 6,898 6,866 6,843 6,820 Quarterly Charge $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 :: - 1,825 1,650 Quarterly Charge $1 T:69 $11.69 $11.69 $12.76 $13.83 ` $14.43 $17.33 $19.44 $20.90 Apartment Accts - 3.264 3,259 3,335 -- 3,543 3,542 3,545 - 3,545 -- 3,545 -- 3,545 Ouanarly Charge $14.88 $14.88 $14.88 $16.24 $17.60 $18.97 $22.05 $24.33 $26.60 Non -res Water 218,988 222,512 234,338 245,454 248,000 191,400 193,000 195,000 197,000 RATE PER 1000 GAL $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $1.01 $1.07 $1.13 $1.26 $1.39 $1 .52 I 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) 1/2 Interest Earnings 140,362 135,344 11 9,003 130,687 147,591 145,848 139,741 122,572 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) 1/2 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 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992' 1993 EFFECT ON CASH & INVESTMENTS 0 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 J � 8) Capital Outlay 104,413 50,644 25,058 43,741 139,681 277,000 620,000 34,000 520,000 9) Net Income or Loss 199,000 147,717 79,854 28,537 211,559 27,198 (28,835) 57,840 120,330 n 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 $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 03 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 r P U RATES: sewprojl /dfs 15- Nov -90 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 EXPENDITURES 1) Operations Personal Service $144,512 $148.848 $153,313 $157.913 $162,850 $167,529 $172,555 Contractual Service 228,232 239.644 251,628 264,207 277.418 291,289 305,853 Supplies S Materials 25,734 27,020 28,371 29,790 31.278 32,843 34,486 Neat, Light, 8. 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 08. M Expense $829,215 $647,288 $666.173 $685,916 $706,553 $728,128 $750,684 MWCC Charges $1,515,120 $1,606,027 $1,702,389 $1,804,532 $1,912,804 $2,027,572 $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 6,751 8,728 8,705 6,682 8,659 Quarterly Charge $41.00 $43.00 $45.75 i$48.00 $50.26 $52.76 $55.51'! Senior Accts 1.675 1.700 __. 1,725 _. ..1,750 _. 1,775 1.800 1,825 $2 Quarterly Charge $23.65' $25.17 $26.40 $27.64 $29.02 $30.53 Apartment Accts ... _ ......3545 _.. .:._ 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, 563 118,143 125,44 135 144,932 155,0 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 $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 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 EFFECT ON CASH & INVESTMENTS O 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 -v 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 O 11) End of Year Cash & Inv $3,239,087 $2,953,563 $3,136,130 $3,378,392 $3,623,293 $3,876,049 $4,141,892 Z' 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 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. i 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 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: ALTERNATE FUNDING SOURCES FOR STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM COSTS (DISCUSSION ITEM) DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP, DIRE_ OR OF`PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW RECOMMENDATION: 4 1 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. 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: 2 1. Runoff management 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. 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 accountin g and review required. However, q because other LOGIS cities have adopted such a utility, LOGIS already has the ability to include it on the utility ill. It can be implemented Y P in Brooklyn Center with only inimal additional tional programmin . g 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, __ lane SpectoY EXHIBIT E 12 -Year Capital Equipment Replacement Program 4k 12 YEAR CAPITAL OUTLAY SCHEDULE Page _ of _ VEHICLE AND MAJOR MOTORIZED EQUIPMENT FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 03—Jun-91 :vehl2cap MODE UNIT YEAR DESCRIPTION 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 STREET MAINTENANCE 11 1981 FORD TANDEM DUMP REHAB UNIT) 50,000 14 1990 FORD F800 DUMP 21 1990 FORD F700 DUMP 30,000 28 1980 ELGIN M ECHANICAL 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 1987 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 1 19871 FORD F800 DUMP 43. 000 94 1 1987 FORD 1`800 DUMP 45,000 i 12 YEAR CAPITAL OUTLAY SCHEDULE Page _ of _ VEHICLE AND MAJOR MOTORIZED EQUIPMENT FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 03- Jutt -91 :v©hl2cap 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 1 19901 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 CHEVROLET S -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 1989 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 F ORD BACKHOE 45 1973 _ W ESTERN NOW BLOWER_ 4 5,000 TOTALS 85,000 193,500 60,000 51,000 260,000 196,000 229,500 56,500 100,000 40,000 102,00 123,000 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 6/10/91 Agenda hem Number • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: STAFF REPORT RE: 57TH AVENUE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS (DISCUSSION ITEM) DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP, , VECTOR Or PUBLIC WORKS *A7 MANAGER'S REVIEW RECOMMENDATION: ,.�,:....; No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached • SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Y es 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 water 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. City Council Action Required Review and discussion....... Provide direction to staff....... • CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 B ROOKLYN TELEPHONE: 569 -3300 C ENTER FAX: 569 -3494 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: G. G. Splinter City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp Director /eKblic 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 o 57th Avenue are e continued into e " th 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.: �,1YN C cam 1%6Au,)WAUC n � �r. 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 constructing 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 N L so- 3• , � i i 7 j i \ `► ^> r O \ N y ♦ \ \\ I ALKS LL AV E. ... ... ..i._ .... m I AV d` \ L _.. ......... _ . ......... — � V E R .._. _ rn RGAN: - -'A.VE N j X110 (� y X ii i t LOGAN IAVE: iN i {s 1 - 17 j i KNOkj r E _. ............. t ♦ t�7� 1 • 1 t lil�� C s t IAASES. : AVE. : •N . r S �.. l � ji AvE w I. iHUN{601.. •i AVE' ...... .... C U t , . .y.. _{._' ..I.. .{ T In T; i m r, T , ..j....1 t . ^IRARiJ' AV N n � k :, j j.. ..1.11..1. '.i.l ..' .. '..i...i. l.i. 1.:.. IF EMUNTj t AYE. N: � e •.r .r. ! 1 ' .1 £1T .1..i._1�.: .1..:...i T_.' Tf , _ ::. j �::. e i i :' ': i i I: I I EMERSON AVE N. Ln i i 7 r r O j '• I IDUPO T QV E. jN :L wal be COLFAX! Y AYE. h I �4 A.X rn 1 I6aYANT AVE. rt : L t ........::: -:..L ...j..... ... _ ,... �....�... . i A, ..; -rte a_. }... ........f.. 't_._.._. —.� N AL RICH N x PR. -- -- — i : ; : I CR AN Avr 14 r° ' RICn AVE.: N DEN i AVE. r+ T f ` .... , Ctn t N I kVic —• t I i i� i �— j �� .rr � L/ =- .,� - =�° --'—' » ''� - •- _ ;= = ` � —. � '_t om - .�..... —..�. ',.. n y� N 1 N ATLI v\ NAII • �� RU S, LL AVE. �1... ._. � � � f � t tIf:EN ': AVE I i ~ •i '4 fir. ` ' :PENN � \\ N E •AVE' :N - - l�. L7 �'- / i� _ \ 1 i .Yi Ark � .....r...... MORGA ....f AVE N .. 1 .. : F - t LOGAN t . IA E EN' .- 1 - •ICJ Y r. •- rr- - (... NO X: 31 4 i G i „ ... ;.. :..�... AVE. N ; ? t . i tiRZING' AvE n: i t.. v, 1 1 AVE ti. '1 �:i� a N : : i D ' _....... i ... G RARJ : E� ... (; ; r. A, �` } 4' REMGt Ti AvF. N' i s �1..1....:...1..L. L.S...I i :... ..i" T ' 7 , 1 , j > . i• , : i » T ii :EMERSON •AJ N� T, : : F . ! ` . -- y ~� i i ? ?pt1P T ( AVE iN :x J, ' i j i i tJs i .......i...f.... �... COLFAX. AVE i r ':A;X .; on I iBRYANT AVE. b!{7 m iJ iN m _ -- ...i.....i.. i i �-- 0 AL _CHpR.rr ; ',t R C iA .QRiC .AVE._:. N . - - .......... CA MOE AVE. CnM • � l i 1. ,..._. i ? .... _ ..,. -.i m Z m ......; NO AL _ lk v /\ a F' I N V = i Asw n h E. 1 \ - C' AV (iII AVE sPE av _ Z , ' `S �• , N WT0 s �' N. M RGAN? - •:AVE N is T: I. — LOGAN . ?AVER tN' ^ � - � -_: ^ "" - � .y.. -tom_ - ...7...t...;..:. � �], �...:.. • � 1 - _ s i s ,.s... A x 3 JAMES `AVE IRti'ING AVE u- i i L • k =q # # i 31UM$ ✓t. D AVE' n GIRZAD !AV FIR : I . • E. Mb; iTi Ai f N �} : ! f #'• ! TF i�# i TEMEk50N j AVE 'M. LR to TIFF = #._ DUPON7 i i AVE A E ; n, LL COIFAX! AV£.fN 1 ^ A vT ---I• i ... : l #9RYANT ( AVE. 0 S CA m i 7 avl c m r v AL R_ICM QR.t� :Ath kjc # :A .'R1Ci :AVE }N. I O CAMDEN ;AVE N t +p i C!A N �vE , r; :.. ik m n m T ti • i i � ' 1 t c� ir -L RU 5 .i.L AV E �UEE.N AVE }_ ca ?...... .fly. ��f \�� \�\ {{ 6 T z 7 H , PENN EAVEiN-- i -..... n j i f Ju \ Rl NEW rn Y• 7 .. f,.1.i _ir.a.a..a. ..- _.'4._.- •j.. -- , f i - --' ! � \ \ y 'fl M PLAN: - - 7AVE N vatJ : iA:,f N _ '• i i i \. �. f C� .. i 111 dAi.1ESj i AVE.E i , \ LZ -- N i i .t' \.. i 1 VING AVE • N` ij a .: ROAD mu o, u ti ' i _ , GiRAR .A fF N: } 2 r' ( F F EMC ?NT AVE.. a'k i I E 7 l AJE. N' ai , PONT AVE _ i ; 0NT. f1t O COLFAX: r ..VE 14 i a ...; .. �.. .g Q: I 16RYA14T AVE. 1. I T t,jnhA't m S•'i `ti m z - -- Q G AL RICN • QR.H jA I k C ' - - - -• -• AV I N. 3777 m , ...{.. ...,._ -�.. ..,.... z i..L._ —T: i i O CAMDEPE ?AVE. fJ I z :' -,A .i )414; m 1t . ALT t;vf j v CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 6/10/91 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: STAFF REPORT RE: SEWER REPAIR AT LIFT STATION #1 (DISCUSSION ITEM) ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP, DIRE OR OF P06LIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • On Wednesday, May 22, a cave -in occurred at approximately 8:30 a.m. adjacent to,. sanitary sewer "Lift Station #1" located at the southwesterly corner of Garden City /Central Park. An inspection showed that the 24 -inch sewer which flows into the lift station had collapsed about 20 feet west of the station. Recognizing the seriousness of the situation and the potential impacts (backup into houses, discharge of overflow of Shingle Creek, etc.), Dave Peterson (Public Utilities Supervisor) immediately activated the Public Utilities crew and requested needed assistance from other City departments. He also recognized the need for heavy excavating and dewatering equipment, and placed emergency calls to contractors with the needed equipment, staff and expertise (i.e. Glendale Contracting, Inc. and Northern Dewatering, Inc.) to deal with the situation. Also, calls for assistance were placed to the public utility companies (NSP, U.S. West, Minnegasco and CATV) and to the cities of Robbinsdale and Brooklyn Park and to the Metro Waste Control Commission (MWCC) for specialized equipment which would be needed. Immediate notification was also given to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and to the Minneapolis Water Department. Some emergency pumping equipment was installed and operational by mid - morning, and by noon enough pumps were installed to assure that sewage would not back up into homes. Because of conditions it was necessary to discharge these pumps into Shingle - Creek until later that day. Once the operation became more organized, it became possible to discharge these pumps into the force main from the lift station, thereby eliminating the discharge to Shingle Creek except during peak -flow times. Inspection and a review of record plans showed that the pipe which collapsed was a 24 -inch diameter corrugated metal pipe (CMP) installed on wooden pilings in unstable • soils (peat and marl) in 1955. The pipe is approximately 18 feet deep, and is nearly 12 feet below the water table. Because it was necessary to install extensive dewatering equipment before excavating • the pipe, repair and replacement operations didn't start until Thursday. Inspection of the upstream section of sewer (i.e. 240 feet to the next manhole) indicated that this entire section was in poor condition. Our evaluation indicated that by working one extra day, (3 days instead of 2) this entire section could be replaced, instead of simply repairing the collapsed segment. Accordingly, a decision was made to replace this entire section. Work continued on a 16-hour/day basis with bypass-pumping 24 hours er da Y P Y) on Thursday. From 5:30 a.m. on Friday to 10:30 on Saturday, work continued on a non- stop basis, and the replacement of the 240 feet of sewer was completed on Saturday, May 25, despite terrible working conditions (raw sewage, groundwater, frequent heavy rains, unstable soils and mud). Two potentially serious incidents occurred without serious injury, i.e.: • One of the contractor's employees received an electrical shock when the backhoe got too close to a power line. He was taken to the hospital, treated and released. • The inflatable rubber g P lu which we borrowed from MWCC to plug the sewer line while repairs were being made apparently got punctured by something in the sewer. Fortunately, this happened while no employees were in the sewer or in the trench. Upon completion of the sewer replacement, the lift station was reactivated. Fortunately, it appears that no serious damage was done to the pumps. However, a • substantial amount of soils from the cave -in were pumping through the lift station and deposited in the downstream force main and sewer. Because of weather conditions, it has been impossible to proceed with restoration of the site. However, we plan to proceed with this work as soon as possible. Following is a listing of comments which I believe are appropriate regarding this emergency operation: • The entire public utilities crew demonstrated their expertise and commitment to their work. • Dave Peterson, Utilities Supervisor, deserves special commendation for the way he organized and managed this operation, spending 16 -18 hours per day on the job. • Glendale Contracting Inc. and Northern Dewatering Inc. both went out of their way to provide needed assistance and expertise in dealing with difficult conditions. • The Northern States Power crews were very cooperative, providing "early response ". • The Public Utilities departments from Brooklyn Park and Robbinsdale provided excellent cooperation with specialized equipment and manpower. • The property owners who are "neighbors" to this lift station have demonstrated a high degree of tolerance, understanding and cooperation. . Unfortunately, it is also necessary to note that the entire trunk sewer line from this lift station, north to 69th Avenue, then west to Noble Avenue, was also constructed with the use of CMP. We recently televised the 69th Avenue portion of that sewer, found it to be in fair /poor condition, and recommend that it be replaced in conjunction with the 69th Avenue street improvement project. We are also scheduling the televised inspection of the portion between 69th Avenue and Lift Station #1. Replacement of both segments are included in the Capital Improvement Program (see separate item on agenda). Additional reports will be submitted to the Council as more information becomes available. City Council Action Required Review and discussion ...... Adoption of the attached resolution approving payment for all work relating to this emergency operation. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING EMERGENCY SEWER REPAIR AT LIFT STATION #1, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -13 WHEREAS, the trunk sanitary sewer inlet to Lift Station #1 collapsed on May 22, 1991 necessitating emergency repairs thereto; and WHEREAS, it became necessary to contract for specialized materials, equipment and labor to allow repairs to be made; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has reported that the following invoices have been incurred in relation to this project and he recommends payment thereof: Supplier Description Amount Glendale Contracting Inc. Materials, equipment $39,938.22 rental and labor Northern Dewatering Inc. Dewatering system $12,220.00 installation & operation Tri -State Pump & Control Inc. Pump rental $ 2,300.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The project is hereby established and designated as Improvement Project No. 1991 -13, EMERGENCY SEWER REPAIR AT LIFT STATION YJ1. 2. Payment of the above itemized costs is hereby authorized and approved. 3. All costs related to this improvement shall be charged to the Public Utility fund. RESOLUTION NO. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 6 -1491 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: DISCUSSION ITEM: REQUESTS FOR CITY COUNCIL'S 1992 BUDGET DEPT. APPROVAL: Geralyn k Barone, Personnel Coordinator MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: �� ' 7 zzljl ' No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMr17ARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • City staff is in the process of preparing the proposed 1992 budget and is asking the city council for any requests from members on items they wish to see included in the budget. Staff will prepare all the costs and necessary supporting documentation for ideas suggested by the city council, so only general information is requested from the council. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Discuss and recommend items to be included in the 1992 budget. UPPER TWIN LACE ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 28073 CRYSTAL, MN 55428 NEC kIVE0MAY30 May 30, 1991 Mr. Gerald Splinter City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway J Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr. Splinter, The residents living around Upper Twin Lake have been treating severe blue green algae blooms on Upper Twin Lake with Copper Sulfate for over 30 years now. Without the treatments, the Lake becomes unsuitable for recreation and enjoyment. We can no longer be solely responsible for this public amenity to the City. Our Association is requesting the City of Brooklyn Center take over the responsibility of treating the algae blooms. Typically, three treatments are necessary each summer, beginning in June. This would cost approximately $2000.00 dollars per year. Please notify me with the date this will be on the council agenda so I can notify our members. Thank you. Sincerely, Kristen Mann, Chairperson Twin Lake Association 612 - 535 -7646 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 6-10-91 Agenda Item Numbe r 4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIP'T'ION: Minneapolis /North Suburban Fire Training Facility Concept DEPT. APPROVAL: MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOAMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) HISTORY: The City of Brooklyn Center in conjunction with Fridley, , Columbia Heights, Blaine and other north suburban communities have formed a joint powers agreement to develop a Fire Training Facility in Fridley. We are in the final stages of design development on this project and we have been recently contacted by the City of Minneapolis inquiring as to the interest of our group in joining the City of Minneapolis in developing a similar facility on the water works site along East River Road north of the Camden bridge. Attached please find a copy of a chart labeled Fire Training Site Feature Comparison. The 71st Avenue facility is in Fridley and the water works site is also in Fridley. This is an initial attempt to roughly compare the two sites from a suburban prospective. The Fire Chief and I have been involved in a number of discussions with Minneapolis and the other suburban communities in an attempt to evaluate the pros and cons of either of the approaches. We are attempting to pin down some costs to the suburbs and we have yet to finalize these costs but at least initially it appears to offer the opportunity for a similar dollar investment to possibly get a higher quality and more diverse training facility. I am bringing this to your attention at this time to get your concurrence in the staff continuing to evaluate the proposed Minneapolis joint facility. It is possible that in evaluating this Minneapolis proposal we could experience a delay in construction on our current proposal. The staff members of our joint powers agreement believe, and I concur, that spending a month or so more evaluating the Minneapolis proposal, while risking some delay is a worthy expenditure of our time and effort. The main thrust of our review would be to seek solid assurance that the Minneapolis Fire department is committed to work with suburban Fire departments to make the facility an asset for all users. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION I recommend the Council, by motion, authorize the staff to proceed with evaluating the Minneapolis /North Suburban Fire Training Facility concept. _ s FIRE TRAINING SITE FEATURES COMPARISON - `~µ 71 st Avenue & Minneapolis Water Works 'W parison Premises: Fire vs. public safety training site under a partnership vs. lease ement. LOGISTICS nos is WATERYVORKB ;:::::::;::::> ::>::::>:::>::::>::::<:::>:;>.:::~::: :>.: >z >: >r::: >: >:::T.STAYEFiUI~ Response time from pon site Attractiveness to additional users jV Operating budget t Full development capitalization tt Site management staff Management program ?' x Environmental Impact Statement Soil analysis , r a Soil contamination Site completion ; Site expansion potential f `�� C� � / �J - 'mil /t� °A • 'YJ Service commitments from utilities FEATURES _ Training Tower i .C :':.[.!'Lf. �/`!C>A' � /: `!�� ��a' "''�G _ � i✓ '�. 7-�j fe�,!!.G -6 . E'saE L..�'' ,r!S;..C.1 Roof top ventilation training (j Burn Room SCBA training module Auto extrication pad Pump testing reservoir 4 Classroom -- _ 7�1 '' 1•l..b'� �/ r 1�.G,1 '.. ./ G{frcL�d_� Exercise room Showerstlockers i r Permanent offices Audio-visual capabilities r r ! ! Outdoor physical training area Driving course ' Flammable burn pit ? R tank car /domes G one tanker . -%'f �" -( ?.� _a � %:;,A ✓ /zY, Parking capacity -+,�!•'.` a �. -�_.. J , 4- 4ijt General storage facilities Vehicle garage l' , . I PROPERTY OF. MINNEAPOLIS WATER WORKS C. �Vq _ crcrIerAr T11ASE a - 0- o---- c, -0 --- - - - -0 - � - 0 - - - -- _ -C:." - - F I Q o -- I w �I of GEORGE'S IN FRIDLE't Fj RESTAURANT 3 mr i O P� fp is L Ci OI C r � G !LRa1✓r��vvL, r I /� � PAZAFC'75 MATE5:AL3 � I r C I d 0 v C. C. L_ j ------------ - - - - -- ; 0 0 IWICATES TREES tWOGCE AfiEAI EAST ROAD — _ PRGPERTT LINE N. PROPOSED SITE PLAN f r - toe -e net. atrial CT i1u'wN ei FROFOSED FIRE TA ATE PHASE II FIRE TRAINING TOWER COMPLEX W/ TRAINING TOWER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRAINING SITE FACILITY 37fA ALE NE G EAST MEN RW WRm v i eY RIClET. Mtaf:'WA CB'ARTrBlT IEET NU CITY :F `IIia —%J3 C mre LV r "!Uc vrxcS 1 OF I - i ... i . �'i4'i i 1 , wr.' ?i{: Ir. �rv�Nrhlr^. H/ rY/# uddiwmnl i�IM- rvlgNltlrwn1klMla'akw�rµ'dvgWWb MWrMkuNnrwr4MrYMYh +nr'fiMIfWIWYiYW SM1QMUUri NiuiM MUN rl.r.• «:ManK11 ArV w�ct -.. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 6/10/91 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ************************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: Proposed League of Minnesota Cities Constitutional Amendments DEPT. APPROVAL: MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOAMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report. Comments below /attached SUI B ARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) Attached you will find a copy of a communication from Don Slater, Executive of the LMC regarding constitutional amendments which will be considered by delegates to the Leagues annual meeting, Thursday, June 13, 1991, in Rochester. From my point of view most of the amendments appear not to be of any concern but I would like to draw your attention to the proposed amendment of Article IV, Officers and Committees. The purpose of this amendment is to add to the board representatives from the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities and the Minnesota Association of Small Cities. Currently there is a representative from the AMM on the LMC board and outstate cities are seeking imilar representation. The original u ose of having a representative of the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities on the LMC Board was to assure P P metropolitan area involvement in the League as there was an original concern that the metro area would split off from the League of Cities without the additional representation. Over the years a number of out- . state municipal officials have expressed discomfort with having the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities automatically p have a board member on the LMC board. It appears now there is an effort to balance or counteract metro representation by adding these two outstate organizations to the LMC board. Mayor Paulson will y be attending he State League meeting next week and representing the City of g � g P g tY Brooklyn Center n e and I would like to have the opportunity Mon e to discus some f h r y pp ty y e g s s e o the pros and cons of this amendment and the others proposed. After this discussion Mayor Paulson can then take Y our support nd your our comments to Rochester and vote on the various amendments. The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Board of Directors will be meeting prior to the League convention to see if there is any policy or comment they would wish to make in regard to this LMC amendment. It appears a number of the AMM Board is leaning toward a policy of study this amendment for a year and during that time the AMM would step off the board as an automatic member. It is my personal observation that over the last ten years the League of Cities has been more affective in representing out -state Minnesota cities' interests than it certainly has been in representing metropolitan suburban interests. The proposal to add two new out -state board members to the LMC board, in my e opinion, would make the LMC organization less attractive and less affective in working with metro and metro-suburban interests. I will be looking forward to Monday to discuss some of the aspects of the various amendments. • i 183 University Ave. East St. Paul, MN 55101 -2526 League of Minnesota Cities (612) 227.5600 (FAX: 221.0986) May 28, 1991 TO: Mayors, Managers, and Clerks FROM: Donald A. Slater, Executive Direc SUBJECT: Revised Constitutional Amendments On April 23 the League mailed to you five constitutional amendments to be considered by the delegates at the League's annual meeting on Thursday, June 13 at the Rochester Mayo Civic Center. After careful review of the proposed language, we discovered several inaccuracies in the original text. We have revised the proposed amendments. A complete, accurate set of amendments are enclosed for your consideration. Please discard the amendments offered to you on April 23. The May 24 issue of Cities Bulletin contains a complete printing of the constitution with the proposed amendments included in the constitution's text. - -- OVER - -- ARTICLE III FEES AND DUES Section 2. The dues for each municipality shall be based upon population as given ESTABLISHED by the latest federal decennial speeial census, BY AN ESTIMATE MADE BY THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL, OR AN ESTIMATE BY THE STATE DEMOGRAPHER, WHICHEVER HAS THE LATEST STATED DATE. This fee shall be payable annually in advance on the first day of September. Section 3. The annual dues for each member municipality shall be set by the Leagues board of directors AFTER RECEIVING THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE BUDGET COMMITTEE. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MAY ADJUST DUES FOR ANY OR ALL MEMBER CITIES, EXCLUDING ADJUSTMENTS BASED UPON POPULATION CHANGE, BY NOT MORE THAN TEN PERCENT IN ANY FISCAL YEAR. ADJUSTMENTS GREATER THAN TEN PERCENT IN ANY FISCAL YEAR REQUIRE THE VOTE OF THE MEMBERSHIP net te- eeeed- the- amet�nts estab iished - in - the sehedttle er sehee�tt�es- set- et�t -as- appendices -te t his - eenstit�tien; Which ehaii be- aeiepted -er- amended -in- the -same manner - as - ether - parts - ef - this- eenstittttien- - �f -ne -nee*- dues- seheeitt�e is- ael epteel - far - a - given - year -- the - elves- sehedttie -in- effect -far- the -mast resent prier - *ear- sha��- re7nein -in- effect. The total dues for each member city as calculated shall be rounded to the nearest dollar. fines -Schedhie- iMaxim- m- for3988-89 -- (Z=dxtraaa� tigerx�a� tKrxsr - i'49• 2S(Y4, 999.. -66. plu&5 -L24 cents- per- rafita- 3,-089-9,999--- .-- - -. -.- -336 pi 41- 85scats�er-capita- �9,999�9,999 -. -- pins -35:64 Teats- per - capita - 29,999- 49;999 -. -.- - - -.- 3955 pins -�� 65 cc ats- per -capita - 58,999- �99,�I99 zeats-pez-capita- 39%QQ4and flus- 3,4 ;ceats�er -ca ta- A H1X �}ttes rathederk- fiSaxicanirr- fof-�989 -90 f based�o- nraxitna m- siac- pereeiri- increase} 2 er�ess-- r.-.--- r..-------- .------- r.- -rr..- -:2'96 .. ........ ........ ? 9rkts -54 31- eeatsI)er-capicn- 5,�68- '9;994:- -. -. -- 18,tM A9, 999 - . -..... . - 12 , 27 Ttus - 3''f. 98 Mr, M PUT Q8,966- X4;999 -. - .- - - - .- . 7hr&-22r. 95 -cents- per- cepk -a- 3A,�A9- X99,999 -.. - .... aEs- �tef- c8pita- 3@Q6flf} and mvez���,2f?9�4 �}us,3�6& �esEs�ser�_ Ai4 �lttes - 8c�edale- A4a�ci���- �x- �49A -41- fba sed -in rears 249rn�css----.----,- .--- .---- .- .--- .- .--- ,-- - - - -g- �SQ zcnts�erzapita- �6,�69�9 ,999- .- .----- .�3�z~ ptus-44.4� tcntsita- �9 -pies- 2*56 -cents -per -capita 8�7itrs6•.97 -ccnts-percapita- 34QQ4 and -ce ak-per-capka- I� ARTICLE IV OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES Section 1. The officers of the League shall be an elected president, an elected FIRST vice president, AN ELECTED SECOND VICE PRESIDENT, TWELVE ELECTED DIRECTORS, the - Immediate- sat- resident P P ex officio -- the - president - ef- the- Aeeeeietien- ef- Ketrepe4itan Kttnieipa ex officio, -- the - president -er- vice - president -ef -the N atiena 4- beagtte - ef -2 ities - if - a- Minnesota- city- effieia4- ex- effieie- AND THE FOLLOWING PERSONS EX- OFFICIO: THE IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT; THE PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES; THE PRESIDENT OF THE COALITION OF GREATER MINNESOTA CITIES; THE PRESIDENT OF THE MINNESOTA ASSOCIATION OF SMALL CITIES; AND THE PRESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES, IF A MINNESOTA CITY OFFICIAL; and - twelve- eleeted- direeters. The officers acting as a group shall constitute the board of directors. Section 2. The president and vice presidentS shall each be elected annually for one -year terms. Twelve directors shall be elected for three -year overlapping terms. In 1974 four of these shall be elected for three -year terms, four for two -year terms, and four for one -year terms; thereafter four shall be elected annually for three -year terms. Elections shall be held at the official business meeting at the annual convention. Officers shall hold office for their designated terms, and until their elected or appointed successors have signified their acceptance. p The newly elected officers shall take office immediately after the close of the annual convention. The immediate past president shall serve as a member of the board of directors ex officio for one ear, so long as he or s Y q he holds municipal - - _ office, -and the - president of- the- Aeeeeiatien -ef Hetrepe Mttnieipa4iteg- 9haii- verve -ex- officio. THE OTHER EX OFFICIO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS SHALL SERVE ONLY WHILE THEY HOLD MUNICIPAL OFFICE. Section 9. h-' peeia4- committee- eha44- be- appeirsted -bY- the - president every- three - pears -te- study -he ague - dttea- end- beagtte- serviees- ee mmeneing - With - the - appointment- ef- e�eh- a- ee�uaittee -in- Ike- fa�4 -ef 4983- A BUDGET COMMITTEE SHALL BE APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT. THE BUDGET COMMITTEE IS TO BE COMPRISED OF TWO CITY OFFICIALS FROM EACH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS VICE PRESIDENT. THE VICE PRESIDENT SHALL SERVE AS CHAIR. BUDGET COMMITTEE MEMBERS WILL SERVE FOR A TERM OF THREE YEARS AND TERMS SHALL BE STAGGERED. TO INITIATE THE STAGGERED TERMS, IN 1992 THE PRESIDENT SHALL APPOINT SIX PEOPLE TO SERVE A THREE YEAR TERM, FIVE PEOPLE TO SERVE A TWO YEAR TERM, AND FIVE PEOPLE TO SERVE A ONE YEAR TERM. VACANCIES SHALL BE FILLED FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM BY APPOINTMENT BY THE PRESIDENT. THE BUDGET COMMITTEE SHALL REVIEW LMC SERVICES, STUDY THE LEAGUE'S DUES STRUCTURE, AND RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS A BUDGET FOR EACH FISCAL YEAR. Additionally, special committees may be authorized by the board of directors for the purpose of studying municipal problems, conducting schools, making legislative recommendations, or other appropriate League service. The chair of each such committee appointed by the president shall, on the completion p tion of the committee's work make a report to the board of directors, convention, or legislative conference in such form as the executive director may request. ARTICLE VIII THE ASseelAT1 9N- 6P- METR9P9BlTAN- MUNTeIPALITIES CONSTITUENT MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATIONS Section 1. The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities limited to inelude members of the League of Minnesota Cities sitsit ated in counties within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities area; the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, limited to members of the League of Minnesota Cities, and the Minnesota Association of Small Cities, limited to members of the League of Minnesota Cities under 5,000 population, may be established within the League in accordance with this article. Section 2. The bylaws establishing the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities, Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, and Minnesota Association of Small Cities shall include provisions of membership, dues and finances, board of directors and officers, meetings, committees, and such other matters as are deemed appropriate, including the adoption of legislative commitments applying specifically to the -grin- cities- rnetrepelitan -area their membership. the-1 sseeiatien- ef- Metrepe�itan- Mttnieipalities Each constituent organization shall be considered as an affiliate organization for purposes of adopting legislative policy. Section 3. The bylaws establishing the- Asseeiatien -ef Metrepe�itan- Mt�nieipa�ities each constituent organization and amendments thereto shall be submitted to the board of directors of the League of Minnesota Cities for a determination of consistency with this constitution. The board of directors shall consider them forthwith, and if it finds the bylaws and amendments consistent with this constitution, it shall approve them. Section 4. Establishment of the- Asseeiatien- ef- Metrepe�itan Mumieipalities any constituent organization does not prevent the furnishing of service by the League of Minnesota Cities staff to metrepe�itan -erect any members in the same manner and to the same extent as to non members in- ether- parts -ef -the -state of constituent organizations, but any special service to the- Asseeiatien any constituent organization by the League of Minnesota Cities staff shall be financed by the Asseeiatien constituent organization. Section 5.' ke- Assoeiatien- ef- Metrepeiitan- Mt�nieipa�ities Any constituent organization may be dissolved by the procedure specified in its bylaws. Upon dissolution of the- Asseeiatien all constituent organizations this article shall have no force or effect. r CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 6-10-91 Agenda Item Number a, . REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION DECLARING SURPLUS PROPERTY DEPT. APPROVAL: PO±ti nL Patti Page, Deputy dity Clerk MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) The City Council approved the purchase of a new mobile concession trailer for the Park and Recreation O Department on March 11, 1991. This new trailer has arrived and staff is now proposing to advertise for bids for the sale of the old trailer. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION I recommend approval of the attached resolution. 1a � Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING SURPIAIS MPERTY WHEREAS, the purchase of a new mobile concession trailer was approved by the City Council on March 11, 1991; and WHEREAS, this mobile concession trailer replaces an existing trailer which is 20 years old; and WHEREAS, staff has proposed to advertise and take bids for the sale of the old trailer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the 1971 Rugged Road mobile concession trailer is hereby declared surplus and is authorized for sale. 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 Agenda Item Number /07 O • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS IN ORDER TO VACCINATE CERTAIN CITY EMPLOYEES AGAINST HEPATITIS B *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature - titl - James Lindsay, Chief of P MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: .• No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached yes ) At the February 11, 1991 meeting, the City Council authorized a program for offering vaccinations for Hepatitis B to certain City employees. The employees are those classified as "at risk" under Minnesota OSHA standards. "At risk" employees are defined as those considered to be at substantial risk of occupational exposure to bloodborne disease. A copy of the OSHA policy is attached for your convenience. Brooklyn Center offered the vaccination to sworn police officers, dispatchers, code enforcement officers, firefighters, lifeguards, and maintenance employees. One hundred one (101) of these employees have opted to receive the vaccination; which includes thirty -nine (39) police, forty (40) fire, nine (9) lifeguards, five (5) maintenance employees, and eight (8) Earle Brown Heritage Center maintenance employees. As indicated when the program was proposed, we received two quotes for performing the vaccinations. The low quote was from Dr. Orn at Northport Medical Center, Ltd. at a cost of $150.00 per person. This would bring the total funds needed to $15,150. These monies would need to come from contingency, as nothing was budgeted for this purpose. As the Council authorized the program in February, the attached resolution is for the transfer of needed funds. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council approve the resolution authorizing the transfer of funds for Hepatitis B vaccinations for certain City employees. gab Member introduced the followin g resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS IN ORDER TO VACCINATE CERTAIN CITY EMPLOYEES AGAINST HEPATITIS B AND AMENDING THE 1991 GENERAL FUND BUDGET WHEREAS, the Minnesota OSHA standards adopted April 4, 1990 require Hepatitis B vaccinations be offered to "at risk" employees; and WHEREAS, "at risk" employees are defined as those considered to be at substantial risk of occupational exposure to bloodborne disease; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has determined it has several groups of employees who meet this definition of "at risk" employees, including sworn police officers, firefighters, dispatchers, code enforcement officers, lifeguards, and maintenance workers; and WHEREAS, the City Council at its meeting February 11, 1991 adopted resolution no. 91 -50 authorizing a program of offering vaccinations to these "at risk" employees and one hundred one (101) employees have requested the vaccinations; and WHEREAS, the City received two quotes for providing these vaccinations as follows: Dr. Orn, Northport Medical Clinic $150 per person St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center $200 per person NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the quote of Dr. Orn, Northport Medical Clinic be accepted at $150 per person. Resolution No. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that monies in the amount of $15 needed to complete the program are authorized from the Unallocated Departmental Expense Contingency Account; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 1991 General Fund Budget be amended as follows: Transfer an appropriation of $15,150 from the Unallocated Departmental Expenses Account No. 4995 -80 to the Police Department Medical Expenses Account No. 4314 -31. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the followin g voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. '1 R'INNESOTA OCCUPATICI:AL SAFETY Number: 132B AND HEALTH DIVISION POLIO' Issue Date: April 4, 1990 Page 1 of 11 APPROVED: SUBJECT: Bloodborne Disease EFFECTIVE: Immediately PURPOSE: To provide guidelines for the inspection of workplaces where employees are at substantial risk of exposure to bloodborne disease. BACKGROUND: A. INTRODUCTION The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) of the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) believe that as many as 18.000 health -care workers per year may be infected by the Hepatitis B Virus (IIBV). Nearl%. ten percent of those who become infected become long -tern carriers of the virl�s and mar have to give up their profession. Several hundred health -care workers will become acutely ill or jaundiced from hepatitis B. and as mane as 300 health -care workers may die annually as a result of hepatitis B infections or complications. Infection with the Human Immuno- deficienc% Virus (HIV) (which causes AIDS) in the workplace represents a small but real hazard to health -care workers. The CDC expects that with 1.5 million persons now believed to be infected by HIV. the number of AIDS cases in the general population may grow to as many as 2 70.000 by 1991 frog: the 54.000 which had been reported by June. 1988. The increases in AIDS cases and in the number of individuals who are infected with the virus will mean an increased potential for exposure to health -care and other workers. Fortunately there are reasonable precautions which can be taken by workers to prevent exposure to HBV. HIV, and other bloodborne infectious diseases. Precautions for HBV and HIV have been published by the CDC on several occasions, most recently on June 24, 1988. An advisory notice. entitled "Protection Against Occupational Exposurr to Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) and Human Immuno- deficiency Virus (HIV)," reflects many of the precautions addressed in the CDC guidelines and includes other precautions which should be considered. The CDC guidelines have been incorporated into Occupational Safety and health Policy by Federal OSHA in their CPL 2 -2.44B published on February 27, 1990. In addition. Federal OSHA has proposed rulemaking covering Bloodborne PFthogens (29 CFR 1910.1030) which may not be adopted until 1991. In the interim, this directive .sets forth Minnesota OSHA's police for enforcement of existing standards applying to the occupational hazards of bloodborne diseases. Police Number: 132B - ` Issue Date: A=il 4- 1 oan Page of >> B. OCCUPATIONS AT RISK Employees in any occupation where they are exposed to blood. body fluids, or needlestick exposures are considered to be at substantial risk of occupational exposure to bloodborne disease. They include, but are not limited to, nurses, physicians. pathologists, dentists and other dental workers, podiatrists, laboratory and hlood -hank technologists and technicians, phlebotomists, dialysis personnel, medical technicians. 1 -ray technicians, orderlies, medical examiners, morticians. housekeepers, laundry workers, research laboratory workers, and others whose work involves contact with blood or other body fluids from living individuals or from corpses. Other personnel, such as paramedics, emergency medical technicians, law enforcement personnel, firefighters, lifeguards, corrections officers, and others whose jobs may require first - response medical care or potential contact with hload or body fluids, are also at risk. C. MODES OF TRANSMISSION In the U.S., the major mode of HBV and HIV transmission is sexual. both homosexual and heterosexual. Also important is parenteral (entry into the body by a route other than the gastrointestinal tract) transmission by shared needles among intravenous drug abusers and, to a lesser extent, in needlestick injuries or other exposures of workers to blood. These viruses are not transmitted by casual contact, fecal -oral or airborne routes, or by contaminated food or drinking water. Workers are at risk of infection to the extent they are exposed to blood and other bode fluids. Er;plo.\ without that exposure, even in a hospital, carries no greater risF, than that for t general population. The same personal protective equipment and work practices used to' prevent occu- pational transmission of HBV are effective in preventing occupational transmission of HI\'. A major difference between the two viruses is that there is currently a vaccine to prevent HBV infection which is recommended by CDC for persons at substantial risk of occupational exposure; no such vaccine exists for IIIV. The CDC has called for use of "universal precautions" when working with blood and /or body fluids from any patient. D. DEFINITIONS Body Fluids Fluids that have been recognized by CDC as directly linked to the transmission of HIV /HBV and /or to which universal precautions apply (regulated body fluids) including blood, semen, blood products, vaginal secretions, cerebro- spinal fluid, synovial fluid, pleural fluid, peritoneal fluid, pericardial fluid, amniotic fluid, and concentrated HIV or HBV viruses. i r Policy Number: 132P Issue Date: April 4. 1990 Page of 1 Infection Control (IC) Program An IC program is the oral and written policy and implementation of procedures relating to the control of infectious disease hazards where employees may be exposed to direct contact with body fluids. An TC pro must address all areas outlined in this policy as part of the Right- to-knoiv requirements. Phlebotomist A phlebotomist is any health care worker who draws blood samples. Universal Precautions The term "universal precautions" refers to a system of infectious disease control which assumes that every direct contact with body fluids is infectious and requires every employee exposed to direct contact with body fluids to be protected as though such body fluids were HBV or HI\' infected. Therefore. universal precautions are intended to protect employees from parenteral. mucous membrane. and nonintact skin exposures to bloodborne pathogens. ACTI0N AINOSIIA will respond to complaints and conduct other inspections to assure that appropriate measures are being taken to eliminate employee exposure to bloodborne diseases. Some specific inspection guidelines follow: A. Et:IPLOYEE NOTIFICATION' There is no hazard of casual transmission of AIDS from one employee to another so an employer is not required to inform employees that another employee has -AIDS. B. INTSPECTION PROCEDURES 1. Entry of Establishment a. Follow normal entry and opening conference procedures but in addition to the management official. request the presence of the person responsible for providing records pertinent to the Infection Control (IC) Program. b. A careful examination of the IC Program and Right -to -Know training is basic to workplace inspections where employees are at substantial risk- of exposure to bloodborne disease. (See Appendix 132B) C. Review OSHA 200 Lots for entries of employee exposure to HIV /HB\'. Employers are required to record needlesticks on the OSHA 200 form if medical treatment is required. Medical treatment is required when injuries (i.e.. needlesticks, cuts, etc.) involve exposures to regulated body fluids, when the exposed worker's skin is chapped, abraded, or otherwise nonintact: when the source patient is known or suspected to be infectious: or when the source patient's health status is unknown. Use of prescription medication (bevond a single dose for minor inilin or discomfort) is considered medical treatment. Therefore. ary nee,'lestic� requiring medical treatment (e.g., gamma globulin. hepatitis B immune globulin, hepatitis B vaccine, etc.) shall be recorded. In addition. since this type of treatment is considered absolutely necessary. and must be administered by a physician or licensed medical personnel. such Pn iniury cannot be considered minor. r Policy Number: 13213 —'" Issue Date: April 4. 1990 Page a of i 2. I alkaround a. All inspections, programmed or unprogrammed. conducted at health care facilities or other facilities (such as manufacturing plants) which support an onsite health care unit shall he directed to all areas involving the hazard of direct exposure to body fluids. i. Primary areas of concern are areas of direct exposure such as emergency rooms, operating rooms, direct patient care areas, laboratories, and X -ray areas. Secondary areas of concern are laundry and housekeeping. ii. Employee interviews must he held in all selected areas to verify the accuracy of the records and effectiveness of the IC program. Employees must verifv the emplover's statements about training and efforts to protect employees from exposure to potential infectious disease sources. iii. Documentation must he included in the narrative covering the high- lights of the program review. C. 1ORKEP, TRAINING 1. Emplovers must train all employees at substantial risk of infection (see list in B above). A survey should be done to identify employees with risk of expos to regulated body fluids. Training must include all items in Plinn. F'.0 5206.0700, Subparts 1 and 4, as well as training requirements in other applicable OSHA standards including: a. A written training program and records of training. The training program should include the elements listed in Appendix 132B. b. Specific written information must be available to employees. C. Training must be given prior to initial assignment, prior to assignment to any other bloodborne virus exposure for which the employee has not previously received training, and updated each year. d. Information must be current and maintained for requests by employees e. Training must include the chain of infection (agent, reservoir, transmission mode, etc.); prevention techniques including universal precautions (i.e., treat all body fluids as potentially infectious); use of personal protective equipment; proper work practices, etc.; and special hazards (e.g., risks to the fetus from infectious diseases). f. Employees must he made aware of the facility's immunization practices. Hepatitis B Vaccination The facility's IC policy regarding hepatitis R vaccinations shall address all circumstances warranting such vaccinations and shall identify employees at substantial risk of directly contactine body fluids. All such employees shall he offered Hepatitis B vaccinations in amounts and at times prescribed by standard medical practice. Cite General Dutv_ for failing to provide the HBV vaccination or if the employ provides but does not pay for the cost of required vaccinations. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 6/10/9 Agenda Item Number �•� r - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR HUMBOLDT AVENUE /65TH AVENUE LANDSCAPING, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -03, CONTRACT 1991 -D DEPT. APPROVAL: _ SY KNAPP, DIRECT OF P C WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW N: RECOMMENDATI / O No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) On May 13 of this year the City Council approved plans and specification and authorized advertisement for bids for Humboldt Avenue /65th Avenue Landscaping. Bids for this work were received and opened on June 6, 1991. Of the 5 bids received (see attached resolution) the lowest bid of $ 12,649.00 was submitted by Greenworks, Inc. of Loretto, Minnesota. The Engineer's Estimate at the time of the bid opening was $20,200.00. Greenworks, Inc. has extensive landscaping experience in the Metro area and has most recently worked on the West River Road Landscaping for the City of Brooklyn Center. It is City staff's opinion that they (Greenworks) are a competent firm, capable of handling the work. Accordingly, staff recommends award of the contract to Greenworks, Inc. Council Action Required A resolution accepting bid and awarding contract to Greenworks, Inc. is provided for consideration by the City Council. NOTE Due to the "crunch" of other work, we are not able to present concept plans for trail construction past the Humboldt Square Shopping Center on June 10. These plans will be presented at the June 24 meeting. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR HUMBOLDT AVENUE /65TH AVENUE LANDSCAPING, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -03, CONTRACT 1991 -D WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1991 -03, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Engineer, on the 6th day of June, 1991. Said bids were as follows: Bidder Bid Amount Greenworks, Inc. $ 12,649.00 Fair's Garden Center, Maple Grove $ 13,802.00 Fair's Garden Center, Monticello $ 16,694.00 Hoffman & McNamara $ 25,681.00 R R Tie & Landscape $ 30,491.00 WHEREAS, it appears that Greenworks, Inc. of Loretto, 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 $12,649.00, with Greenworks, Inc. of Loretto, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1991 -03 according to the plans and specifications 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 the 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that: 1. The estimated cost of Improvement Project No. 1991 -03 is hereby amended according to the following schedule: As Amended Per As Established Low Bid Contract $ 20,200 $ 12,649 Contingency $ 3,030 $ 1,897 Professional Services $ 2,850 $ 2,850 Staff Engineering (8%) $ 1,860 $ 1,164 Administration (1 %) $ 230 $ 145 Legal (1 %) $ 230 $ 145 Total Est. Project Cost $ 28,400 $ 18,850 RESOLUTION NO. 2. The estimated costs will be financed by Local State Aid Fund No. 2611. 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 06/10/91 Agenda hem Number �� d REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR 1991 SEALCOATING PROGRAM, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO.1991 -05, CONTRACT 1991 -F ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAP , DIREC R OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: ml,;Z No comments to attached supplement this report Comments below /attached P / ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • At its regular meeting f May 13th, 1991, the City Council approved plans and g Y Y PP P specifications and authorized advertisement for bids for the 1991 Sealcoating Program, Improvement Project 1991 -05. The plans had been revised in accordance with the City Manager's request for a 15% reduction in the program costs (from the $160,000 budgeted amount). Bids for this work were received and opened on June 6, 1991. The attached Resolution shows the detail of the bids submitted. The Engineer's Cost Estimate for the reduced program was between $ 128,000 and $ 146,300, depending on which option was selected. The plans and specifications used for this year's program, similar to last year's, allowed for bids based on the following combinations of materials: Option A - FA -2 Modified (trap rock) for residential streets FA -3 Modified (trap rock) for collector streets Option B - FA -2 (granite) for residential streets FA -3 Modified (trap rock) for collector streets Option C - FA -3 Modified (trap rock) for both residential and collector streets Option D - FA -2 (granite) for both residential and collector streets For the information of the City Council: • FA -2 Modified (trap rock) is a grey - colored, small -sized rock which was used in the re- sealed areas of Quail, Regent and Scott Avenues between 67th and 69th Avenues in 1990. • FA -3 Modified (trap rock) is also grey colored, but larger rock which was used on Xerxes Avenue between County Road 10 and 66th Avenue North in 1990. FA -2 (granite) is a reddish- colored small rock which was used on residential streets in the Garden City area in 1990. Last years contract award was for Option B. Although Option A was considered to be the most desirable combination of materials, Option B was deemed more cost - effective (the difference between these options was close to 20 %). Upon examination of the bids submitted for this years program it is noted that: • if last years' unit prices were applied to this years' quantities, the cost for Alternate A would be $132,232.00. Accordingly, this represents a 12.5% reduction in prices for this years' work. • the difference between Option A and Option B on this year's low bid is 14 %. It is staff's opinion that Option A will result in the most uniform - appearing surface with optimum wear characteristics. Additionally, because of the competitive prices reflected in the bid proposal, it would be possible to add back in some areas of the 1991 Program which had been removed in response to the City Manager's request for program reduction. The Lakebreeze Avenue area and the parking lots at City Hall could be added to the contract in the form of a change order. The effect of this change on the low bid is as follows: Reduction from the $160,000 Option Low Bid Low Bid plus C.O. Budget A $ 115,678.15 $ 135,907.01 15% B $ 101,836.80 $ 112,121.88 30% It is noted that adding these areas back into the Program would return them to the normal, eight year cycle between sealcoat applications instead of a 9 -year cycle which would result from the smaller contract. Allied Blacktop, the low bidder for both Options A and B, has extensive sealcoating experience in the Metro area and is regarded as having the most up -to -date equipment and expertise available. Additionally, Allied was awarded contracts for the 1989 and 1990 City Sealcoating projects and have performed satisfactorily. Accordingly, staff recommends acceptance of the low bid for Option A , award of the contract to Allied Blacktop and authorization for the Mayor and City Manager to execute a Change Order to add in the previously deleted areas of the 1991 Sealcoating Program. Council Action Required • A resolution accepting bid and awarding contract to Allied Blacktop is provided for consideration by the City Council. The resolution also authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to execute a contract change order which adds the Lakebreeze Avenue area and City Hall /Community Center parking lots. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR 1991 SEALCOATING PROGRAM, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -05, CONTRACT 1991 -F WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1991 -05, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Engineer, on the 6th day of June, 1991. Said bids were as follows: Bidder Option A Option B Option C Option D Allied Blacktop $115,678.15 $101,836.80 $130,116.02 $ 92,029.16 Bituminous Roadways $134,097.60 $122,953.35 $159,881.38 $114,596.23 WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Brooklyn Center to select Option A, as permitted by the Specifications for Contract 1991 -F, Special Provisions, Division B, B -7.3 "the Owner reserves the right to select and award a contract for any of the four options contained in the revised proposal form, in the best interest of the City of Brooklyn Center "; and WHEREAS, it appears that Allied Blacktop Company of Maple Grove, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder for Option A; and WHERAS, the City Engineer has reported that previously deleted areas of the 1991 program can be added back into the Contract, via Change Order, at a total cost less than originally estimated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Option A is selected because it provides the most desirable combination of materials at a competitive price. 2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract for Option A in the amount of $115,678.15, with Allied Blacktop Company of Maple Grove, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1991 -05 according to the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute y y g y z e cute Change Order No. 1 to Contract 1991 -F, for the addition of the previously deleted areas of the 1991 Sealcoating Program, in the total amount of $20,228.86. RESOLUTION NO. 4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all the 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. 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 Oh /1n /q l Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED SHADE TREES ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP, 107,ECTORIZIF PUBLIC WORKS i MANAGER'S REVIEW RECOMMENDATION No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) The attached resolution represents the official Council action required to expedite removal of the trees most recently marked by the City tree inspector, in accordance with approved procedures. It is anticipated that this resolution will be submitted for Council consideration each meeting during the summer and fall as new trees are marked. Recommendation It is recommended the Council adopt the attached resolution. ME Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES (ORDER NO. DST 06/10/91 ) 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 ---------------------- - - - - -- ------------------- --- - - - - - -- -- - - - - -- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS PARK 1 MARVIN COUGHLIN 7130 LOGAN AVE N 10 ALAN CLARK 6234 BROOKLYN BLVD 11 BENNETT & VERA ROBERTS 7048 EWING AVE N 12 RICHARD & DELORES SOVICH 6412 EMERSON AVE N 13 ANDREW & LISA HOCKERT 6512 DREW AVE N 14 EUGENE HANAUSKA 6538 BROOKLYN BLVD 15 CARROLL & VELMA SKRAMSTAD 6225 XERXES AVE N 16 HARRY ANDERSON 2918 MUMFORD RD 17 MARIAN WILLIAMS 2124 ERICON DR 18 GERALD NELSON 7001 FRANCE AVE N 19 DAN RAUSTADT 3313 MUMFORD RD 2 DOROTHY LESCAULT 6831 SCOTT AVE 20 DOROTHY LESCAULT 6831 SCOTT AVE N 21 JOHN OLUFSON 6913 SCOTT AVE N 22 DALE ANDERSON 6313 INDIANA AVE N 3 ROBERT & SHIRLEY KULKAY 5231 WINCHESTER LA 4 DEREK & CYNTHIA SOLBERG 2701 65TH AVE N 5 KERMIT & MARILYN KLEFSAAS 5443 OLIVER AVE N 6 RENE & PATRICIA FERGUSON 6118 FREMONT AVE N 7 GREGORY PEPPIN 6824 DREW AVE N 8 PAUL & MARCAA WINTER 827 57TH AVE N 9 RESOLUTION NO. 2. After twenty (20) days from the date of the notice, the property owner(s) will receive a second written notice providing five (5) business days in which to contest the determination of the City Council by requesting, in writing, a hearing. Said request shall be filed with the City Clerk. 3. After five (5) days, if the property owner fails to request a hearing, the tree(s) shall be removed by the City. All removal costs, including legal, financing, and administrative charges, shall be specially assessed against the property. Date Mayor ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE ONE -HALF CENT OPTIONAL SALES TAX /LEGISLATIVE UPDATE WHEREAS, the 1991 Legislature established a one -half cent optional sales tax that may be adopted by counties of cities within counties to augment local government property tax relief and create a dedicated two -cent revenue stream called the Local Government Trust Fund; and WHEREAS, if counties fail to adopt the optional sales tax, the sales tax for that county will remain at 6 percent, and the county's 1.5 -cent share of the revenue stream will be distributed to other cities and counties; and WHEREAS, counties and cities within counties failing to adopt the optional tax lose all of their Local Government Aid and Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aid; and WHEREAS, counties and cities within counties may make up for the lost LGA and HACA funds by raising property taxes or cutting services, or a combination of both. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, does support and request that the county board of commissioners of Hennepin County do adopt the optional one -half cent sales tax by July 1, 1991, as stipulated in Session Laws Chapter 291. 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. JOHN E. DERUS PHONE CHAIRMAN 348 -3086 i BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A -2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487 -0240 May 28, 1991 Gerald G. Splinter City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Dear Mr. Splinter: Governor Carlson is expected to approve an "cptd onal" one -half cent sales tax to be implemented at the county level to partially offset reductions in state aids to local governments. This optional sales tax is to be implemented on a county -wide basis, depending on the wishes of cities whose residents constitute a majority of the county's population. No city will be eligible to receive local government aids (LGA) if the county or the majority of the cities within the county fail to implement the local option sales tax. Within Hennepin County, cities are the primary beneficiaries of the local government and property tax relief aids. Of the local government aid originally scheduled to be paid during 1991, cities were to receive $84.2 million, and the County was to receive $33,500. Of the original Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aids (HACA) sheduled to be paid in 1991, cities within Hennepin County would have received $46 million and the County $29.2 million. Approximately 80 percent of the LGA and HACA distributed to non - school local governments in Hennepin County goes to its cities. Should Hennepin County and /or a majority of its cities fail to enact the local option sales tax, those aids would have to be replaced with an increased property tax levy. Enclosed -is Resolution 91 -5 -501, which was adopted by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners on May 21, 1991. In this resolution, we request that city coi.mcils express their preference on the local option sales tax and forward a resolution to the County Board by June 11. 1991. The County must approve or reject the one -half cent sales tax by July 1, 1991, in order for it to take effect on January 1, 1992. If the city councils of cities in Hennepin County representing a majority of the population of the County disagree with the County's position, they may, by August 1, 1991, overturn that decision. In order for the County's initial decision to reflect the wishes of the majority of its cities, please inform us by resolution as to the wishes of your city by June 11. We look forward to working with you as efficiently as possible to resolve this issue in the best interests of the majority of our residents. Sincerely, John E. Derus, Chair Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Enclosure 00721 RESOLUTION NO. 91 -5 -501 The following resolution was offered by Commissioner Derus, seconded by Commissioner Andrew: WHEREAS, Governor Carlson is expected to sign a tax bill providing that county boards may vote to enact a 1/2 cent sales tax; and that counties not levying such a tax will lose a significant amount of state funding that helps pay for state mandated programs; and WHEREAS, Cities within Hennepin County and cities and counties outside of Hennepin County will be recipients of funding as a result of the 1/2 cent sales tax levied within Hennepin County. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners requests that the city councils vote by resolution by -June 11, 1991 requesting that the County Board enact or reject this 1/2 cent tax. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the city councils also be requested to express whether it would be their intent to ask for the local option if the County decided not to. Commissioner Andrew moved a substitute motion that the County Board vote to reject implementation of the 1/2 cent sales tax. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Keefe. Chairman Derus called for a vote on the motion to substitute and there being a voice vote, ruled the motion failed. The question was on the adoption of the resolution and there were Seven YEAS and No NAYS as follows: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS YEA NAY OTHER Peter McLaughlin X Randy Johnson X John Keefe V Tad Jude X Judy Makowske X Mark Andrew X John E. Derus, Chairman X RESOLUTION ADOPTED. i ATTEST: AClero the Coun Board T1 AY 2 1 1991 E U L L E T I N as ociation of metro olitan municipalities May 28, 1991 TO: AMM City Officials - FROM: Roger Peterson, Legislative Affairs Director Vern Peterson, Executive Director Nicole Debevec, Communications/Research Director - RE: 1991 omnibus tax bill, computer runs Enclosed you will find a summary of the 1991 omnibus tax bill. It reviews the major changes that affect cities. The centerpiece of the tax bill, for cities and the services they offer, is the optional half - cent sale tax. With it, property tax increases can be held to single digits because cities and counties can participate in a 2 -cent dedicated revenue stream. Without it, property taxes would skyrocket and/or services would suffer because non - participation in the sales tax increase means non - consideration in the distribution of aid. To better illustrate what can happen if a county board chooses not to approve the half - cent optional sales tax, we also have enclosed computer runs for all the member cities. They show the negative impact if a county commission fails to enact the optional tax. We recommend that you pass resolutions of support encouraging your county boards of commissioners to adopt the sales tax increase for your county. If you have any comments or questions regarding the update, please direct them to Roger Peterson. DISTRIBUTION NOTICE: This Bulletin has been sent to managers /administrators and legislative contacts only. Please distribute it to mayors, city council members and others as you deem appropriate. 183 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227 -4008 r.. Summary of the 1991 Omnibus Tax Bill I. Local Sales Tax Option ......................... ..............................2 II. Class rate changes ............................... ..............................3 III. Aid cuts/levy limits 1991, 1992 .......... ..............................4 IV. Special levies ..................................... ..............................5 V. Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aid (HACA) ..............5 VI. Local Government Trust Fund ........... ..............................5 VII. Referenda Levy on Market Value ..... ..............................5 VIII. Tax Increment Financing ................. ..............................6 IX. Truth in Taxation Changes ................. ..............................7 X. Fiscal Disparities - Technical Changes ..............................7 XI. Local Government Services Sharing and Combination Services .............................. ..............................8 XII. Miscellaneous Changes .................... ..............................8 2 Overview of the 1991 omnibus tax bill The 1991 omnibus tax bill (HF1698) has many more positive features than negative ones for cities. On the up side: * The LGA/HACA cuts were less than one -tenth of the governor's original proposal; * The separation of city property tax relief fund dollars from legislative manipulation has begun with the dedication of two cents of the sales tax, part of which is adopted locally; * The third tier classification rate on homestead property is being reduced over a two -year period without the tax cost shifting to other property; * The 1991 revenue base is restored to its pre -cut level before 1992 cuts - which may be recovered by levy - are calculated; and, * The promise for 1993 levy limit repeal remains intact. On the down side: * Cities and counties will lose an additional $35 million LGA/HACA in the December 1991 payment (approximately 1.6 percent of revenue base, or equivalent to about 80 percent of the July 1991 cuts), and * The overall levy base is frozen at the 1991 pre -cut level and contains no growth factor. For comparative purposes, the total 1991 -92 LGA/HACA cuts beyond the $51 million 1992 cut passed in the 1990 tax bill is $70 million. The governor's proposal was $639 million; the Senate bill was $125 million and the House bill, $25 million. I. Local Sales Tax Option CITY RESOLUTIONS IN SUPPORT OF COUNTY BOARDS ADOPTING LOCAL SALES TAX OPTION The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities urges member city councils to pass resolutions in support of their county boards to adopt the one -half cent sales tax by the July 1, 1991, deadline. The sales tax automatically will increase to 6.5 percent for the period July 1, 1991, through Dec. 31, 1991. If the one -half percent option is not adopted, the sales tax within the county reverts to 6 percent - not 4.5 percent - and all aid is lost to the county and cities in that county's borders. Of the 6 percent sales tax, the difference - or 1.5 percent - will go to the Local Government Trust Fund as a windfall for other cities and counties. In a county not adopting the one -half cent option, the lost aid to each unit of government may be replaced by additional property tax levy. If a county board fails to act by July 1, 1991, the governing bodies of cities and towns within the county totalling at least 50 percent of the county population may make the option choice for the county. It is important for cities to act quickly in support of their county boards to help absorb the difficult political decision of increasing the sales tax by one -half cent. 3 The city portion of current aid or the new local government trust fund is between 75 percent and 80 percent of the total. Without city support, counties certainly will expect a greater distribution when new formulae are considered. Even if cities are willing to adopt the option, in the absence of county action, there is a very short time between July 1 and Aug. 1, and room for error. Huge aid losses or tax increases are at stake so. please do not hesitate. (See impact of loss on attached sheet.) A final complexity to the option is a very difficult reverse referendum to rescind the option. This would require an election to rescind the tax if a petition signed by a number equal to 10 percent of the voters in the previous election in each city and town in the county is filed with the county. U. Class rate changes The tax bill contains class rate changes for homestead property, GI, apartments with more than three units, residential non - homestead, cabins and vacant land. The major accomplishment is the elimination of the third tier homestead classification rate over a two -year period with the subsequent tax loss being paid for by increased HACA payments. Classification 1991 1992 1993 1994 HOMESTEAD 1 percent 1st $68K market value $68K - $110K 2 percent more than 3 percent $110K 1st $72K 1 percent market value $72K - $115K 2 percent more than 2.5 percent $115K 1st $72K 1 percent 1 percent market value more than $72K 2 percent 2 percent C/I (large) 4.95 percent 4.75 percent 4.65 percent 4.60 percent APARTMENTS 3.6 percent 3.5 percent 3.4 percent 3.4 percent (four or more units) RESIDENTIAL 3.0 percent 2.8 percent 2.5 percent 2.3 percent NON - HOMESTEAD (1 -3 units) 4 Classification 1991 1992 1993 1994 CABINS 2.3 percent 2.2 percent 1st $72K 2.0 percent 2.0 percent market value more than $72K 2.5 percent 2.5 percent VACANT LAND 4.95 percent 4.75 percent highest and best use per zoning M. Aid cuts/levy limits 1991, 1992 As earlier mentioned, the total LGA/HACA cuts exceeding the cuts already passed is $70 million - $35 million in December 1991 and $35 million in 1992. The Revenue Department indicated that the December 1991 aid cut is 1.6 percent of base, or about 80 percent of the July 1991 cut. (NOTE: this is a preliminary figure.) Aid cuts in 1991 are temporary. Thus, the pre -cut 1991 certified levy base is restored 12rior to calculating aid reductions and levy for 1992. Aid cuts for 1992 will be $86 million: $35 million new and $51 million contained in the 1990 tax bill. These cuts are permanent and, according to the Revenue Department, amount to about 4 percent of the restored 1991 revenue base. Levy limits are very strict. By the end of the session it was clear that everyone, including the governor, wanted only single -digit overall increases. The good news is that cities and counties may levy to recover the loss of revenue due to the permanent $86 million LGA/HACA cuts for 1992. The bad news is the 3 percent inflation for growth is gone. The net effect of aid cuts and levy limits is that a city's levy base, aid plus levy, or total for 1992 is the same as was certified for 1991. The only difference is that the aid portion of the '92 base will be less and the general levy portion will be more. The following chart illustrates the interaction of aid cuts and levying authority: City A Citv B City C LEvY AID I TOTAL LEvY AID I TOTAL LEvY I AID I TOTAL Original Pay 1991 70 30 100 50 50 100 30 70 100 July aid cut ($50M) -2 -2 -2 Dec. aid cut $35M -1.6 -1.6 -1.6 End 91 total 70 26.4 96.4 50 46.4 96.4 30 66.4 96.4 Pay 1992 start (same 70 30 100 50 50 100 30 70 100 as 911 1990 law cut ($51M) -2.4 -2.4 -2.4 New aid cut ($35M) -1.6 -1.6 -1.6 New lev authority 4 4 4 1992 total 74 26 100 54 46 100 34 66 100 Percentage levy 5.7% 8.0% 13.3% increase allowed 5 IV. Special levies The original House bill contained a provision limiting use of bonded debt special levy. That has been deleted from the final bill. Bonded debt remains an uncapped special levy as it has been for two decades. The only significant city change to the special levy section was the addition (roll in) of the pension special levy to the 1992 base at the 1991 level without increase. V. Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aid (HACA) One of the major concerns of legislators when discussing reduction of the class rates for high valued homes and C/I property was the very large tax shift onto low valued homes and other property to replace the reduced taxable value. This was especially difficult because of the state's $1.1 billion shortfall. The solution became possible with adoption of the increased half cent sales tax option. The extra funds allow the state to replace on a dollar- for - dollar basis the city/county lost revenue created by the value reduction, thus preventing an increased tax burden on other property. These payments will be made to cities in the form of HACA and the largest beneficiaries will be generally metro cities with a great deal of high valued homes and ./I lIrQpgrty, many of which currently receive very little LGA or HACA Over the next three years, $211 million (preliminary legislative estimate) is budgeted to buy down the class rate reductions, of which about $175 million (or 84 percent) will be distributed to metro area cities. The sales tax increase and the 2-cent dedication to local government - both city and county - provide a continually growing pot of money which, hopefully, will make future LGA/HACA reductions unnecessary. VI. Local Government Trust Fund This fund will receive revenue from the half -cent optional sales tax plus 1.5 cents of the current six -cent sales tax, or a total of two cents from the sales tax statewide. The fund is dedicated to pay for existing non - school aid programs including LGA, HACA, disparity reduction aid, equalization aid, attached machinery aid, border city disparity aid and a few other minor programs. There is some income maintenance takeover funding equal to about 0.1 cent initially to balance the dedication at two cents. The fund is projected to grow at about 7 percent per year with new money allocated primarily to city/county new and existing property tax relief programs. Revenue is expected to be $700 million in 1991 -92 (11 months), $786 million in 1992 -93, $842 in 1993 -94 and $898 million in 1994 -95. For 1991 and 1992, the distribution will be as per current formula. For 1993 and thereafter, it may change based on recommendations of a new Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR). ACIR initially will have as members four city officials, three county commissioners, one town board member, five representatives, five senators and two members of the governor's staff. VII. Referenda Levy on Market Value All general education referenda (not including school capital bonds) and non- school referenda (cities, towns and counties) held for taxes payable in 1993 and thereafter will be levied on the market value rather than on the net tax capacity of 6 property within the taxing jurisdiction. This provision will increase significantly the amount of a referendum levy paid by homeowners /voters as compared to C/I or rental property. Instead of the current 5:1 pay ratio based on taxable value, the ratio is reduced to 1:1 based on market value. Tax statements will show referenda levy payments separately. Levy referenda ballots must have clear, bold -faced language indicating, "By voting yes on this ballot question, you are voting for a property tax increase." There is a one -year exception for school referenda passed in a first -class city for taxes payable starting in 1993. VIII. Tax Increment Financing Several changes were made to the section governing Tax Increment Financing CM. Most were technical in nature to correct mistakes from last year's bill. The reduction in LGA/HACA will apply only to the new area of an old district (pre-April 30, 1990) that is amended by adding a new area. A phase -in schedule of the aid reductions is provided for economic development districts for manufacturing , and research and development projects, which must be located in cities with populations under 10,000 outside a metropolitan statistical area by federal law. The phase -in is accomplished over five years. Calculation for lost state aid excludes equalized levies for 1. health and safety, 2. cooperation and combination, 3. community education, 4. early childhood family education, and 5. non - regular transportation from the calculation of the state aid reductions. The original tax capacity of a tax increment district is based on the prior year's assessment if certification is requested by June 30, and for the current years assessment if certification is requested after June 30. A development authority will be allowed to treat a parcel as occupied by a substandard building for the purposes of redevelopment and renewal and renovation district criteria, even though the parcel does not have a substandard building on it at the time the district is established. There are three conditions: * The authority must have removed, financed removal or entered into a development contract for the removal of the substandard building within three years before requesting certification of the parcel; * The authority must adopt before the demolition or removal a resolution finding the building was substandard and that the parcel would be included in a TIF district; and * The original net tax capacity of the parcel will be the greater of the value before or after the demolition and removal. Delinquent taxes on property in a TIF district will be paid to the authority after the district is decertified if the delinquency required the authority to use revenues other than tax increments to pay the district's bonds. Under the three -year knock -out rule, TIF bonds must be issued for the project in which the district is located. Interest costs on developer financing are not prohibited by the five -year rule. Payments of credit enhanced bonds are not subject to the five -year rule if increments from the district where the financed activities are located and from the pooling share are insufficient. Increments may be used to pay credit enhan ced bonds, even if the district is not permitted to pool increments because the request for certification was made before 1982. 7 If a property in a TIF district becomes tax exempt because of a default and acquisition by the authority, when that property is returned to the tax rolls its value at the time of the initial certification will be used in the original net tax capacity. Adjustments to the original net tax capacity of economic development districts for inflation will be made using the growth in market value rather than tax capacity. For parcels with demolished substandard buildings that the authority elects to treat as still occupied substandard buildings, the original net tax capacity is the higher of: 1. current tax capacity or 2. the tax capacity before the demolition but at the current class ratio. Property owners who are not developers may enter into assessment agreements. Assessment agreements also may be entered into for existing properties in the TIF district that are not being developed. The assessment agreement may provide for increases or decreases in the minimum market value over the term of the agreement. IX. Truth in Taxation Changes Several significant changes occurred in Truth in Taxation matters. Among them: * Deletion of the requirement to provide time and place of the second meeting on the initial proposed property tax notice; * Requirement that an estimated percentage change in the levy be calculated as well as a total percentage change weighted in relation to each taxing authority's proportion of the total levy; * Requirement that TIF and fiscal disparities, when applicable, be stated separately; * Requirement that owners of class 4 residential rental property mail or deliver a copy of the notice to each tenant, or post a notice in a conspicuous place on the premises, • Use of business days rather than calendar days regarding publication notice; • Exemption of cities having populations of less than 1,000 from advertising notice (they must post notice, however); * Requirement that cities with populations between 1,000 and 2,500 publish an advertisement that is one - eighth of a page; * Requirement that cities with populations over 2,500 publish an advertisement that is one - fourth of a page; and, * Allowance of an additional levy exceeding the proposed levy if the half -cent optional sales tax is not adopted. X. Fiscal Disparities - Technical Changes Several changes were made to laws governing fiscal disparities. The technical changes: * Eliminate the never -used municipal equity account and obsolete language; * Permit the Metropolitan Council and the Commissioner of Revenue to make the determination that a municipality consciously excluded C/I development and, therefore, is ineligible to participate in the fiscal disparities program; * Direct that contributions will be made based on equalized market value rather than the assessors stated market value; 8 * Modify the distribution formula definition of fiscal capacity to include personal property, such as utilities or manufactured homes. (The contribution side currently includes utility property.); • Direct South St. Paul to contribute to the pool using its 1989 value as the base value; • Eliminate the "factor of two" minimum distributions, and provides a phased in loss of distribution schedule; and * Direct that the distribution index now will use the same population year that the capacity calculation uses. XI. Local Government Services Sharing and Combination Services This program was established to provide financial incentive to local units of government to jointly provide services or to combine their services into a single entity, as well as combine separate governments into single units. Among the highlights: * Service Sharing Grants: Any city, town or county jointly with other units(s) may apply to the Department of Trade and Economic Development (D -TED) for a grant equal to the start-up costs for shared services. The application must include: 1. the proposal for jointly providing a service, 2. projections of cost savings and increased efficiency, and 3. evidence of the need for financial assistance to meet start-up costs for the new endeavor. * Cooperation and Consolidation: This program provides for two or more contiguous units to combine services for two years and then combine into a single governmental unit. The plan submitted to D -TED must describe joint activities, how the merger would be accomplished, the form of the post- merger governing body, service or facility changes, personnel and administrative changes, revenue and expenditure projections, tax levy differential and a timetable to accomplish the merger. Voters would have two years to pass a consolidation referendum. Up to $100,000 per year for four years in additional aid will be available for implementation. This money must be repaid if the merger is not accomplished per the voters. A total of $1.5 million was appropriated with at least 40 percent dedicated initially to the cooperation and combination program. XU. Miscellaneous Changes Sales tax is extended to dedicated phone lines, telephone paging services, kennel services and massage services. Sales tax is repealed on massage parlour admissions, and tree and shrub planting services (although sales tax does apply to landscaping items). A surcharge of $7.50 is imposed on each contract for car, van or pick -up truck leases of 28 days or less. The so -called "Yuppie" sales taxes were not enacted. Cooperative electric associations are included in the set of utilities upon which cities may impose franchise fees, but rates are not limited as they were in the initial House bill. 9 A 7.5 percent surtax is imposed on 1 -900 calls. The cigarette tax increases five cents per pack from 38 cents to 43 cents. (A separate health insurance bill would impose an additional tax of seven cents per pack if it is signed by the governor.) No new beer, wine or liquor taxes were enacted. Budget Reserve is set at $400 million with a first priority on excess revenues to restore it to the full $550 million. Food shelves did not get a chickadee -type checkoff, but was allocated a direct funding of $800,000 for the biennium. While the lodging tax was increased one cent for St. Paul and Winona, and the use changed for Bloomington, no general law or use change was adopted. IMPACT OF NOT APPROVING THE LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX If a county government or city councils representing a majority of the population within a county do not approve the additional one -half cent local option sales tax, the county and all cities and special taxing jurisdictions within that county will lose all of the following state aids: LGA, HACA, equalization aid, and disparity reduction aid. An estimate of the amount of state aid that would be lost by cities in 1992 if the local option sales tax is not approved is listed in the first column. (This amount does not include county and special taxing jurisdiction aid that would also be lost.) Local governments will have the option of levying to replace aid that was lost by not approving the local option sales tax. The second and third columns list the estimated 1992 city and total tax rate increases needed to replace all aid that would be lost by not approving the local option sales tax. EXAMPLE: CRYSTAL If the local option sales tax was not adopted in Hennepin County, the City Crystal would lose an estimated $2,663,226 in state aid (from column one). In addition, the city tax rate in Crystal would increase by an estimated 26.210 (from column two) and the total tax rate in Crystal would increase by an estimated 30.168 (from column three). For example, if we assume that Crystal's city tax rate was 21.000 before the loss of any state aid, the city rate would have to increase to 47.210 (21.000 + 26.210 ) - after the loss of state aid in order to maintain the same amount of revenue. Similarly, if the total tax rate in Crystal was 120.000 before the loss of state aid, the total rate would have. to increase to 150.168 (120.000 + 30.168 ) after the loss of state aid in order to maintain the same amount of revenue. Estimated increase in tax { Estimated { rates that would occur if { state aid ( local option sales tax { to city that { is not approved { is lost if { ------ - - - - -- local option { City Total { sales tax is { Tax Rate Tax Rate A.M.M. Cities { not approved Increase Increase ANOKA { $1,667,947 ( 19.922 29.437 APPLE VALLEY { $2,401,085 { 10.410 15.352 ARDEN HILLS { $23,463 { 0.224 4.540 BAYPORT { $140,552 ( 5.079 10.659 BLAINE ( $2,466,977 { 15.445 25.512 BLOOMINGTON { $2,915,821 { 3.086 7.482 BROOKLYN CENTER ( $2,837,809 14.175 18.340 BROOKLYN PARK { $3,914,437 { 12.790 16.766 BURNSVILLE { $2,777,645 ( 5.949 11.044 CHAMPLIN { $1,186,248 { 15.540 19.241 CHANHASSEN { $725,860 { 7.911 18.463 CHASKA { $504,868 { 7.982 18.159 CIRCLE PINES { $424,391 { 22.882 32.325 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS { $2,815,726 ( 35.279 44.820 COON RAPIDS { $4,208,764 { .18.691 28.653 COTTAGE GROVE { $2,053,815 { 18.842 24.533 CRYSTAL { $2,663,226 26.210 30.168 Estimated increase in tax ( Estimated ( rates that would occur if ( state aid ( local option sales tax ( to city that ( is not approved ( is lost if ( ------- - - - - -- ( local option ( City Total ( sales tax is ( Tax Rate Tax Rate A.M.M. Cities ( not approved ( Increase Increase DAYTON ( $186,257 ( 9.811 12.956 DEEPHAVEN ( $123,397 ( 2.196 6.984 EAGAN ( $1,205,080 ( 2.313 7.387 EDEN PRAIRIE ( $51,992 ( 0.091 4.373 EDINA ( $242,548 ( 0.318 4.741 FALCON HEIGHTS ( $319,615 ( 12.675 15.404 FRIDLEY ( $2,404,543 ( 12.214 21.917 GOLDEN VALLEY ! $1,508,449 ( 6.466 10.723 HASTINGS ( $2,003,713 ( 27.258 31.399 HOPKINS ( $1,577,262 ( 11.022 15.228 INVER GROVE HEIGHTS ( $1,173,830 ( 7.595 12.156 MAHTOMEDI ( $350,988 ( 9.973 15.860 MAPLE GROVE ( $1,859,890 ( 7.462 11.386 MAPLEWOOD ( $2,012,537 ( 7.437 11.660 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ( $277,892 ( 2.368 7.412 MINNEAPOLIS ( $85,514,648 ( 32.484 36.663 MINNETONKA ( $1,377,371 ( 2.330 6.703 MOUND ( $705,408 ( 11.996 16.137 MOUNDS VIEW ( $886,822 ( 18.863 23.222 _ NEW BRIGHTON ( $1,378,912 ( 10.058 14.200 NEW HOPE ( $1,771,394 ( 12.612 16.671 NEWPORT ( $389,241 ( 16.239 21.965 NORTH ST PAUL $888,795 ( 16.796 21.016 OAKDALE ( $1,328,679 ( 14.840 20.995 ORONO ( $91,460 0.708 5.465 OSSEO ( $171,137 ( 9.367 13.370 PLYMOUTH ( $1,389,526 ( 2.816 7.153 PRIOR LAKE ( $735,926 { 11.989 24.466 RAMSEY ( $734,957 16.605 25.133 RICHFIELD ( $4,768,701 ( 25.969 30.268 ROBBINSDALE ( $2,282,382 ( 37.918 41.893 ROSEMOUNT ( $797,771 ( 11.165 16.141 ROSEVILLE ( $1,568,696 ( 4.922 9.177 SAINT ANTHONY ( $425,405 ( 7.683 11.778 SAINT FRANCIS ( $99,971 ( 10.920 19.441 SAINT LOUIS PARK ( $4,419,256 ( 11.624 15.822 SAINT PAUL ( $56,565,103 ( 39.659 43.288 SAINT PAUL PARK ( $600,773 ( 33.978 39.595 SAVAGE ( $475,898 ( 9.336 21.250 SHAKOPEE ( $521,894 ( 6.263 18.175 SHOREVIEW ( $826,374 ( 5.065 9.362 SHOREWOOD ( $253,771 3.358 7.874 SOUTH ST PAUL ( $3,345,133 38.007 43.042 SPRING LAKE PARK $369,859 ( 11.468 20.995 SPRING PARK ( $83,877 ( 5.114 9.281 STILLWATER ( $1,559,817 ( 19.382 25.128 WAYZATA ( $138,078 ( 1.673 6.170 WEST ST PAUL ( $1,932,789 ( 14.955 20.048 WOODBURY ( $1,010,669 ( 5.584 11.371 WOODLAND ( $12,413 ( 0.637 5.583 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities, 5/24/91 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date /Agenda Item Number o� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1991 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM DRUG FORFEITURE MONIES DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature - titl - Ja es Lindsay, Chief of Polic MANAGER'S RE 4 /RECOMMENDATION: > No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached yes ) At this time, the police department has $10,555 available in forfeiture monies. The department's forfeiture committee has met to consider the requests and has made recommendations to me for expenditures of these funds. I concur with 'the recommendations and am submitting the following request for City Council authorization. The first item is the purchase of twelve mobile scanners. These scanners will be installed in all marked and several unmarked police vehicles. The scanners allow the officers to monitor transmissions from other police departments, so they are aware of incidents developing in adjoining communities. These scanners cost ninety -five dollars ($95.00) each which includes adapters and shipping costs, for a total of eleven hundred forty dollars ($1,140.00). The next item for purchase are three new screens for the new marked squads. The new screens are a plexi -glass type instead of the wire mesh. This is requested as it will help protect the officer from the perpetrators spitting and the like. We propose to outfit new vehicles with these screens as they come in instead of converting all present marked vehicles. Three screens at three hundred fifty-one dollars ($351.00) each for a total of one thousand fifty -three dollars ($1,053.00). The next item are two- drawer filing cabinets for the investigators. Currently, with their modular desks, they have very limited file space. These two- drawer files will fit under their desks and give them more space to store their files. Seven units at . two hundred four dollars ($204.00) each for a total of fourteen hundred twenty -eight dollars ($1,428.00). With the last forfeiture monies, we purchased new micro - cassette recorders for the police officers. At this time, the typists are using standard cassette transcribers with adapters for micro - cassettes. This enabled them to type both standard and micro - cassette tapes with one machine. Unfortunately with the high use, we have a high incident of breakdown with the adapter units. As we will have all officers on micro - cassettes, we will purchase new micro - cassette transcribers for the four typing stations. Four transcribers at four hundred forty-nine dollars $449.00 tY ( ) each for a total of seventeen hundred ninety-six dollars 1796.00 tY ( . ) The last item for urchase is a new hard -sided camera case for use b the r y investigative division. The 35mm camera, with flash unit and assorted lenses, is available for use by all investigators. Because of this, it is most convenient to keep the equipment together in one case. As the case protects all this equipment and goes through some hard use, we find it is more beneficial to have a hard -sided case for the protection of the equipment. The cost of this item is two hundred twenty -one dollars ($221.00). We are also requesting to transfer an additional two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) to the telephone line item in the budget. These monies are to cover monthly billing costs on the mobile phones we earlier purchased. Monies for monthly costs are running higher than what was anticipated at the time of purchase. We have calculated we will need approximately two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) for this service for the remainder of 1991. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council adopt the resolution amending the 1991 General Fund Budget, authorizing the purchase of equipment and the transfer of funds from drug forfeiture monies. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1991 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM DRUG FORFEITURE MONIES WHEREAS, Section 7.08 of the City Charter does provide for the increase of a budget appropriation by the City Council if the actual receipts exceed the estimates, but not to exceed the actual receipts; and WHEREAS, the actual receipts for the drug forfeiture account #3897 do exceed the estimates by $7,638.00; and WHEREAS, 1988 Laws of Minnesota C.665 provides for seizure and forfeiture of property used in commission of crime and proceeds of crime and contraband; and WHEREAS, said laws require that said property kept under said laws may be used only in the performance of official duties of the appropriate agency and may not be used for any other purpose; and WHEREAS, 70% of the sale of property may be used by the Brooklyn Center Police Department as a supplement to its operating fund for use in law enforcement; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by the adoption of Resolution No. 88 -195 on November 21, 1988; did authorize the Director of Finance to appropriate said proceeds to the. Police Department Budget as they are received to the extent that said proceeds exceed five thousand dollars in any calendar year and then said excess will be reported to the City Council for its appropriation; and RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, the City Manager and the Chief of Police have recommended the purchase of twelve (12) scanners, three (3) screens, seven (7) two- drawer filing cabinets, four (4) micro - cassette transcribers, and one (1) hard -sided camera case; and the use of funds for monthly service for the mobile telephones in squad cars; and have further recommended that these costs be appropriated from the balance of the drug forfeiture money. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to authorize the transfer of $2,000 for monthly service for the mobile telephones; $1,140 for the purchase of twelve scanners; $1,053 for the purchase of three screens; $1,379 for the purchase of seven two - drawer filing caginets; $1,796 for the purchase of four transcribers; and $221 for the purchase of one hard -sided camera case; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to authorize an appropriation of $7,589 for these purchases and costs; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to amend the 1991 General Fund Budget as follows: 1) Increase the Estimated Revenues from Forfeited Drug Money (01- 3897) by $7,638.00. 2) Increase the Appropriations for the following line items: a Police o ice Protection #31 Operating Supplies General #4220: $1,140 b) Police Protection #31, Telephones #4322: $2,000 c) Police Protection #31, Office Furniture & Equipment #4551: $3,175 RESOLUTION NO. d) Police Protection #31, Other Equipment #4552: $221 e) Police Protection #31, Mobile Equipment #4553: $1,053 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- 10-991 Agenda Item Number Z a // REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1991 PAY PLAN TO RECOGNIZE A REORGANIZATION IN THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE DEPT. APPROVAL: Gera R. Barone, Personnel Coordinator MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached XX Attached is a June 4, 1991, memo from Mayor Paulson regarding a proposal for use of the savings from this reorganization. If the council wishes to consider these proposals together, I would request a motion approving the reorganization concept and authorizing us to make payroll adjustments and start election • training for positions described in the staff reorganization proposal. SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) Several staffing changes in the city manager's office are recommended as outlined in the attached memorandum to City Manager Gerald Splinter dated May 22, 1991. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Pass a Resolution Amending the 1991 Pay Plan to Recognize a Reorganization in the City Manager's Office. �, Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1991 PAY PLAN TO RECOGNIZE A REORGANIZATION IN THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE WHEREAS, the administrative aide, city manager's office, was appointed acting city clerk on December 31, 1990, and the position of administrative aide has not been filled during this temporary appointment; and WHEREAS, because of reductions in the City of Brooklyn Center's local government aid (LGA) from the State of Minnesota in 1991 and in anticipation of future reductions in LGA, a reorganization of duties and responsibilities of personnel in the city manager's office will reduce by one (1) the number of authorized positions in this department. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER that the 1991 pay plan is hereby amended as follows: 1. The city manager's office section of schedule A, 1991 Positions Authorized is amended to delete one (1) city clerk, one (1) administrative aide, and one (1) administration/ licenses secretary and to add one (1) administrative assistant/ deputy city clerk and one (1) administration secretary /deputy city clerk, both of which will not be organized, but will both be exempt from overtime as administrative personnel. 2. Supervisory - professional Schedule C is amended to delete the positions of city clerk and administrative aide, city manager's office, and to add the following positions, grade ranges, and monthly salary ranges. MONTHLY POSITION GRADE RANGE SALARY RANGE Administrative Assistant /Deputy City Clerk S12A -S16C $2,182 - $2,655 Administrative Secretary /Deputy City Clerk S8A -S12C $1,977 - $2,406 3. Technical- secretarial Schedule D is amended to delete the position of administration /licenses secretary and to replace the grade range and hourly wage range of the administration/ elections secretary with the following: HOURLY POSITION GRADE RANGE WAGE RANGE Administration /Elections Secretary T13A -T17C $9.31 - $11.33 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. i MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Geralyn R. Barone, Personnel Coordinator DATE: May 22, 1991 SUBJECT: Proposed Staffing Changes for the City Manager's Office As you know, several temporary staffing appointments have been in effect in the city manager's office since December 1990. In addition, the City's financial status has been threatened by the State of Minnesota's funding crisis. Based on our discussions and meetings with other staff members in your office, I have prepared a proposal to shift duties and redefine positions to meet the needs of the office at a reduced cost while maintaining current levels of service. Included in this memo are cost comparisons and a brief description of proposed job assignments. BACKGROUND Patti Page was appointed acting city clerk after the passing of City Clerk Darlene Weeks. Ms. Page has continued to perform a number of duties previously assigned to her as administrative aide, including purchasing for the City, while assuming the responsibilities of the city clerk. . Ginny Smith has been filling in temporarily until Administration /Licenses Secretary Sharon Knutson returns on June 3, 1991, from a parental leave of absence. Ann Odden of Northern Counties Secretarial Services has been taking and preparing minutes for the city council and EDA during this time period to relieve Ms. Page of these tasks. PROPOSAL Following is a summary of job duties for the position of city clerk. The proposal we have developed calls for the elimination of the city clerk's job as we have known it over the past five years, a reshuffling of the city clerk's responsibilities amongst the remaining staff as described herein, and a shifting of wage ranges for several of the support staff positions. City Clerk's Major Job Duties Performed by Darlene Weeks • Supervised the registration of voters and the conduct of City elections • Maintained all official City records • Acted as secretary to the city manager • Handled workers' compensation claims • Supervised the clerical and secretarial support staff in the city manager's office 1991 PAY PLAN POSITION PROPOSED POSITION AND MAJOR JOB DUTIES AND MAJOR JOB DUTIES PATTI PAGE Administrative Assistant/ Administrative Aide Deputy City Clerk • Coordinates and prepares city council meeting agenda • Acts as City purchasing coordinator • Prepares city council and EDA minutes • Acts as secretary to the city manager • Coordinates City purchasing activities under direction of the EDA coordinator • Handles workers' compensation and auto accident claims • Conducts miscellaneous support activities for the city manager's office and EDA • Oversees city council agenda preparation process • Oversees publishing and maintenance of city ordinances • Handles various administrative and city clerk duties assigned by the city manager SHARON KNUTSON Administration/ Administration Secretary/ Licenses Secretary Deputy City Clerk • Performs all clerical duties related to issuance of licenses • Supervises the registration of voters and the conduct of City elections • Acts as secretary to the EDA coordinator and personnel coordinator • Maintains all official City records • Updates listings on City's cable TV channel • Performs all clerical duties related to issuance of licenses • Maintains inventory of expendable office supplies • Acts as secretary to the EDA coordinator and personnel coordinator • Maintains city hall's machine room • Obtains and maintains records for licenses for City vehicles • Performs all clerical duties regarding weed control • Performs other support activities for the city manager's office and EDA • Performs other support activities for the city manager's office and EDA DOLORES NAREY Administration/ Administration/ Elections Secretary Elections Secretary • Provides staff support for voter registration and the conduct of elections • Provides staff support for voter registration and the conduct of elections • Photo copies city council meeting agenda and agenda packets • Coordinates, prepares, and photocopies city council meeting agenda and agenda packets • Types city council minutes • Maintains official books for City ordinances, resolutions and city council minutes • Maintains official books for City ordinances, resolutions, and city council minutes • Acts as secretary to administrative assistant/deputy city clerk • Performs other support activities for the city manager's office • Maintains inventory of expendable office supplies • Maintains city hall's machine room • Performs other support activities for the city manager's OTHER ASSIGNMENT CHANGES CITY MANAGER JERRY SPLINTER • Will assume the official title of city clerk, delegating most assignments to the two deputy city clerks (as had been done before Darlene Weeks was appointed city clerk). PERSONNEL COORDINATOR GERALYN BARONE • Will now serve as supervisor of the clerical and secretarial support staff in the city manager's office (excluding the administrative assistant /deputy city clerk, who will report to the city manager). EDA COORDINATOR BRAD HOFFMAN • Will relinquish responsibilities as purchasing coordinator, but will serve in an advisory capacity to the administrative assistant /deputy city clerk on purchasing matters. Will no longer serve as weed inspector. PART -TIME ADMINISTRATION CLERK KARLA WICKRE • Will update listings on the City's cable TV channel. RECEPTIONIST /SWITCHBOARD OPERATOR JEANNE DORN • No changes. EDA ASSISTANT COORDINATOR TOM BUBLITZ • No changes. NORTHERN COUNTIES SECRETARIAL SERVICES - ANN ODDEN • Will continue to take and prepare city council and EDA meeting minutes. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT • Will assume all duties regarding weed control. COST ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED CHANGES Attached is information regarding the proposed salary ranges for the new positions recommended in this memo. The maximum savings in salary alone is $23,354, and the information provides a comparison that arrives at this figure. RECOMMENDATION If possible, we should place this item on the June 10, 1991, city council agenda for discussion and approval. 0 0 0 ANALYSIS OF POSITIONS AFFECTED BY PROPOSED STAFFING CHANGES IN THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE 1991 PAY PLAN PROPOSED POSITION AND GRADE RANGE ANNUAL WAGE RANGE POSITION AND GRADE RANGE ANNUALWAGE CITY CLERK S21A - S25C $32,700 - $39,795 ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE ADMIN /ASS'T /DEPUTY CLERK SSA - S12C $23,721 - $28,868 S12A - S16C $26,184 - $31,865 ADMIN /LICENSES SECRETARY ADMIN SEC'TRY /DEPUTY CLERK T13A - T17C $19,432 - $23,648 S8A - S12C $23,721 - $28,868 ADMIN /ELECTIONS SECRETARY ADMIN /ELECTIONS SEC'TRY T9A - T13C $17,605 - $21,424 T13A - T17C $19,432 - $23,648 MAXIMUM SALARY COSTS 1991 PAY PLAN POSITIONS COMPARED TO PROPOSED STAFFING LEVELS 1991 PAY PLAN PROPOSED ANNUAL ANNUAL POSITION MAXIMUM WAGE POSITION MA?OIV W WAGE City Clerk $ 39,795 Administrative Aide 28,868 Admin. Asst. /Deputy City Clerk $31,865 Administration /License Secretary 23,648 Admin. Sec. /Deputy City Clerk 28,868 Administration /Elections Secretry 21,424 Admin. /Elections Secretary 23,648 Secretarial Service 6,000 TOTAL 1113 5 TOTAL 190,381 MAXIMUM COST SAVINGS IN SALARY: $23,354 MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Todd Paulson, Mayor DATE: June 4, 1991 SUBJECT: Proposed Staffing Changes for the City Manager's Office and Proposal for Staff Position I greatly appreciate the work that Geralyn, your staff and yourself have done in reducing the staffing of the City Manager's office since the vacancy in the City Clerk's office. The proposed staffing changes recommended by Geralyn in her memorandum of May 22, 1991, make good sense. It also provides the council and me an opportunity to re- direct some resources toward some of the goals and duties which we have not had the resources to fully pursue and conclude. BACKGROUND I believe there is consensus on the Council on three things related to this proposal: * We all campaigned for a pro- active Council and gave assurances that we would seek public input and be responsive. * We all think that communication is one of the few areas that the City currently needs major improvements upon. * We all believe in the proper separation of roles between the Council acting as policy maker and public opinion taker; and the City Manager and staff acting as policy implementor and City administrator. As I've told you and others previously, I am increasingly frustrated at: 1) our inability to move forward faster in our ability to improve communications and citizen participation and 2) the lack of resources available to the Mayor and Council to carry out their roles and responsibilities. Therefore, in light of Geralyn's proposed staffing changes and reduction, and the Council's proposed staffing needs, it is requested that the staffing changes include a staff position whose title or responsibilities would include or could encompass Communications Director, Administrative Assistant to the Mayor and Council, Recording Secretary, and Constituent Services Coordinator. The duties and job description of this proposed position are as follows: COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR /ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL/RECORDING SECRETARY /CONSTITUENT SERVICES COORDINATOR I. Leads Development, Implementation and Administration of City Communications with Citizens Including: City newsletter composition Press releases to: Local Papers - Post New, Northwest News and Star Tribune Television - Local. Cable Channel and Channels 2, 4, 5, 9, and 11 - Desktop Publishing for newsletters, flyers, etc. - Communications Advisory Commission - Staff Liaison and Administrator - Update listings on City's cable TV channel - Cable casting of City Council meetings - Promotes citizen participation activities - Drafts and revises speeches - Prepares public hearings for notices, dates, schedule on non - Planning or Engineering matters - Schedules and programs town meetings, conferences, retreats, public open forums, and neighborhood meetings - Implement town meeting format for local democracy improvement - Advocate for representative democracy and empowering grassroots decision making II. Serves as Administrative Assistant to the - Mayor and City council Coordinates Volunteers and Activities * Filling Commission posts * Volunteer Network established among Brooklyn Center organizations * Recruitment, training and administrating City volunteers * Computerized record of activities * Staff Liaison to all Commissions Handles the mail, phones and scheduling of the Mayor and Council Acts as secretary to the Mayor and Council Upkeep of files on: * Constituents * Issues * Organizations Promotes a pro- active City Council - Is present when Mayor /Council cannot be - Prepares correspondence, reports, proposals and other materials on word processor for Mayor /Council - Communicates with organizations for input, support and coordination - Coordinate with other City staff - City resource for public relations and marketing and communications Scheduling of conference rooms - C & B III. Coordinates Constituent Services for Residents and Non - Residents Receives, processes and answers complaints, and other communications from citizens directed to City Council Maintains filing system that: * Follows through * Provides a responsive response * Tracks complaint areas * Operates a tickler system for deadlines and timely responses Works with LOGIS program on complaints and constituent service IV. Performs Recording Secretary Function at Council Meetings and Public Hearings Recording of meetings on audio or video Prepares Council minutes Same duties for EDA V. Performs other Support Activities as Assigned by the Mayor or City Council FSOL CES NEEDEn F'C1R NEW POSITION Personnel * One full -time salaried position * Benefits, health insurance, vacation and sick leave Equipment * Computer and laser jet printer - Hewlett Packard * Desktop publishing software * Office equipment - desk, chair, phone, typewriter, etc. * Dictation machine /transcriber * Lighting, lamps Physical Construction * Building glass wall With wood door in hallway just past the engineering door and just before, after or at the fire extinguisher compartment * Improved lighting or electrical outlets, if necessary FUNDING SOURCES FO ED FOR NEW POSITION Savings from the elimination of City Clerk's position Savings from not contracting for Council minutes Savings from. possible elimination of part -time position in City Manager's office - Savings from staff time no longer devoted to tasks undertaken by new position If needed, a portion of the $106,556 that is currently in the 1991 Contingency fund could also be used As the list of duties shows (and grows) it appears clear the position could easily be full -time status. However, if budgetary constraints require, the position could begin on a temporary, part- time basis at first. Although, we wouldn't be able to attract qualified candidates under that arrangement. I ask this proposal receive a recommendation for approval by you and your staff so it can be incorporated into the proposed staffing changes which the Council will be discussing at its June 10, 1991, meeting. Please call me with any questions, comments or ideas. Thanks again to you and your staff for the efficient way this personnel matter has been handled. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 6 -I0-9I Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF ANAGREEMENT BETWEEN METROPOLITAN CLINIC OF COUNSELING, INC. AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR AN EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM DEPT. APPROVAL: Geralyn R.4Barone, Personnel Coordinator MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOM IENDATION: • No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached • SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) The contract for the City's employee assistance program is due for renewal for the July 1, 1991, to June 30, 1992, period. Attached is a memorandum and supplementary materials describing the program and its use by employees in the past year. The City's utilization of the program in the 1990 -1991 period increased slightly from last year. The cost per employee for the 1991 -1992 period will decrease by $1.per employee from the previous contract period. The total increases slightly to account for the increase in number of full -time employees. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Pass a Resolution Authorizing Execution of an Agreement between Metropolitan Clinic of Counseling, Inc. and the City of Brooklyn Center for an Employee Assistance Program. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN METROPOLITAN CLINIC OF COUNSELING, INC. AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR AN EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute an agreement with Metropolitan Clinic of Counseling, Inc. to provide an Employee Assistance Program for permanent full -time City employees and their dependents and household members. 2. The cost of the Employee Assistance Program shall not exceed $2,384 for the 1991 -1992 contract period. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. STATEMENT OF AGREEMENT between METROPOLITAN CLINIC OF COUNSELING, INC. and CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER This agreement is for the period July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992. In this agreement the term EMPLOYER refers to CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, and MCC refers to Metropolitan Clinic of Counseling, Inc. 1. SERVICES MCC has agreed to provide diagnostic (problem assessment and short-term counseling) and referral services - (motivational counseling, referral to competent care and follow -up) to all employees of the EMPLOYER, and to the employees' dependents and household members. 2. SERVICE AVAILABILITY Confidential assessment and referral services will be available from any of MCC's eight office locations in the Minneapolis -St. Paul metropolitan area, and two days a week in Northfield. Professional staff at MCC will respond to emergency and after -hours calls on a 24 -hour daily basis. 3. ADDITIONAL SERVICES MCC agrees to periodically provide (at no cost) promotional brochures to maintain employee awareness. MCC agrees to provide to the EMPLOYER a monthly statistical report regarding utilization of the services, and a detailed report at year -end. 4. EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITIES To assure adequate acceptability and utilization of this program, the EMPLOYER agrees to participate in recommended program exposure and employee education regarding available services. If the EMPLOYER chooses to conduct a mailing to employees, the mailing will be at the EMPLOYER's expense. The EMPLOYER agrees to provide MCC with: a) roster of names of employees covered under this program; and b) copy of current health plan coverages including hospitalization. 5. FEE The base retainer fee for the agreement period is $1,192.00. (This fee is based upon the per employee rate of $8.00 for 149 employees.) The base retainer fee will cover all assessment and referral services up to a 3.0% annual utilization. The utilization fee will be billed for each one percent (1 %) or portion thereof increase in the utilization above 3.0 %, in accordance with the following schedule: Base retainer fee :(3.0% usage) 8.00 /employee = $1,192.00 3.01-4.00% 10.67 /employee = $1,589.83 4.01-5.00% 13.33 /employee = $1,986.17 5.01 or more + maximum fee 16.00 /employee = $2,384.00 As utilization increases, the above specified amounts will be added to the EMPLOYER's account, and will be integrated into subsequent billings. Pro -rata adjustments in the retainer fee will be computed quarterly when deviations occur which are greater than five percent (5 %) of the original number of employees as stated in this agreement. Invoices are due and payable within 30 days of invoice date. Past due accounts are subject to 1.5% per month service charge, which is 18% per annum. METROPOLITAN CLINIC OF COUNSELING, INC. DATE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DATE MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Geralyn R. Barone, Personnel Coordinator DATE: June 6, 1991 SUBJECT: Employee Assistance Program In 1977, the Brooklyn Center City Council adopted a "Statement of Policy for the Employee Assistance Program." The policy (attached) established a program in Brooklyn Center and defines the purpose of the program. The policy established a procedure whereby employees experiencing chemical, financial, marital, or other problems which may affect job performance could voluntarily seek professional diagnostic and referral services. When possible, employee benefits, such as sick leave and hospitalization, can be used for treatment or counseling. All contact with the diagnostic and referral service is confidential. One other option available under the program is a supervisory referral, in contrast to the self referral, under which the employee voluntarily uses the service; under a supervisory referral, a supervisor may refer an employee to the diagnostic and referral service if job performance is affected. The City Council selected the Metropolitan Clinic of Counseling, Inc. to provide diagnostic and referral services under the City's program. The service is provided through an annual contract paid by the City and there is no direct charge to employees. If an employee is referred to some form of treatment and the employee chooses to participate in the recommended treatment, such cost is assumed by the employee or his or her medical insurance coverage. COST OF PROGRAM The Metropolitan Clinic of Counseling, Inc. offers a fee schedule to public sector employers which is based on a utilization rate of the program. Private sector employers are charged a flat rate. Essentially, the cost of a program with a utilization rate increases as usage increases. The past cost of the program and the utilization rates are shown in the attached table. The fee schedule for the 1991 -1992 period will increase slightly because of the increase in the number of employees. The per employee rate, however, has been reduced by $1 from the previous contract year. The fee schedule is as follows: Base retainer fee $8.00 x 149 = $1,192.00 (0 - 3% utilization) UTILIZATION FEE 3.01 - 4% usage $10.67 /employee = $1,589.83 4.01 - 5% usage $13.33 /employee = $1,986.17 5.01% or more = Maximum fee $16.00 /employee = $2,384.00 Maximum cost of the program will not exceed $2,384.00. HOW THE PROGRAM WORKS The services to employees provided by the Employee Assistance Program include an assessment of the problem and its severity, the development of an individualized treatment plan, assistance in obtaining appropriate and effective treatment, and follow up to review the treatment results. If the employee and the employee assistance counselor decide that further professional treatment is advisable, the cost of future treatment will be the responsibility of the employee or his or her insurance provider. A confidential summary report of the 1990 -1991 contract period (through April) is attached to this memorandum. Other services offered by this Employee Assistance Program are a series of seminars which can be offered to employees at no charge to the City. Current seminar topics include stress management, physical fitness, building healthy relationships, and nutrition basics. RECOMMENDATION Utilization of the program by employees continues to increase. Staff is recommending renewal of the Employee Assistance Program through Metropolitan Clinic of Counseling, Inc. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CONTRACT PERIOD COST TO CITY UTILIZATION RATE 1977 -1978 $119 (City information not received a available 90% reim- bursement from State of MN) 1978 -1979 $605 (50% information not reimburse- available ment from State) 1979 -1980 $1,020.00 4.3% 1980 -1981 $1,476.00 7.3% 1981 -1982 $ 868.00 2.4% 1982 -1983 $ 854.00 less than 1% 1983 -1984 $1,457.50 4.8% 1984 -1985 $1,166.25 3.2% 1985 -1986 $1,250.00 3.2% 1986 -1987 $ 937.50 1.6% 1987 -1988 $1,679.58 4.8% 1988 -1989 $2,080.00 7.7% 1989 -1990 $2,278.00 6.2% 1990 -1991 $2,346.00 7.2% Statement of Policy Employee Assistance Program City of Brooklyn Center The City of Brooklyn Center recognizes. that a wide range of problems, not directly associated with an employee's job responsibilities, can affect job performance. In most cases, the employee will overcome such personal problems independently and the employee's job performance will not be affected. ' In other cases, usual supervisory assistance or discipline will serve to motivate or guide the employee to solve his or her problems and the employee' -s job performance will return•to an acceptable level. In some instances, neither the efforts and resources of the employee nor the guidance by the supervisor has the desired effect of resolving the employee's problems. In such cases, unsatisfactory job performance may persist over a period of time, either on a constant or intermittent basis. _} The City of Brooklyn Center believes it is in the best interest of the employee', the employee's family and the City to provide an employee service which deals with such persistent problems. Beginning June 15, 1977 it is the policy of the City of Brooklyn Center to handle such employee problems within the following framework: _ ' 1. The City of Brooklyn Center is concerned with the health and well -being of its employees but it has no desire to interfere with employees' private lives . The administration will be concerned with an employee's personal problems only when job performance is adversely affected, or when problems reflect dis- credit on the City. - 2. This policy applies to all regular full -time employees of the • City of Brooklyn Center regardless of their job title or responsibilities. •3. The program is available to families and dependents of employees as well as the employees themselves since it is recognized that problems at home can have an adverse effect on an employee's ability to function while at • 4. If employees or their dependents. realize that they have personal problems that may benefit from the assistance provided by the Employee Assistance Program, they are encouraged to seek assistance on their own and will b_ e supported in efforts to do so. - S a program m wi employee's P rticipation in the pr g will "not jeopardize an lob security, promotional opportunities,. or reputation: Page 2 Statement of Policy Employee Assistance Program 6. All records and discussions of personal problems will.be handled in a confidential manner as are other medical records. Records will be kept by the diagnostic and referral agency and will not become part of the employee's personnel file. 7. Past experience shows that a significant portion of the problems encountered in such programs are related to problems involving • the use of alcohol and /or other drugs. It will be a policy of the City of Brooklyn Center that chemical dependency is generally recognized as a treatable illness and assuming the cooperation of the employee in treatment, will be dealt with as such. 8. When performance problems are not corrected with normal super- visory attention, employees may be referred to assistance to ._._ determine if personal problems are causing unsatisfactory per- formance. If performance problems are corrected, no further _ action will be taken_. If performance problems persist, the employee will be subject to normal corrective procedures. 9. In cases where it is necessary, employees may be granted sick leave, vacation or unpaid leave of absence for time for treatment or rehabilitation on the same basis as it is granted for health or disability problems. 10: Employee compliance with the program is strictly voluntary. If an employee is referred to the Employee Assistance Program in lieu of other corrective or disciplinary measures and chooses not to participate in the Employee Assistance Program, then ' normal corrective measures will apply. Refusal to participate cannot be used as evidence to evaluate job performance. 11. There is no charge for the diagnostic and referral services, however, if costs are incurred for rehabilitation services that are not covered by insurance or other benefits, that cost will be the responsibility of the employee. 12. The program is not designed to provide ongoing treatment or counseling, but rather to provide early identification, motivation, and referral to appropriate care - giving resources in order to facilitate the resolution of any serious personal problems the employee might have. . 13. • This policy does not alter or replace existing administrative Policy or contractual agreements, but serves as an adjunct to assist in their utilization. , Metropolitan Clinic of Counseling, Inc. Employee Assistance Program Monthly Progress Report for aq City of Brooklyn Center Through May 31, 1991 Number of Referred by Self Drug /Alcohol Month Clients Employees Dependents Supervisor Referral Related Jul 90 2 1 1 0 2 0 Aug 90 3 3 0 0 3 0 Sep 90 2 1 1 0 2 0 Oct 90 1 1 0 0 1 0 Nov 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dec 90 1 1 0 1 0 0 Jan 91 1 1 0 0 1 1 Feb 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mar 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 Apr 91 1 0 1 0 1 0 May 91 1 1 0 0 1 0 Year -to -Date 12 9 3 1 11 1 Ple ca 1 me if you ve any questions. Acaq unt manager This report is based on information as it is presented by the client's initial telephone call to our office. It is possible that this information will change during the assessment process. The most complete and accurate data will be recorded on our detailed statistical report, prepared at the end of your contract year. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date &10-91 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A BROOKLYN CENTER AD HOC CITY COMMUNICATIONS TASK FORCE AND DEFINING DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES DEPT. APPROVAL: Geralyn R. Aarone, Personnel Coordinator MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONEMENDATION: Z } " No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • In 1990, the city council commissioned the firm of Coleman & Christison, Inc., to prepare a communications audit of the City of Brooklyn Center, and this was completed in August 1990. One recommendation generated from the audit is to establish a communications committee to serve in an advisory capacity to the city council. Attached is a resolution establishing such a committee with the general framework for operation used by other City commissions and committees. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Approve a Resolution Establishing a Brooklyn Center Ad Hoc City Communications Task Force and Defining Duties and Responsibilities. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A BROOKLYN CENTER AD HOC CITY COMMUNICATIONS TASK FORCE AND DEFINING DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council has authorized the creation of an ad hoc task force for the express purpose of reviewing the City's communications efforts and assisting the City Council in formulating priorities related to communications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center City Council that there is hereby established within the City of Brooklyn Center an advisory ad hoc City Communications Task Force as follows: Subdivision 1. TITLE: This organization shall be known as the Brooklyn Center ad hoc City Communications Task Force. Subdivision 2. SCOPE: The scope of activity of this Task Force shall consist of advising the City Council regarding matters relevant to the City's communications efforts. Subdivision 3. PURPOSE: The general purpose of this Task Force shall be to evaluate and recommend methods to improve communications between the City of Brooklyn Center and its citizens. Subdivision 4. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: In fulfillment of its purpose, the duties and responsibilities of the Task Force shall be to: (1) Review and evaluate the City's 1990 communications audit prepared by Coleman & Christison, Inc. (2) Evaluate tools to solicit input from citizens, such as town meetings or a professional survey. (3) Evaluate use of personnel and /or consulting services to accomplish communications goals. (4) Evaluate the use of cable television as a method to communicate with citizens. Subdivision 5. COMPOSITION: The Task Force shall be composed of a chairperson and six (6) members, all of whom shall be appointed and serve as set forth in Subdivision 6. RESOLUTION NO. Subdivision 6. MEMBERS METHOD OF SELECTION - TERM OF OFFICE - REMOVAL: Chairperson The Chairperson shall be appointed by the Mayor with majority consent of the City Council. The Chairperson may be removed by the Mayor with majority consent of the Council. The Chairperson shall assure fulfillment of the following responsibilities in addition to those otherwise described herein: 1. Preside over meetings of the Task Force; 2. Appear or appoint a representative to appear, as necessary, before the City Council to present the viewpoint of the Task Force in matters relevant to the City's communications efforts as it relates to business under consideration by the City Council; 3. Review all official minutes of the City Council and other advisory commissions for the purpose of informing the City Communications Task Force of matters relevant to City finances. Vice Chairperson A Vice Chairperson shall be appointed by the Mayor with majority consent of the city council from the members of the Task Force. The Vice Chairperson shall perform such duties as may be assigned by the Chairperson and shall assume the responsibilities of the chair in the absence of the Chairperson. Members' Term of Office Members of the Task Force shall be appointed by the Mayor with majority consent of the Council. The terms of office shall be for the life of the Task Force as set forth in Subdivision 11. In the event an appointed member suffers from an extended illness, disability, or other activity preventing proper fulfillment of duties, responsibilities, rules and regulations of the Task Force, the member may be temporarily replaced during the temporary leave by an interim member appointed by the Mayor with majority consent of the City Council. Qualification for Membership At least four members of the Task Force shall be residents de i nts of the City of Brooklyn Center while serving on the Task Force, shall have been residents of said City for at least one year prior to their appointment, and shall represent an interest in the i RESOLUTION NO. communications of the city. The other Task Force members shall represent local media organizations such as newspapers and cable television or, if these representatives are not available, shall also be residents of the City of Brooklyn Center. Representation Requirements Due regard shall be given by the Mayor in appointing Task Force members with geographical distribution within the City, and the representative nature of the Task Force in terms of sex, religion, ethnic, racial, age, handicapped, employment and employer groups. Conflict of Interest Members shall comply with provisions of the City of Brooklyn Center's business ethics policy. Resignations- Removal from Office - Vacancies Members may resign voluntarily or may be removed from office by the Mayor with consent by majority vote of the City Council. Three consecutive absences from duly called Task Force meetings or absences from a majority of duly called Task Force meetings within one calendar year shall constitute automatic resignation from office. The City Manager shall inform the Mayor of such automatic resignations. Vacancies in the Task Force shall be filled by Mayoral appointment with majority consent of the City Council. Compensation Members shall serve without compensation. Subdivision 7. RULES AND PROCEDURES: The Task Force shall adopt such rules and procedures not inconsistent with these provisions as may be necessary for the proper execution and conduct of business. Subdivision 8. MEETINGS: The initial meeting of the Task Force shall be convened at the call of the Chairperson within thirty (30) days after appointment by the Council. Thereafter, regular meetings shall be held with date and time to be determined by the Task Force. Special meetings may be called by the chairperson. Subdivision 9. STAFF: The City Manager shall serve as staff to the Task Force. The City Manager, or his designee, shall perform such clerical and research duties on behalf of the Task Force as may be assigned by the chairperson. RESOLUTION NO, Subdivision 10. EX OFFICIO MEMBERS: The Mayor or his or her Councilperson- appointee shall serve as an ex officio member of the Task Force, privileged to speak on any matter but without a vote, and shall provide a liaison between the Task Force and the City Council. Subdivision 11. TASK FORCE TERM: The provisions of this resolution shall expire on June 30, 1992, unless specifically extended by the City Council on or before said date. 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 6-10-91 Agenda Item Number / K REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution Accepting Bids and Authorizing the Purchase of Rubber Flooring for Park Buildings DEPT. APPROVAL: A�dfti' PA4�' Patti Page, Deputy dh Clerk MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOABMNDATION: ^� No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) An appropriation of $21,000 was approved in the 1991 Parks Maintenance budget for the purchase of 5,000 square feet of rubber flooring for various park buildings. The rubber flooring will be installed in the following park buildings: Evergreen, West Palmer, Northport, Grandview, Kylawn, Orchard Lane, Brooklane and Firehouse. Three bids were received and opened on May. 16, 1991. The low bid was submitted by Minnesota Playground. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION I recommend approval of the attached resolution. l�K Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF RUBBER FLOORING FOR PARK BUILDINGS WHEREAS, an appropriation was approved in the 1991 budget for the purchase of 5,000 square feet of rubber flooring for park buildings; and WHEREAS, three bids were received as follows: Company Bid Minnesota Playground $15,900.00 Kiefer Sports Group $16,750.00 Great Plains Floor Coverings $18,710.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the purchase of 5,000 square feet of rubber flooring for park buildings from Minnesota Playground, in the amount of $15,900 is hereby approved. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Licenses to be approved by the City Council on June 10, 1991: A MUSEMENT DEVICES - OPERATOR Brookdale East Cinema 5801 John Martin Dr. Children's Palace 5900 Shingle Ck. Pky. Days Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd. Ground Round, Inc. 2545 Co. Rd. 10 La Casita Restaurant 2101 Freeway Blvd. T. Wright's 5800 Shingle Ck. Pky. United Artists Theatre Circuit 5810 Shingle Ck. Pky.�{�� Chief of Police v A MUSEMENT DEVICES - VENDOR B & K Music & Sales 133 Spring Valley Cir. Carousel International Corporation P.O. Box 307 D.V.M. Inc. D /B /A Dahlco 296 North Pascal Theisen Vending Co. 3804 Nicollet Ave. N. �ief of Police C ATERING FOOD VEHICL F:Leck Concessions 16936 Eveleth St NE �_l`l t x� A- Sanitarian I TINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Betsy Medley 1762 Canyon Lane Brooklyn Center Lioness 5405 Queen Ave. N. Brooklyn Center Park and Recreation 6301 Shingle Ck. Pky. Brooklyn Center Park and Recreation 6301 Shingle Ck. Pky. Brooklyn Center Park and Recreation 6301 Shingle Ck. 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. �f Straight's Concessions 3110 Idaho Ave. N. '�- Sanitarian M ECHANICAL SYSTEMS Allan Mechanical, Inc. 6020 Culligan Way Construction Mechanical Services 1307 Sylvan Street Thermex Corporation 4850 Park Glen Road r �" United Heating and A/C 7909 30th Avenue N. Building Official R DWELLING Renewal: Shingle Creek Tower 6221 Shingle Ck. Pky. Gerald L. McGuire The Village at River West Carlin Shefveland 5308 Emerson Avenue N. Jack and Nancy Wold 5907 -5909 June Ave. N. Richard M. Schurman 4204 Lakebreeze Avenue N. James and Bobbie Simons 4210 Lakebreeze Avenue 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 Avenue N. Building Official SIGN HANGER jt Sign Art, Co. 2535 Pilot Knob Rd. #121 Building Official AL SWIMMING POOL Fun Services 3701 50th Avenue N. Twin Lake North Apartments 4539 58th Avenue N. Sanitarian GENERAL APPROVAL: P.P P. Page, Dep y Clerk