Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 08-26 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AUGUST 26 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. August 12, 1991 - Regular Session 8. Planning Commission Items: (7:15 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 91005 submitted by Investors Savings Bank requesting site and building plan approval to construct a 9,370 sq. ft. combination. bank and office building on the site of the old Green Mill Restaurant at Brooklyn Boulevard. This application was first reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its February 28, 1991, meeting. The applicant requested that the application's review by the City Council be delayed pending their re-evaluation of the proposal. Investors Savings has completed its re- evaluation and is seeking approval of a slightly modified site and building plan. b. Planning Commission Application No. 91013 submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center is a request for site and building plan /special use permit approval to replace the existing lift station at 5450 Lyndale Avenue North with a new lift station on the same parcel. -This application was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its August 15, 1991, meeting. c. Planning Commission Application No. 91014 submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center requesting variances from both the front yard setback requirement off Lyndale Avenue and from the Mississippi River bluff line setback in order to build a new lift station at 5450 Lyndale Avenue North. -This application was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its August 15, 1991, meeting. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- August 26, 1991 9. Discussion Items: a. Municipal Liability under Superfund 1. Resolution Supporting Proposed Toxic Cleanup Equity of Acceleration Act of 1991 b. Monthly Work Sessions 10. Resolutions: a. Approving Plans and Specifications and Directing Advertisement for Bids for Lift Station No. 2 Replacement, Improvement Project No. 1990 -05, Contract 1991 -P *b. Accepting Work Performed for Sanitary Sewer Repair on Woodbine Lane, at Camden Avenue North, Improvement Project No. 1991 -12A, Contract 1991 -L *c. Accepting Work Performed for Sanitary Sewer Repair on 5th Street North, Improvement Project No. 1991 -12B, Contract 1991 -M *d. Approving Improvement Project No. 1990 -24, Construction of Water Slide in Community Center, Providing Funding Therefore and Accepting Proposal for Architectural Services Relating Thereto *e. Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Diseased Shade Trees (Order No. DST 08/26/91) f. To Adopt the 1992 Proposed Budget g. To Authorize a Proposed Tax Levy for 1992 Budget Appropriations h. Approving a Proposed Tax Capacity Levy for the Purpose of Defraying the Cost of Operation, Providing Informational Service, and Relocation Assistance Pursuant to the Provisions of MSA 469.001 through 469.047 of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center for the Year 1992 *i. Accepting Quotations and Authorizing the Purchase of One (1) Dump Body & Hoist - Approved in 1991 street maintenance budget. *j. Authorizing Mayor and City Manager to Execute Year XVII Third -Party Funding Agreement for Operation of the City's Single- Family Rehabilitation Program -This would continue the agreement with the Metro HRA for processing applications and completing the verification process for the City's Home Rehabilitation Grant Program. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- August 26, 1991 k. Regarding Status of Certain Rental Properties in the City of Brooklyn Center 1. Supporting Concept of an MTC Opting -In Program and Offering Brooklyn Center as a Pilot -City *11. Licenses 12. Adjournment , t 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 AUGUST 12, 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 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Todd Paulson, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Jerry Pedlar, Dave Rosene, and Philip - Cohen. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, City Engineer Mark Maloney, Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone, and Council Secretary Carla Wirth. OPENING CEREMONIES Helen Jacobson 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 Mayor Paulson invited those present to take a copy of Citizens & Politics, a publication from the Citizens League, which reported findings on a survey they conducted regarding citizen involvement in politics. He provided highlights of this survey's findings and suggested Councilmembers read it as groundwork for upcoming meetings this fall. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Paulson inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items be removed from the consent agenda. No requests were made. 8/12/91 -1- APPROVAL OF MINUTES JULY 22, 1991 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the minutes of the July 22, 1991, regular session as printed. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 91 -188 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1991 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM DRUG FORFEITURE MONIES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -189 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF RICHARD J. PLOUMEN The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -190 - Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES (ORDER NQ. DST 08/12/91) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -191 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CREATING A CERTIFICATE OF INDEBTEDNESS FUND AND SEPARATE WATER AND SANITARY SEWER FUNDS 8/12/91 -2- The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -192 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THIRD -PARTY AGREEMENT FOR YEAR XVII URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -193 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF TWO MICRO COMPUTERS AND AMENDING THE 1991 GENERAL FUND BUDGET The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. PERFORMANCE BOND REDUCTION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the Performance Guarantee Reduction for Twin View Development, Inc., 51st and France Avenues North, as recommended by staff. The motion passed unanimously. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL _ MIDAS MUFFLER - BROOKDALE There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve Registered Land Survey 1191 for Midas Muffler/Brookdale with recognition of Condition No. 3 which states that no separate development rights accrue to either parcel apart from the collective development rights of the Brookdale Shopping Center. The motion passed unanimously. LUNACEK ADDITION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the final plat of Lunacek Addition subject to the approval of rezoning Application No. 91003. The motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the following list of licenses: 8/12/91 -3- FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Nutrition World 1271 Brookdale Center GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE Aagard Sanitation 875 Prior Avenue N. Block Sanitation 6741 79th Avenue N. Hilger Transfer, Inc. 8550 Zachary Lane Nitti Disposal, Inc. 3291 Terminal Drive Randy's Sanitation Route 342 Twin City Sanitation 279 Meadowood Lane Waste Control 95 West Ivy Avenue Woodlake Sanitary Service, Inc. 4000 Hamel Road ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Brooklyn Center Lions 5312 N. Lilac Drive MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Citywide A/C, Htg., & Refrig. 2529 1/2 7th Avenue Midwest Equipment Co., Inc. 300 West University Minnesota Mechanical, Inc. 509 Front Avenue RENTAL DWELLINGS Initial• Ralph T. Guimont 5903 Halifax Place Ray A. Zawislak, Jr. 5543 Judy Lane Michael Shapiro 5115 E. Twin Lake Blvd. Renewal: Howard and Harriet Oien 5809 Brooklyn Blvd. Fred and Judie Swenson 5340 -44 Russell Avenue N. SIGN HANGER Signcrafters Outdoor Display 7775 Main Street NE TAXICAB Town Taxi 2500 Washington Avenue N. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager informed the Council that item 15 was inadvertently omitted from the Consent Agenda and asked the Council to consider it at this time. Council agreed. 8/12/91 -4- CLASS B LIQUOR LICENSE There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve a CLASS B and Sunday On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for GBM of Brooklyn Center, Inc., d/b /a/ Chi -Chi's Brooklyn Center, subject to submittance of final paperwork to the Police Department. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 91012 SUBMITTED BY PATRICIA HILL REQUESTING SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO CONDUCT A HOME BEAUTY SHOP OPERATION IN THE LOWER LEVEL OF THE HOME AT 3000 QUARLES ROAD_ The City Manager briefly reviewed the staff report on this agenda item. The Director of Planning and Inspection presented details of the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the special use permit to conduct a home beau ty shop. . The location is on the northwest corner of Old Xerxes and Quarles Road which was within a R -1 zoning district and surrounded by residential homes. The applicant has a double wide driveway but was also requesting on- street parking along Quarles Road for clients. It was noted approval was recommended with eight conditions as stated by the Planning Commission, and that a public hearing was required on the matter. Councilmember Cohen questioned the latitude with the Ordinance in regulating employment of a part -time nonresident. The Director of Planning and Inspection reviewed relevant criteria, noting that evaluation of the need for an employee should be done based on the standards of a special use permit. The applicant was only requesting a part -time employee to work when she was gone. Also, this operation would only have one chair. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearin g on Planning Commission Application No. 91011 as outlined at 7:15 p.m. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. Mr. Christensen introduced himself as a friend of Sai Rossi, the applicant, and indicated he was assisting her in this application process. He stated that the applicant had no questions. There was no one else who appeared to speak, and Mayor Paulson entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve Planning Commission Application No. 91011 submitted by Sai Rossi subject to the following conditions: 8/12/91 -5- 1. The special use permit is granted only for a one chair home beauty shop as proposed in the applicant's letter dated June 27, 1991. The use may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 2. The beauty shop shall operate on an appointment -only basis. Hours of operation shall be from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. 3. The applicant shall provide the City with a current copy of the state shop license prior to issuance of the special use permit. 4. The applicant shall obtain required permits for plumbing and ventilation work. 5. The applicant shall install a 10 lb. fire extinguisher in the room of the beauty shop. 6. There shall be no more than 10 people in the basement area at any given time. 7. Special use permit approval acknowledges parking of up to two cars associated with the home occupation on Quarles Road in front of the house. All other parking associated with the home occupation shall be on improved space provided by the applicant. 8. Special use permit approval acknowledges the employment on the property of one nonresident employee who shall work on an irregular, emergency basis to fill in when the applicant is unable to make an appointment due to sickness or vacation. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 91012 SUBMITTED BY PATRICIA HILL REQUESTING SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO OPERATE A DANCE STUDIO IN THE RESIDENCE A T 6907 GRIMES AVENUE NORTH The City Manager briefly reviewed the staff report on this agenda item. The Director of Planning and Inspection presented details of the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the special use permit to operate a dance studio for children and aerobics classes. The dance classes would be primarily for children with a total class time of approximately ten to fifteen hours per week and no more than six children at any one time. -The applicants projected a total of 25 to 50 students during the first year. Classes would be conducted in the 24x24' family room which was added to the home in 1986. It was noted approval was recommended with six conditions as stated by the Planning Commission, and that a public hearing was required on the matter. Councilmember Scott questioned the applicant's plans for recitals. Patricia Hill, the applicant, indicted she would be using the high school for recitals, never the home property. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 91012 at 7:23 p.m. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. No one else appeared to speak, and Mayor Paulson entertained a motion to close the public hearing. 1 91 -6- There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to close the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Rosene suggested, and Council agreed, to add a seventh condition prohibiting recitals at this residential property. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve Planning Commission Application No. 91012 submitted by Patricia Hill subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is granted only for a home dance studio as proposed in the applicant's submittal of July 9, 1991. The use may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 2. The dance studio shall involve instructions in dance in classes not to exceed 10 people. 3. House of operation shall be between 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 9:00 a.m. and noon on Saturdays. 4. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be off - street on improved space provided by the applicant. 5. The applicant shall install a 10 lb. fire extinguisher in the room used for classes. 6. Noise from the dance classes shall not be perceptible beyond the property lines of the lot on which the classes are conducted. 7. Dance recitals, or other activities involving spectators may not be conducted per this Special Use Permit. Any such activity must be conducted at another site. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCES The City Manager presented an Ordinance Amending Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances - Regarding General Licensing Regulations. He indicated first reading of this ordinance was approved by the Council on July 22, 1991, along with several amendments which he then reviewed. The Personnel Coordinator provided a detailed explanation of the amendments made to the draft ordinance as well as to the penalty section. Amendments included changing "cigarette" to "tobacco related products," "dispose of to "dispense," prohibiting sale of single packs to clerks 18 years or older and gender changes. Notice of the meeting tonight and copies of the proposed ordinance was sent to license holders and interested parties. Councilmember Rosene questioned points made at the last meeting regarding the Tobacco Access Law and selling cigarettes to minors who had a note from their parents. The City Attorney stated this was covered by State law, but there was no harm in including it since it might help with public education. 8/12/91 -7- Councilmember Scott stated in talking with law enforcement personnel, she understood the problem with penalty for youth purchasing tobacco products and the difficulty involved with enforcement and demand on ,the Police Department. She suggested the ordinance be amended to provide a larger emphasis on tobacco use education at schools and homes. Councilmember Rosene agreed that better education was essential, but he would like to go on record in support of future discussions on the possibility of instituting consequences for minors who pursue trying to purchase tobacco, such as informing their parents. He also supported including into the ordinance a provision that would not preclude the City's law enforcement agency from enlisting a minor's assistance in checking compliance. Councilmember Rosene suggested the penalty section include a seven day suspension for the first offense, 14 -day suspension for a second violation within a two year period, and license revocation for a third offense within a two year period. Councilmember Pedlar questioned the penalty for sale of liquor to a minor. The City Attorney explained the Council had the authority to revoke or suspend the license, or levy civil fines against a liquor license holder. Councilmember Pedlar stated he viewed the sale of tobacco to a minor as equally significant, and he would support including consequences. The City Manager pointed out the flexibility was reduced if a more specific penalty section was included. It would also limit the Council's ability to react to unusual circumstances. This was taken into consideration with the Liquor Store Ordinance which contained no specific guidelines and allowed the Council to consider each circumstance as it came before them. Councilmember Cohen stated he was also concerned about the burden being placed on the Police Department if consequences were placed on minors who attempt to purchase tobacco products. He disagreed with Mr. Johnson's comment at the last meeting that the City should not penalize "children" and his definition of "children ". Councilmember Cohen stated - he supported consideration of this matter in the future along with institution of a better educational program on the health effects of smoking. He added that he did not support prohibiting young adults under 18 years from selling cigarettes, since it may be part of their job responsibilities. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances Regarding General Licensing Regulations at 7 :42 p.m. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. John Olson, Director of Research for the Minnesota Grocers Association, informed the Council that the Association opposed the proposed ordinance. He explained that when the Legislature adopted a law making it a gross misdemeanor to sell to a minor, they requested a legal opinion and were told that they could no longer sell to a minor who had a note from their parent. Mr. Olson explained that they were consistently working with license holders to improve their procedure of checking identification before selling tobacco products. He 8/12/91 -8- felt the ro os d p p e ordinance would cause supermarkets to incur a great capital expense, since they do not normally ave single ackets behind each counter. Y P .The ordinance would force them to build a service department to handle the sale of single packet cigarettes which would also result in an inconvenience for shoppers, since they would have to make a second purchase to obtain cigarettes. Another consideration was the added labor expense. Mr. Olson stated the Association also opposed the prohibition of allowing 18- year -olds to sell tobacco products since there was no evidence that 16 -18- year -olds sold tobacco products to minors at a higher frequency than those over 18 years. This provision would also result in the difficult decision of store management whether they were willing to hire younger clerks. Mr. Olson pointed out it was a positive part of a work experience for 16 -17- year -olds to Iearn responsibilities with the cash drawer, food stamps and coupons and tobacco product sales. He added that only three cases of a sale to a minor have been prosecuted. Mr. Olson encouraged the Council to work with existing tools and become more aggressive with enforcement of existing laws before requiring the license holder to make capital improvements and additional labor expenditures. Dr. Jean Forester, University of Minnesota (U of M) Public Health Department, expressed support of the proposed ordinance because it provided the next step to controlling sale of tobacco products to minors. She believed that smoking had become a childhood epidemic since many young people started at the age of 13. She emphasized her point by informing the Council that about 1,000 people would die from AIDS this year, but more than 1,000 people would die from tobacco product use today. Ms. Forester explained that the U of M Research Department had been monitoring the ability of young people to purchase tobacco products in Brooklyn Center. Immediately after the City adopted the ordinance limiting sale via vending machines, they sent a 15- year -old girl into various locations to attempt to purchase tobacco products. This minor was successful 45% of the time. This same procedure was done in May of 1991, and the minor was successful 52% of the time. Randy Rau, owner of the Holiday Station at 69th Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard, expressed concern about restricting clerks under 18 years from selling tobacco products. He explained that he had six employees and preferred to hire seniors in high school who were able to work more than one year before leaving for college. He had found that employees of this age were very responsible and often times they were in full charge of the station. If the City adopted the proposed ordinance, he would have to hire a second older clerk so cigarettes could be sold. Also, he would lose good employees and have to reconsider hiring younger clerks. Mr. Rau pointed out clerks under 21 years could sell beer and bartend. Mayor Paulson pointed out that this was a business decision that license holders would have to make based on employee cost versus the amount of profit made from selling tobacco products. He added that the Council was pursuing social policies which were in the best interest of the community. 12 91 - 8/ - / 9 I�� a Mr. Rau indicated about one -half of his customers also purchased cigarettes. A brie discussion was held regarding employee procedures in selling tobacco. Mr. f Rau commented that adoption of the proposed ordinance would result in penalizing younger people from being hired as clerks. Councilmember Rosene commented that Dr. Forester's survey found that minors were successful 52% of the time in purchasing tobacco products this past year. Mr. Rau stated this did not surprise him because "if you don't sell them th store next door will`. He pointed out that the survey did not indicate ndicate how old the sellin clerks were, g Tom Iverson, representing SuperAmerica, emphasized that SuperAmerica did not support the sale of cigarettes to minors and had gone to great lengths to train cashiers in proper identification procedures. Their employees were also required to sign a statement indicating release from employment for violation of these procedures. Mr. Iverson stated SuperAmerica had conducted surveys indicating they had 80% compliance on stopping the sale of tobacco products to minors. With regard to hiring minor employees (under 18 years) their larger store had 35 employees, 11 of which were 17 years old. Adoption of the proposed ordinance would result in their giving further consideration to hiring a 17 -year -old. Mr. Iverson explained that their stores operated on a tight budget with clerks also bear ing the responsibility of restocking, cleaning, etc. in addition to acting as cashier. The proposed ordinance would necessitate having one 18- year -old clerk at the cashier station at all times. Dr. Duane Orn, family practitioner in Brooklyn Center, thanked the Council for the opportunity of providing input regarding this matter. He spoke in favor of adoption of this ordinance due to the harm that tobacco use had on youth and adults as well. Also, as a former smoker, he understood the difficulty in quitting. Dr. Orn explained he. had some reservations about not allowing minor clerks since he worked as a clerk at the age of 17 and did not sell to minors. He suggested the Council adopt the ordinance as a way to deter minor's use of tobacco products. Councilmember Cohen questioned the type of education or mandatory programming that could be used to dramatize the effects of smoking for young people. Dr. Orn explained that the American Cancer Society and American Lung Society both had programs. Also, he had spoken to school groups about this issue. Dr. Orn agreed that sometimes deterrents must also be considered and suggested that the Council also address the problem of theft of tobacco products by minors. He agreed that restricting the location of single packs of cigarettes to behind the counter area would greatly reduce shoplifting. Dr. Orn pointed out that tobacco products, liquor and firearms all had different restrictions. In response to Councilmember Rosene's question, Dr. Forester stated she had no specific information regarding the age of clerks selling tobacco products to minors, but she felt that it was more difficult for a younger clerk to refuse the sale to another young person due to peer pressure. Councilmember Rosene concurred that peer pressure was a consideration. He suggested that the Council consider adoption of the proposed ordinance without the provision of having to be 18 years to sell tobacco products. The Council could then monitor this issue and reconsider it as more information became available. 8/12/91 _10- John Daugherty, 6424 Orchard Avenue, stated he supported the ordinance as submitted. He agreed that economic issues were involved but believed they were only short-term and would be resolved within a year. Mr. Daugherty added he had two children and would like to restrict their access to tobacco products as much as possible. He was a former smoker and understood the dangers involved. Donna Ziska stated she also supported the ordinance due to health issues. She pointed out that most grocery stores have service counters and could easily adapt to different selling procedures for tobacco products by issuing coupons or vouchers that were paid for at the checkout lane and then redeemed at the service counter. Ms. Ziska stated she did not want to hinder jobs for 16 year olds, but felt they were too young to be left in full charge of a service station. She felt the proposed ordinance would restrict tobacco access to minors and was the "first step ". There was no one else who appeared to speak, and Mayor Paulson entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to close the public hearing at 5:20 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Scott suggested the penalty provision to minors be discussed in the future after various options were researched. She informed the Council that the Robbinsdale schools had an extensive smoking program where any minor found with tobacco products must attend "Smoker's School ". Nonattendance resulted in suspension from school. Councilmember Scott stated she supported greater school involvement with educational programs. The City Manager commented that the Drug Awareness Committee might have input on this issue. Councilmember Cohen concurred with not imposing a penalty to minors at this time since a program was not currently available. He also agreed that this issue needed to be re- - discussed. With regard to prohibiting clerks under 18 years from dispensing tobacco products, Councilmember Cohen stated he would support eliminating this section. If the Council saw incidents of violation they could then consider amending the ordinance to add it. He felt the ordinance was a step in the right direction since it would restrict the sale of single packs of cigarettes and make them less accessible to minors. Councilmember Rosene responded to Mr. Olson's previous comment about enforcing existing State Statutes by pointing out that the Council felt the proposed ordinance would overcome the existing reluctance to prosecute the sale of tobacco products to minors by applying civil penalties versus harsher gross misdemeanor penalties. Councilmember Pedlar stated he was an advocate of a penalty provision and was concerned about adopting an ordinance that did not include consequences for a minor attempting to purchase tobacco products. He indicated he would be willing to table it at this time for 8/12/91 -11- further discussion. Councilmember Pedlar stated he supported the ordinance but was concerned about restricting 16 and 17- year -olds from selling tobacco products. He stated this had been a difficult decision for him since he agreed with Dr. Forester's comments regarding peer pressure, but had also seen 21 to 22- year -old clerks selling tobacco to someone who appeared to be a minor without first requesting identification. Councilmember Rosene stated he had also struggled with this issue since he did not want to remove the profit from businesses but was also concerned with health issues to minors. He indicated he would support adoption of the ordinance with the removal of the age restriction. Mayor Paulson pointed out that tobacco products were very available to minors, and he supported adoption of an ordinance that would restrict their access. He added that the Brooklyn Center Council had been very progressive in dealing with public health issues, and the revocation provision in this ordinance would allow the Council to look at violations on a case by case basis. Mayor Paulson expressed concern about discretionary judgement and peer pressure with younger clerks and indicated that the ordinance was a viable step toward an improved approach to public health issues. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Scott to eliminate from the proposed ordinance draft the following two sentences from Section 23- 10[5]6: "A licensee shall not permit an employee under eighteen (18) years of age to sell or otherwise dispense tobacco related products. No person under eighteen (18) years of age may sell or otherwise dispense tobacco related products." Vote: Four ayes, one nay. The motion passed. Councilmember Pedlar voted nay. ORDINANCE NO, 91 -12 Member Dave Rosene introduced the following ordinance as amended and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING GENERAL LICENSING REGULATIONS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Celia Scott. Vote: Four ayes, one nay. The motion passed. Councilmember Pedlar voted nay. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to request recommendations from the Dru Awareness Committee regarding consequences for minors attempting to purchase tobacco products including an enforcement mechanism and to direct staff to compile a list of other ordinances affecting juveniles that include consequences for their action. The motion passed unanimously. 8/12/91 - 12 - RESOLUTION AMENDING CIT COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO 87 31 REGARDING THE SCHEDULE FOR VARIOUS LICENSE FEES The City Manager presented a resolution amending various Iicense fees. The Personnel Coordinator explained the current annual fee of $15 would continue to cover the administrative cost of granting a license. The proposed increase of $35, to an annual fee of $50, would cover code enforcement expenses which have not been recovered in the past. It is believed that the proposed ordinance would increase the number of possible violations related to the location of tobacco related products. Councilmember Cohen asked if staff had determined that an annual fee of $50 would generate enough to cover administrative and enforcement costs. The City Manager explained that it was an estimate. Councilmember Cohen stated it was important that fees cover the City's costs due to budget constraints and loss of State aid funds. He suggested, and Council agreed, that this matter be reevaluated during budget time. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -194 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 87-31 REGARDING THE SCHEDULE FOR VARIOUS LICENSE FEES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:40 p.m. and reconvened at 8:50 p.m. The Council concurred to hear item 10b next due to members of the public present. WATER SLIDE PROPOSAL The City Manager explained that several months ago the Council had discussed a water slide and directed staff to prepare a report. Staff had found that use of the community center pool had reduced over the past several ears and resulted in lower operating the o er revenue while the cost of o he ooI had risen. � � p •thcr communities had constructed water parks with water slides and found a dramatic increase in usage. The Park and Recreation Commission has researched this matter and recommended the Council authorize construction. The Director of Recreation informed the Council revenue from the community center no longer covered expenses, and he suggested they consider other alternatives. In response to Councilmember Cohen's question, the Director of Recreation reviewed the experience other municipalities that had constructed water slides. Councilmember Pedlar stated while he supported implementation of a water slide, he felt the Park and Recreation Commission should address what impact it would have on other 8/12/91 - 13- programs, such as the Brooklyn Swim Club. The Director of Recreation explained that he did address this matter with Jim Reese, president of the Swim Club. The City Manager informed 'the Council that he asked the Director of Recreation to research all ways the pool could make money. He commented the Swim Club survived and prospered when the pool was first opened and very busy. He believed they could work out scheduling to accommodate the Swim Club and a water slide operation. The Director of Recreation explained he would like to be able to open the water slide the day after Christmas. The City Manager reviewed the design and bidding schedule. Councilmember Pedlar suggested the Park and Recreation Commission schedule a special meeting to discuss the Brooklyn Swim Club issue. The City Manager pointed out that there was no intention of eliminating the Swim Club because of the water slide and he believed both could be included. Councilmember Cohen questioned subsidizing of the Swim Club. The Director of Recreation explained that the City paid for coaches and was then reimbursed by the Swim Club, but things such as workman's compensation costs were not fully reimbursed. With regard to membership, 20% of active members and 10% of inactive members were residents of Brooklyn Center. Their total membership was 107 active members and 47 inactive members. Councilmember Cohen agreed that both programs could be worked out, and he would be willing to move forward with the water slide project while the Park and Recreation Commission addresses scheduling issues. Councilmember Pedlar concurred. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to support a water slide and direct staff to prepare a project approval and funding resolution and refer the matter of pool use scheduling conflicts to the Park and Recreation Commission for their recommendation. Mayor Paulson stated he was an alumni of the Brooklyn Swim Club and felt Brooklyn - Center had a unique pool since it was the only Olympic pool in the Metro area. He added that the policy of the Council should be to promote programs rather than profits. Bernie Erickson, 6800 Drew, stated he was acting as spokesperson for the Brooklyn Swim Club. He explained that they did not oppose a water slide and would encourage the Council to consider any option that would make the community center pool a viable entity. The Brooklyn Swim Club boardmembers would like to cooperate with the Director of Recreation and the Park and Recreation Commission to resolve scheduling issues. Mr. Erickson stated he would type out his notes and submit them for Council review. Councilmember Rosene stated the tentative water slide hours, as outlined, did not impact the Brooklyn Swim Club's practice times and he felt staff would work out any scheduling conflicts. He questioned scheduling of swim meets. Mr. Erickson explained they would be willing to revise the schedule. He informed the Council that one of the difficulties in 8/12/91 - 14 - attracting children to the Swim Club was the lack of a varsity swimming program at the school which served the eastern side of Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Rosene stated he would like to see a schedule that was satisfactory to all parties. The motion passed unanimously. The Council concurred to hear item 9f next due to members of the public present. ORDINANCES The City Manager presented an Ordinance Amending Chapter 12 of the City Ordinances Extending the Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Code to Include Commercial and Industrial Properties for first reading. The amendment was being considered due to concern for potential maintenance problems with nonresidential properties. The City Manager explained that this lengthy ordinance would have to be republished if significant changes were made at second reading. Because of this, he suggested the Council address their concerns and make any desired changes before approving first reading. The City Manager then reviewed the proposed ordinance and amendments. He noted that the Council might find other changes that needed to be made after it was in effect. At that time, the ordinance could be amended to incorporate those revisions. It was noted that enforcement of this ordinance would be primarily on a complaint and observation basis. The reinspection fee would result from uncompleted items in compliance orders. Also, the rental dwelling license holder would be required to prevent disorderly activities on their premises. It allowed the City Manager to provide notice to the license holder of violations and direct that person to take steps to prevent further violations. If other disorderly conduct occured within three months of the first notice, a second notice was sent requiring the license holder to respond in writing as to what actions have been taken or were proposed to be taken to prevent further disorderly use of the premises. If another disorderly instance took place within three months, the City Manager could recommend to have the license denied, revoked or suspended after a hearing by the Council. The Director of Planning and Inspection pointed out that the program for recertification of occupancy for nonresidential properties which is made mention of in the ordinance amendment would require additional personnel for implementation, and staff was not recommending implementation at this time. This type of program could be started in the future if Council believed it was necessary. Councilmember Pedlar asked if more enforcement capabilities regarding disorderly activities could be added to strengthen the ordinance. The City Attorney explained that residents proposed this ordinance to regulate disorderly activities at rental properties. He reviewed enforcement options with criminal and civil proceedings. i 8/12/91 -15- Councilmember Cohen asked if the time frame for violation notices and compliance could be shortened. The City Attorney indicated that it could. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained that this ordinance would provide notice to the property owner of action by the tenant and place the burden on the property owner. If the violation involved disturbing the peace, the City could take action to have that individual charged with a violation and then notify the owner of the activity. The Director of Planning and Inspection asked the Council if they would like to send special notice of this ordinance amendment to the Chamber of Commerce and/or individual property owners. He suggested this information be distributed prior to a public hearing being held. Councilmember Scott suggested the City notify all license holders that this ordinance was being considered along with a brief description, and a copy of the ordinance was available at City Hall. Councilmember Scott stated she supported the proposed ordinance, felt it was well written with clear enforcement sections, and agreed the burden should be placed with the license holder. Councilmember Cohen agreed and indicated support of the ordinance since it targeted properties where maintenance was a problem and addressed owners who were reluctant to comply. The Council then discussed the enforcement and penalty provision. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 12 of the City Ordinances Extending the Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Code to Include Commercial and Industrial Properties and scheduling a public hearing date of September 9, 1991, at 7:15 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Pedlar suggested the Council begin work on an ordinance to address homeowner blight, such as appliances sitting outside for three weeks. The City Manager responded that the existing ordinance addressed this situation and asked that City staff be notified of this type of occurrence. Councilmember Cohen agreed this could be frustrating, but the City did have a process that could be followed to remedy the situation. A brief discussion was held regarding compliance for this type of situation. Mayor Paulson suggested this matter be discussed further at a future work shop. The Council concurred to hear item 9d next due to members of the public present. ORDINANCE The City Manager presented an Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Allowable Size of Space for Lease Real Estate Signs noting that the proposed ordinance does not contain a sunset provision. The Director of Planning and Inspection reviewed amendments that were directed by the Council at first reading on July 22, 1991. Councilmember Rosene stated he understood the Council had indicated support of a sunset provision for the entire ordinance. The City Attorney explained staff proposed a sliding 8/12/91 - 16- sunset provision, but language could be incorporated for a standard sunset after one year (except for use of vehicles). He further stated he had available additional sunset lan for consideration this evening. guage Councilmember Cohen reviewed the August 7,1991, minutes of the Commercial Real Sales Sign Meeting which he attended along with several staff members. He stated h E e s late Policy development should be conducted at the Planning Commission level and su e left they look at how this ordinance would affect the existing sign ordinances. sted Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Allowable Size of Space for Lease Real Estate Signs at 10:12 p.m. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. Kent Warden, BOMA, stated he had addressed the Council previously on this issue and shared the CounciI's goal of keeping Brooklyn Center attractive and appreciated the Council's willingness to work with them. He explained that this was a difficult time for marketing, and they have found that signs were an effective tool. Also, Brooklyn Center property must compete with surrounding communities. He requested that the Council reconsider the option of wall mounted signs and institute an annual or every two year review rather than a sunset provision. Councilmember Cohen stated he did not feel the aesthetic issue had been fully addressed. He questioned the location of signs. The Director of Planning and Inspection used overheads to indicate areas where this type of sign was present. There was no one else who appeared to speak, 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 at 10:20 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Rosene stated he would like to see a slide presentation of the signs in question and further discussion on the matter by the Planning Commission. Councilmember Cohen concurred and suggested a joint meeting with the Planning Commission be scheduled to discuss how the Council would like policy issues like this handled in the future. He stated he would like to see a study demonstrating that signage was vital in filling vacancies. Councilmember Cohen stated he supported a sunset provision. Mayor Paulson commented that one of the glass office buildings by the Earle Brown Heritage Center has had a vacancy sign up for some time even though they now were almost full. He added that he was not convinced about the effectiveness of this type of signage and pointed out that these signs seem to stay up once they were installed. Mayor Paulson stated he agreed that aesthetic issues also need to be considered, and he felt that the established policy was being departed from. 8/12/91 -17- ORDINANCE NO. 91 -13 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ALLOWABLE SIZE OF SPACE FOR LEASE REAL ESTATE SIGNS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Celia Scott. Vote: Four ayes, one nay. The motion passed. Mayor Paulson voted nay. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to refer this matter to the Planning Commission and request a joint meeting with them at the earliest date possible. The motion passed unanimously. The Council concurred to hear item 11 G next due to Springsted representatives who were present. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented a Resolution Awarding the Sale of $3,000,000 General Obligation State Aid Street Bonds for the Council's consideration. Bob Thistle, Springsted, reviewed the four bids that were received today and recommended the bid be awarded to the low bidder, Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -195 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: - RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF $3,000,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION STATE AID STREET BONDS, SERIES 199113; FIXING THEIR FORM AND SPECIFICATIONS; DIRECTING THEIR EXECUTION AND DELIVERY; AND PROVIDING FOR THEIR PAYMENT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -196 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RELATING TO FUNDING OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, $3,000,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION STATE AID STREET BONDS, SERIES 1991B 1 -18- 8/ 2/91 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCES (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented for second reading An Ordinance Fixing Certain Compensation to be Paid to the Elected Officials of the City of Brooklyn Center. It was noted the City Council had approved first reading of this ordinance on July 22, 1991. This item related to the establishment of per diem pay for the Mayor and Councilmembers. Mayor Paulson stated it was important for Councilmembers to attend various meetings during the workday, but it resulted in a financial loss to do so. The Council would like to facilitate and encourage the Council's attendance at these meetings. Mayor Paulson suggested that the effective date be amended to make the ordinance effective 30 days after legal publication. Councilmember Cohen asked if this type of ordinance could be effective before the next election. The City Attorney explained that there was currently no Attorney General's opinion on this matter; however, the ordinance cannot be effective until after the next election if the reimbursement was for compensation. He added that this was true if the reimbursement was in addition to out -of- pocket expenses such as meals. Councilmember Cohen asked if it makes a difference if the Councilmember had to take time off from his job. The City Attorney stated it was still his opinion that the cost was for compensation. Councilmember Rosene explained that as a teacher, he was required to pay the School District an equivalent amount the District would have to pay a substitute teacher. He asked if this type of expense was reimbursable or considered compensation. The City Attorney stated he felt compensation was involved if the money pays for the Councilmember's time. This type of compensation provision could not take effect until after the next election. Mayor Paulson pointed out that per diem encouraged attendance at meetings, and he felt the City's Charter made a difference between expenses, salary and compensation for out -of- pocket expenses. The City Attorney responded that the definition of "salary" was compensation based on an annual basis, and the definition of "per diem" was compensation based on a daily basis. He felt both resulted in compensation, not reimbursement. The City Attorney informed the Council that he had reviewed copies of ordinances from other communities where per diem payment was provided for and in all cases the per diem was made effective after a municipal election. Councilmember Cohen suggested the City Attorney draft a letter for Council review requesting a formal legal opinion from the Attorney General including examples of time missed from work, etc. The City Attorney agreed that the City should obtain as much guidance from the Attorney General as possible. 8/12191 _19- Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Fixing Certain Compensation to be Paid to the Elected Officials of the City of Brooklyn Center at 10:55 p.m. No one appeared to speak and Mayor Paulson entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to close the public hearing at 10:55 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Paulson stated he felt the Charter clearly made a definition difference between reimbursement and compensation and it was within the Council's power to accept a per diem payment in lieu of expenses for meeting attendance. The City Attorney explained that the Statute requirement could not be eliminated by converting salary calculated on an annual basis to salary calculated on a daily basis. He added that if Councilmembers were paid reasonable out -of- pocket expenses plus $50 per day, the definition of the $50 payment would be considered as salary within the legislative intent. Mayor Paulson stated he would support getting voter input on this matter and recommended the ordinance be adopted with no amendment to the effective date. ORDINANCE NO. 91 -14 Member Dave Rosene introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE FIXING CERTAIN COMPENSATION TO BE PAID TO THE ELECTED OFFICIALS OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to direct the City Attorney to draft a letter to the Attorney General requesting a legal opinion on this matter for the Council's review. The City Attorney noted that the Attorney General may charge an hourly fee for drafting this opinion. The City Manager stated the matter would be back for reconsideration if the fee involved a large cost. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE The City Manager presented An Ordinance Firing Council Salaries. It was noted the City Council had previously tabled consideration of first reading to allow for further discussion. 8/12l91 -20- i Mayor Paulson suggested salaries be fixed at $11,500 for the Mayor and $7,500 for Councilmembers which reflects increased work load and additional meetings. The proposed salaries were lower than those paid in 1991 by the city of Brooklyn Park. Councilmember Cohen concurred and pointed out that the salary inequity resulted when the Council did not raise the salary for eight years. He suggested staff calculate results of instituting a cost of living increase on a regular basis for discussion at the public hearing. Councilmember Cohen pointed out that Brooklyn Center had been active in influencing policy decisions at the State and County level and by attending various committee meetings which were often held during the workday. Councilmember Scott agreed that restricting a Council salary increase for eight years resulted in very low salaries compared to other communities. She commented that while the Councilmembers do not serve the City to make money, they should not lose money either. Councilmember Scott explained that her paycheck was docked for one -half of a day if she took even one hour off, and docked a full day of she took over four hours to attend a meeting. Councilmember Cohen pointed out that this increase, which would be effective January 1, 1993, would encourage people to run for office with the understanding they would not be penalized financially for serving on various committees. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve for first reading An Ordinance Fixing Certain Compensation to be Paid to the Elected Officials of the City of Brooklyn Center establishing the annual salary for Councilmembers at $7,500 and the annual salary for the Mayor at $11,500. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Paulson reminded the Council of meetings scheduled for the National Civic League. - Councilmember Cohen suggested the Council consider scheduling a retreat or work shop for late September or early October to discuss the option of having a third Council meeting every month. ORDINANCE The City Manager presented An Ordinance Vacating Drainage and Utility Easements in Olson's Island View Terrace. It was noted that first reading was approved on July 8, 1991. The applicant was requesting the vacation of drainage and utility easements along the existing lot lines of Olson's Island View Terrace and would rededicate similar easements adjacent to the replatted lot lines of E & H Properties Addition. ORDINANCE NO. 91 -15 Member Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: . 8/12/91 -21- AN ORDINANCE VACATING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS IN OLSON'S ISLAND VIEW TERRACE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROCUREMENT POLICY The City Manager informed the Council that staff had researched the issue of a policy for the procurement of professional seniices. The Director of Public Works provided a detailed review of the report and a draft policy statement. In response to Councilmember Cohen's questions, the Director of Public Works explained that "preeminently qualified" would also relate to a company's expertise beyond Brooklyn Center. While Black & Veech was very knowledgeable about the Brooklyn Center water system, there may be another company who was also qualified based on experience with a different city. The Director of Public Works explained that the exceptions included in the report were if there was only one consultant that was qualified in the entire field. Councilmember Cohen questioned changing consultants in multi -phase projects like 69th Avenue. The Director of Public Works agreed the City would need to be careful about the selection of a consultant during the first phase and would not want to make a commitment to one consultant alone during the first phase of a multi -phase project; however, there was benefit to continuity and a good probability that the consultant would be used for I and work rk remained competent. 1 e P subsequent phases as long as the fees remained reasonable al for each stage of the project. v t submit a proposal J would have o s p The consultant p p g Mayor Paulson complimented staff on the proposed Procurement Policy. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve the Professional Services Procurement Policy as presented. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to direct staff to solicit a proposal from Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. for the final phase of 69th Avenue. The motion passed unanimously. NATIONAL CIVIC LEAGUE CONFERENCE IN MINNEAPOLIS The City Manager reviewed the tentative schedule for the 97th National Conference on Governance September 19 -21 CMcs and Politics in the 90: Creating Community for Everyone ". Some expenses were involved but staff felt a "trade out" with Atrium could be arranged. 8/12/91 -22- Mayor Paulson encouraged the City to be aggressive in getting people involved with Brooklyn Center. He pointed out that during times of tight budgets it was important for the City to use volunteer help. He was working with three Conference speakers who were conference and sharing some i confe g interested m meeting with Brooklyn Center people during this , g Y P this would provide i subject. He felt this Co P ' e and information on this s of their expertise ) a unique opportunity for the City to hear very interesting speakers and encouraged Councilmembers to also attend the Conference which would be held at the Minneapolis Hyatt Regency Hotel. Mayor Paulson stated he felt it was important that all policy was being set by the people. Motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve the concept of scheduling public policy speakers. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUEDI RESOLUTION NO. 91 -197 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS (SOIL CORRECTION IN PALMER LAKE SEGMENT OF 69TH AVENUE, COMPENSATING STORAGE AND WETLAND MITIGATION) IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10, CONTRACT 1991 -1 h adoption f he foregoing resolution was dui seconded b The motion fort e a opt on o f eg g o y y member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION The City Manager explained that the Corp of Engineers was requiring the City to have and provide for an archaeological individual on -site during construction. Staff solicited proposals and recommend Robert G. Thompson be hired. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -198 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES, 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT NO. 1990 -10 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -199 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 8/12/91 -23- RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR DELIVERY OF ONE (1) COMPACT CARGO VAN The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF QUIT CLAIM DEED The City Manager explained that the execution of a Quit Claim Deed for the Brooklyn Farm - Brookdale Corporate Center was a housekeeping matter. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the authorization to execute the Quit Claim Deed for Lot 1, Block 1, Brooklyn Farm- Brookdale Corporate Center. 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 11:55 a.m. Deputy City Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Carla Wirth Northern Counties Secretarial Service 8/12/91 -24- r MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION AUGUST 15, 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Bertil Johnson, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Chairperson Malecki noted that Commissioner Ella Sander would be late. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer Mark Maloney and Recording Secretary Mary Lou Larsen. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 25, 1991 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the July 25, 1991 Planning Commission meeting s submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki g g P , Commissioners Bernards Ainas Johnson Mann and Holmes. Voting , , g against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS. 91013 AND 91014 (City of Brooklyn Center) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for site and building plan approval (Application No. 91013) to replace the existing lift station at 5450 Lyndale Avenue North with a new lift station on the same parcel and a request for special permit approval as publicly owned structures are a special use in the R2 zoning district. He stated there is also a companion application (Application No. 91014) which is a request for variance approval from the setback requirement from the Mississippi River bluff line (Critical Area regulations established by executive order of the governor in 1976) and from the setback requirement off Lyndale Avenue North. The Secretary explained that this lift station serves the east portion of the City. He noted that the Environmental Quality Board and Hennepin Parks District had been contacted and neither agency objected to the request. He stated that the Hennepin Parks District is acquiring property along the east side of Lyndale Avenue up to River Ridge Park for the Regional Trail System which will tie into the walkway /bike access with Anoka County Park District and Minneapolis Parks system. He added both agencies are aware of the odor problem and are not opposed to the relocation of the lift station. Bertil Johnson asked if assumption could be made that the odor will go away with the rebuilding of this lift station. City Engineer 8 -15 -91 1 Mark Maloney explained that the physical design and technology has been improved since the existing lift station was constructed in 1955. He stated that the new wet well process will not tumble over anything or mix with air which will help alleviate some of the odor problem. He added that installation of odor free equipment is very expensive, but that the proposed equipment will be 90% to 98% odor free. He stated that if odor problems arise in the future, a scrubber could be added. Commissioner Johnson asked what caused the odor problem. The Secretary and City Engineer concurred that the amount of sewage entering the system is much greater than before. The City Engineer stated that the lift station was rehabilitated in 1980, but that the flow continued to increase. Commissioner Johnson asked what is expected to happen now. The City Engineer stated that the population is dipping and that flow should stay constant during the life of the lift station. Commissioner Johnson asked what the life expectancy of the lift station would be. The City Engineer stated that it should be 50 years. He stated there are three options: 1) to rehab the existing lift station to meet OSHA requirements; 2) more extensive rehabilitation; or 3) demolish the lift station. He explained the existing lift station is not easy to access for maintenance and now is at the point that it will have to be rebuilt or repaired. Commissioner Bernards asked how much the project will cost and where the funds will come from. The City Engineer stated it would cost 1/2 million dollars and that the funds will come from public utilities funds. Commissioner Holmes stated he would like clarification as to how the lift station works. The City Engineer explained that the City has nine lift stations to take care of its sewage and briefly explained the operation. Commissioner Holmes asked if there would be much noise from the pumping. The City Engineer stated that the new lift station would be pumping under fluid and there is very little noise. The Secretary explained that the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission regulates the City's capacity of sewage that enters the system. He stated that ways are being looked at to prevent clean water from getting into the sewage system. PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos. 91013 and 91014) Chairperson Malecki opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the applications. The Secretary stated that Patricia Finstad of 5451 Lyndale Avenue North had called to say that she would be unable to attend the meeting, but wanted to express her concerns regarding the odor problem. She stated she cannot have her windows open or go outside and that she believes it is a health hazard. She also stated that she is in favor of the new lift station. Mrs. Beverly Truan, 5433 Lyndale Avenue North, addressed the Commission and stated she agreed with Mrs. Finstad's comments. She 8 -15 -91 2 added that when the wind is in the east the odor penetrates her home and also, that she cannot hang clothes outside. She asked when the project would begin. The City Engineer explained if the project is approved by the City Council, that bidding will begin in October and construction should begin in early spring. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Johnson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Malecki asked how much down time there would be to switch over from the existing lift station to the new lift station. The City Engineer stated that it has to be instantaneous, possibly a 1/2 hour interval, with a bypass to ensure the switch over is complete. Commissioner Holmes asked if there is much traffic around the lift station. The City Engineer explained that the lift station is serviced by City trucks every day and by a large truck with a hoist once a month to lift out the pump for maintenance. He stated that several sizes of vehicles /equipment have to be able to enter the area which includes snow removal vehicles. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 91013 (City of Brooklyn Center) Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Ainas to approve Application No. 91013 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. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 4. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 5. Site and building plan and special use permit approval are subject to approval of variance Application No. 91014. 6. The special use permit is granted only for the specific use proposed by the City. The use may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 8 -15 -91 3 Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 91014 (City of Brooklyn Center) Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 91014 subject to the following findings: 1. The variance is necessary for the property to continue to be buildable. Relocation of the lift station is not feasible due to prohibitive costs involved in relocating utilities. 2. The physical circumstances of the lot with its river abutment and extremely shallow depth are relatively unique in the City. Similar properties to the north have also been granted setback variances. 3. The unique physical circumstances have not at any time been caused by the City. 4. The variance will not be detrimental to other property in the neighborhood inasmuchas it will allow for a new and relocated lift station that will eliminate the odor problem associated with the old lift station. 5. The variance is not contrary to the intent of the Critical Area regulations which are aimed at preserving as much as possible the natural scenery along the Mississippi River corridor. The proposed screening and landscape plan appropriately fulfill this objective. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Mann, Johnson and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS a) Car Wash Proposal The Secretary reviewed a memo from the planning staff regarding a forthcoming application for a gas station/ convenience store /car wash on the property at the southeast corner of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North. He asked the Commissioners for their opinions on the following four possible methods of resolving the issue of having a car wash in a separate building. He stated this does not commit the Commission to favorable approval of the application. 8 -15 -91 4 1) Planned Unit Development to allow two principal buildings on the same site. 2) Subdivision of the site into two parcels with shared access. 3) Variance from Section 35 -414.6 to allow a car wash in a separate building. 4) Ordinance Amendment to clarify that vehicle washing must be conducted indoors in a building of comparable quality and appearance to the principal building. A discussion ensued regarding the previous applications submitted by Fina which were approved in 1989, but did not go forward, for a gas station /convenience store /car wash at the same site. Commissioner Bernards asked what concerned the neighbors at that time. The Secretary stated they were concerned with ice buildup in streets from the car wash, noise, traffic, aesthetics and did not think it is a desirable use. He added that staff will do more research of the ordinance dealing with this type of use. It was the consensus of the Commission that an ordinance amendment to allow a car wash in a separate building would be the best possible way to proceed with the request. b) Investors Savings Bank at 5540 Brooklyn Boulevard There was a brief discussion regarding the application submitted by Investors Savings Bank which was tabled by the City Council at the applicant's request on March 11, 1991. The Secretary stated there had been some concerns regarding the space for lease use at the east end of the site for a retail clothing store with deliveries. He explained that the applicant requested approval to install a loading dock for trucks (not semi trucks) making deliveries. He noted the application would be brought back to the Council on August 26, 1991 for consideration of the revised plans. The Commission noted the proposed change and recommended that the matter be referred to the City Council with a favorable recommendation including the conditions previously included. Commissioner Sander arrived at 8:40 p.m. C) Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Allowable Size of Space for Lease Real Estate Signs The Secretary reported that the City Council, after much review and discussion, had amended the Sign Ordinance regarding real estate signs to allow both larger and freestanding signs. He noted, however, that the Council approved this change for only a one year period and has directed the Planning Commission to review this matter further and advise them on provisions for real estate signs 8 -15 -91 5 that can be adopted on a permanent basis. Concerns expressed by the Council include the permanent nature of the supposed temporary signs; the size and height of the signs; and freestanding as opposed to wall signs. He added that concerns regarding the appearance of these signs were also expressed. The Secretary also reported that the City Council would like to have a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss their concerns and the direction given for review of real estate signs. Phase I of 69th Avenue North Project City Engineer Mark Maloney gave a presentation on Phase I of the 69th Avenue North project. He stated that a press release will appear in the local newspaper explaining the first phase of the project. He explained that soil correction is scheduled to begin on August 19 involving piling of sand which will settle over winter to create the road bed. He stated the project will be completed in fall of 1992. Commissioner Holmes asked if the overlook at Palmer Lake Park will remain. The City Engineer answered that the overlook will remain and the path will be relocated. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Johnson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Chairperson 8 -15 -91 6 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91013 Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center Location: 5450 Lyndale Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan /Special Use Permit Application No. 91013 is submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center to replace the existing lift station at 5450 Lyndale Avenue North with a new lift station on the same parcel. The land in question is zoned R2 and is bounded on the north by a single- family home, on the east by the Mississippi River, on the south by a vacant R2 zoned outlot, and on the west by Lyndale Avenue North. Under Section 35 -311 of the Zoning Ordinance, publicly owned structures are a special use in the R2 district. This use could also be considered a noncommercial use required for the public welfare in an R2 district, which is also a special use in that district. Access /Parking Access to the site will be gained via a 16' wide driveway at the southwest corner of the site. The existing driveway opening toward the middle of the property will be closed. There will be a double vehicular gate where the driveway meets the main portion of the site where the lift station is to be located. There will be space north of the lift station for three vehicles to park. There will also be a turnaround area to allow large vehicles to back up and then exit the site via the driveway. Landscaping The site is to be generously landscaped with a mixture of all planting types. A Greenspire Linden will be planted on each side of the entrance drive. Three Niobe Weeping Willow are proposed along the river bank to provide some screening of the lift station from the river. Three Japanese Tree Lilacs are to be planted in the green area along Lyndale. Six Spruce and an Austrian Pine are scheduled for the south end of the site and one Spruce on the north end. An extensive quantity of various shrubs is proposed around the lift station and paved area. The total point value of all plantings is 244 points for a site far less than an acre in size. An 8' high wood fence will screen the lift station somewhat on the river side. A 5' high chain link fence will secure the building on the other sides and tie in with the gate. Grading /Drainage /Utilities The lift station will be set at an elevation approximately 6' below street level at 818.42 The 100 year flood elevation in this location is 816.0 The structure will be located just outside the 100 year flood plain. The site will drain to two catch basins on either side of the entrance drive just inside the gate. These catch basins will be connected by a 12" storm sewer line to a large existing 42" storm sewer line that drains into the Mississippi River. The lift station will, of course, service the sanitary 8 -15 -91 1 Application No. 91013 continued sewer lines in this area of the City. A 24" sanitary sewer Line will enter an inlet structure north of the lift station, then be conveyed to a large manhole east of the lift station, then into the lift station. Sewage will be pumped out of the lift station through a meter station and then into a 16" force main that heads south along Lyndale Avenue North. Building The proposed above -grade building is about the size of a double garage (20' x 22 The exterior of the building is to be a cedar lap board siding. The roof will be asphalt shingles that resemble cedar shakes. A keystone masonry retaining wall will be constructed north and south of the west wall of the building. Another retaining wall will be constructed along the riverbank in the approximate location of the bluff line. The inlet structure and the meter station will be submerged below grade with accesses flush with grade. The lift station will set back approximately 9' from the Lyndale Avenue North right -of -way and approximately 27' from the bluff line along the Mississippi River. The standard setback requirements are 35' from Lyndale and 40' from the Mississippi River bluff line. Applying both requirements results in negative buildable area. In order to make use of the lot, therefore, some variance from both setbacks is required. (See Application No. 91014 for further review of this matter). Recommendation All things seem to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the followin g 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. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 4. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 8 -15 -91 2 Application No. 91013 continued 5. Site and building plan and special use permit approval are subject to approval of variance Application No. 91014. 6. The special use permit is granted only for the specific use proposed by the City. The use may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. Submitted by,, Gary ::Lross Planner Approved by, Ck Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 8 -15 -91 3 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91014 Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center Location: 5450 Lyndale Avenue North Request: variance Application No. 91014 is a request by the City for a variance from the front setback requirement off Lyndale Avenue North and from the setback requirement from the Mississippi River bluff -line in order to build a new lift station at 5450 Lyndale Avenue North. The property in question is zoned R2 and is located as noted in companion Application No. 91013. The variance from the setback requirement off Lyndale is from Section 35 -400 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The variance relative to the bluff line is from the Critical Area regulations established by executive order of the governor in 1976. The required setback off Lyndale is 35' and off the bluff line is 40 The proposed plan calls for an approximate 9' setback off Lyndale and 27' off the bluff line. The plan thus attempts to maximize, within the constraints of the property, the setback from the river bluff line. Both aspects of this variance application are subject to a set of standards. (see variance standards, attached) The following is a brief review of each aspect in light of the relevant standards: 1. Setback off Lyndale a) Hardship: If both setback requirements are applied, the result is negative buildable area. Thus, the property is unbuildable without the granting of a variance. Since this property is a lot of record prior to 1976, it has some buildable status under the Zoning Ordinance. To build, some variance is necessary from both standards. The option of relocating the lift station across the street has been considered and rejected on the grounds that the costs would be prohibitive. b) Uniqueness: The circumstances of this property are fairly unique. The combination of river frontage and extremely shallow lot depth are shared by just a few adjacent properties to the north which also received setback variances in the past. C) Cause: The unique circumstances were not caused by the City. The river and bluff line are natural land features. The placement of Lyndale Avenue North was a decision by the Highway Department many years ago when Lyndale was a state highway. The hardship is caused by the regulations within this context, not by City action. 8 -15 -91 1 Application No. 91014 continued d) Impact: The effect of the reconstruction of the lift station will be a benefit to the neighborhood from the elimination of the present odor problem. Although the location of the new lift station will be slightly closer to the residences across the street, its presence will be less noticeable. 2. Setback off Mississippi River bluff line a) Hardship: Enforcement of the full 40' setback would render the property unbuildable and would deny reasonable use of the pre- existing lot. b) Uniqueness /Cause: As noted above, the physical circumstances of this property are relatively unique and were not caused by the City since April 25, 1975 (the date established in the Critical Area variance standards). C) Use: The use of the property is a special use in the land use district (R2) in which the property is located. In light of the plans submitted under Application No. 91013, we believe the standards for a special use permit are met in this case. d) Character of the Locality- proposed lift station will not alter the essential character of the locality in which it is to be located. It will replace an existing lift station; be located further from the river; and will eliminate an odor problem in the area caused by the existing lift station. e) Intent of the Order: The proposed lift station will not be contrary to the intent of the executive order which established the Critical Area Regulations. The proposed plan calls for a fairly innocuous structure to be screened from the river by generous landscaping. The use is a continuation and an improvement of an existing public facility. We believe the proposed plans are consistent with the Critical Area regulations to the maximum extent feasible. Request In light of the above considerations, staff respectfully requests approval of the variance application with acknowledgement of the following findings: 8 -15 -91 2 Application No. 91014 continued 1. The variance is necessary for the property to continue to be buildable. Relocation of the lift station is not feasible due to prohibitive costs involved in relocating utilities. 2. The physical circumstances of the lot with its river abutment and extremely shallow depth are relatively unique in the City. Similar properties to the north have also been granted setback variances. 3. The unique physical circumstances have not at any time been caused by the City. 4. The variance will not be detrimental to other property in the neighborhood inasmuchas it will allow for a new and relocated lift station that will eliminate the odor problem associated with the old lift station. 5. The variance is not contrary to the intent of the Critical Area regulations which are aimed at preserving as much as possible the natural scenery along the Mississippi River corridor. The proposed screening and landscape plan appropriately fulfill this objective. Submitted by, Gary Sharlcross Planner Approved by, ICJ (e:,-% - Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 8 -15 -91 3 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8 / 2 6/ 91 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 91005 - Investors Savings Bank ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 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 attache Planning Commission Application No. 91005 submitted by Investors Savings Bank was originally a request for site and building plan approval to construct a 9,370 sq. ft. combination bank and office building on the site of the old Green Mill Restaurant at 5540 Brooklyn Boulevard. This application was first reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its February 28, 1991 meeting. The applicant requested that the application's review by the City Council be delayed pending their reevaluation of the plan and is now seeking approval of a slightly modified site and building plan. A revised plan showing the addition of a loading berth to the east side of the building to accommodate a retail use of the portion of the building not being used by the bank has been submitted. Minutes and information sheet from the February 8 1991 Planning Y � g Commission meeting, letter from the applicant requesting a delay of the application, map of the area, revised plan, and various drawings are attached for the City Council's review. Recommendation Approval was recommended by the Planning Commission at its February 28, 1991 subject to the 11 conditions listed on pages 3 and 4 of the minutes from that meeting. • EVA gym/ / /�► '��� mow_ /�1►�1��1���� - :�.`Q ,,.t'� .. WAS RINI s iEi i ii EEEi `:•1W itEEEE � � is ii tEEC mill /�� �� �■ ■ � i ii EEEEEEEEE! OWN mm EiEEEEE EEaEEEEE :' ! �� �■ ii WHO ii ii ii /� f♦ ' ii i ii ii ON ONE 6S . � - ii ii ii ii tEi• Ella �}i 7 • 111 MOI ii Eii SEEN itEEEE N - ii ii ii mm mm m ii o ii == ONO r� S �... ` ON ts MOSEENEINUE OWN mum ON Baal I TM ..uu � ti i EEEEi i T# �• ��•••• �••. ■■ '•� ••�_ 1111. - �i 4 . s� SCHOOL ■� • • �!■ �• • oil •.+�•� �■ Wt /111 MEN NINE IMP . i . ■ • • � Iii �� i � X111/ �' i■ ■.■ .■., - =< mmmr ..�� �� I T , Q t ' � E 1 r r; .1•f.,• •,.., lM• i _ 56th AVE UE NORTH 0 > i �bUILDING �': °i-' X 11 \.� I 1�� ,�: / ��(• , • °•••••••F••••••F• GRADING &.UTILITY' .SITE PLAN --•• OF f i REVISED PLAN 0 ! P - 56th AVENUE ORTH ( N r F > a 1 LANDSCAOE SCHtbULE f , .....�.. .,. w.. i►�:rf . wr H O 1 , •* `G�1.J,.J;',/ ,h. W • w�. r... w. a.. r.r r r ? �' y A • , r...wM. ........,..r r W C p� F es " e........ v u tio. � - .r W Lu fit j ca a 4 s! X A � oral 1 0 'LANDSCAPE PLAN .. •• .. EII REVISED PLAN INVESTORS SAVINGS BROOKLYN CENTER ! 56th A VENUE NOR T I�il 4 • TIT` < W o •/� N W L T � V O '' o •' 1 1 ' pe�A�� Z W ��c .�•'��� r 1 f Y ,: 1 ' ° BUIL DATA o Y p Z �; TOTAL BUILDING AREA - 9,370 S.F. j p PARKING REQUIRED: 5.5 CARS PER 1000 S.F. ? m T ^� 52 STALLS I — PARKING PROVIDED: 52 STALLS G 4 d 2 TOTAL SITE AREA: 1.08 ACRES 1 61A� BUILDING TYPE 28 \ . YAOPp ' CONSTRUCTION TYPE 2N ,' •�; , _ ZONING 2C tr `1 s c ✓ of > .- u .. � 0 f e. 's '•�i'.n,MnMt4N •R.'�,,.0 � • ._ L•.o W I JAiN a • ',SITE PLANT — - _.. :: zo• . — ---__ � REVISED PLAN �AWI NH gA N K Robin R. Roberts Senior Vice President Operations Manager March 5, 19991 Gary Shallcross City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn, Center, MN 55430 i Dear Gary: This letter is to inform you of our interest in delaying the submittal to the City Council of our plans to develop a the space at 5540 Brooklyn Boulevard. We are in the process of reevaluating our plans for this space. I appreciate PP your help in removing our submittal on the City Council March 11 agenda. Please feel free to call me j if you have any questions. 1 ' Sincerely, Robin R. Roberts R R:lo 03RR11.65 I j� I � 200 East Lake Street • Wayzata. Minnesota • (612) 475•eTR7 r M�nnne[xr�•r 4!N Z'.t..n►.k ,, .:•1 : Meiling Address, P.O. Box 59283 APPLICATION NO. 91005 (Investors Savings Bank) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for site and building plan approval to construct a 9,370 sq. ft. combination bank and office building on the site of the old Green Mill restaurant at 5540 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91005 attached). Commissioner Bernards asked what was the purpose of the rooftop screening. The Secretary stated that it is to screen out mechanical equipment. Commissioner Bernards also asked whether a stop sign would be provided at the entrance to the private road. The Secretary stated that the applicant should provide such a sign. The Planner noted that the applicant has submitted a sign package for the building for the site and that it includes a stop sign in this location. Commissioner Sander suggested that a "Do Not Enter" sign would also be appropriate at the south driveway as that is clearly an exit drive. The Secretary agreed with this recommendation. Chairperson Malecki inquired as to the off -site lot. The Secretary explained that it would no longer be needed for the proposed development. Commissioner Sander asked what type of tenant would go into the easterly side of the building. The Secretary answered that a service /office type tenant would be sought. He explained that a medical or restaurant tenant would need more arkin but P g� that those types of tenants were not sought at this time. Chairperson Malecki asked about the off -site lot. The Secretary responded that it was his understanding that the applicants would sell the off -site lot. He added that if a tenant went into the east side of the building which required the off -site parking lot across the private drive, a special use permit for off -site accessory parking would have to be approved. Commissioner Holmes asked if the developer was acquiring the other lot. The Secretary answered that the remote parking lot had to be sold with the property since it is bound to the principal site by a restrictive covenant. He added the restrictive covenant could now be released because the parking contained on the remote lot was no longer needed to support the development on the principal lot. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Robin Roberts of Investors Savings stated that they would have a "Do Not Enter" sign at the south exit drive. In response to a question from Commissioner Sander regarding a possible tenant for the east half of the building, Mr. Roberts stated that they were still looking for a tenant for that space. Commissioner Mann stated that it was her understanding that a restrictive covenant affected the use of the principal site. Mr. 2-28-91 28 91 2 Roberts stated that that had been checked out and that it was allright for a bank to locate on the site. Commissioner Holmes asked for an explanation of the type of bank that Investors Savings was. Mr. Roberts explained that Investors Savings does not have a large clientele with checking accounts and that there is not a great need at this time for driveup windows. He stated that Investors Savings has been in Brooklyn Center since 1987 and that they are looking forward to the new location. Commissioner Bernards asked whether a safety- deposit box would be on the outside of the building. Mr. Roberts responded in the negative. Commissioner Sander explained that Investors Savings does a lot of mortgage banking. The Planner suggested changes to the conditions, adding the phrase "prior to the issuance of permits" to Condition No. 10 and adding an 11th condition that "traffic control signery be subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works." Commissioner Holmes asked whether it would be appropriate to screen out the cars that would stack in the driveup lanes. The Secretary stated that that was not really a concern of the Zoning Ordinance in this case. Commissioner Holmes asked whose responsibility it was to maintain the off -site lot. The Secretary answered that the owner would have to maintain that property until it is developed for some other purpose. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 91005 (Investors Savings Bank) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sander to recommend approval of Application No. 91005, 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 2 -28 -91 3 connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the city Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 9. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the performance guarantee. 10. The property owner shall enter into an easement and agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems prior to the issuance of permits. 11. Traffic control signery on the site shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, L Berna r d s, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The otion passed. The Planner then handed out to the Planning Commission members present a list of people serving on Neighborhood Advisory Groups and informed them that it was up them to contact people to find out whether they are still interested in serving on those advisory groups. There was a discussion of Neighborhood Advisory Group functions and the Planner suggested that possibily a form letter could be developed to send out to the Neighborhood Advisory Group members inquiring as to whether they wished to continue to serve on those groups. Commissioner Bernards stated that he might not be able to attend the March 14 Planning Commission meeting because of a possible conflict. Discussion Items The Secretary informed the Commission that the proposal for townhouses by Mr. Charles Thompson had been delayed and that the staff was expecting to receive a request to table the matter indefinitely. He explained that Mr. Thompson had given consideration to possibly developing his property with single- family homes and that a plan had to be developed to meet City ordinance requirements, DNR requirements and Corps of Engineer requirements. 2 -28 -91 4 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91005 Applicant: Investors Savings Bank Location: 5540 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Site and Building Plan Location /Use The applicant requests site and building plan approval to construct a 9,370 sq. ft. combination bank and office building on the site of the old Green Mill restaurant at 5540 Brooklyn Boulevard. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by 55th Avenue North, on the east by a private roadway and the old Midwest Federal bank across the road, on the south by Taco Bell, and on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard. Financial institutions and offices are permitted uses in the C2 zoning district. The existing restaurant building is to be removed and a new building constructed on the site. Access /Parking Access to the site will be from the private access road to the east of the site. One driveway is prcposed at approximately the same location as the existing northerly access to the site. At the southeast corner of the site, an exit drive, 13' wide, will open onto the private access road. The exit drive serves two covered drive -up lanes on the southwest side of the building and an uncovered lane which can serve as a drive -up lane. The parking requirement for financial institutions is the same as the retail formula of 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. This formula calls for 52 spaces for the entire building. The plan proposes exactly 52 stalls. This will be adequate to allow the other tenant space in the building to be either office or retail, tenant space in the building to be either office or retail, but is not sufficient to allow for a medical tenancy. An off -site parking lot across the private road from the site is not needed for the proposed use and will likely be developed separately in the future. Two handicapped stalls and a ramp are indicated in the front row of parking north of the building. Landscaping The site presently contains some trees, a portion of which will be saved, including three Ash trees along the northerly greenstrip adjacent to 55th Avenue North and three Crab trees along the southerly portion of the property adjacent to Taco Bell. In addition, the plan proposes a number of new trees, including 3 Imperial Locust in the parking area north of the building, 2 Schwedler Maple in the southwesterly portion of the site, 4 Radiant Crab scattered around the building and 4 Black Hills Spruce in the westerly greenstrip adjacent to Brooklyn Boulevard. A number of shrubs are proposed around the building and at the base of a proposed freestanding sign at the northwest corner of the property. The total point value of all existing and proposed landscaping is 2 -28 -91 1 Application No. 91005 continued 217 points. The site area is 1.08 acres and the landscape point requirement is 108 points. The proposed plan, therefore, exceeds landscape requirements. Grading /Drainage \Utilities Most runoff from the site in question is proposed to drain eastward over the two access drives to catch basins in the private access road to the east. There is also a small area west of the building which would be served by a catch basin connected to storm sewer in Brooklyn Boulevard. This drainage pattern is essentially the same as at present. Sanitary sewer would enter the building from the west where a manhole exists, connected to a sanitary sewer line flowing southwest adjacent to Brooklyn Boulevard. Water service would enter the building at the northeast corner from an existing service in 56th Avenue North. The service splits inside the property to a 2 domestic and a 4 fire line. Building The building floor plan calls for a vestibule and a lobby area in the center of the north side of the building. The lobby would provide access to both the 4,000 sq. ft. bank on the west side of the building and to the 4,300 sq. ft. tenant space on the east side of the building. A central corridor will separate the two tenant spaces and an emergency exit is proposed on the south side of the building. The Building Official has indicated a need for some internal changes to meet exiting requirements. However, they should not affect the basic layout of the building. The exterior of the building is to be face brick with aluminum anodized windows bordered by a soldier course of brick on all sides of the building. A brick -faced canopy is also proposed over two drive -up lanes off the southwest side of the building (the building is actually five - sided). Car stacking for the drive -up will be on the west side of the site. A bay window is proposed on the west side of the building. Rooftop screening is to be provided by a reflective glass screen. Lighting /Trash There are 11 existing light poles around the perimeter of the site which are to be retained. No additional freestanding lighting is proposed. A 6' high masonry trash enclosure with a cedar gate is proposed at the southwest corner of the site across the drive -up lanes from the building. Recommendation Altogether, the plans appear to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 2 -28 -91 2 Application No. 91005 continued 1. Build -ing 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. 9. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the performance guarantee. 10. The property owner shall enter in an Easement and Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems. Submitted by, C � Gary Shallcross, Planner Approved by, Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection 2 -28 -91 3 i I I cp i/ x I P, `.t �r: nom, ...•e,�, "'���.\ f -�\ . y h Y �i O c ` INVESTORS SAVINGS J.L. SULLIVAN I I R ® BROOKLYN CENTER DEVELOPER a!!I INVESTORS SAVINGS 14 BROOKLYN CENTER p' o •- 56th AVENUE NORTH - r O 0 cp LLj 'o` ° BUILDING DATA od uj TOTAL BUILDING AREA - 9,370 S.F. > p ~ PARKING REQUIRED: 5.5 CARS PER 1000 S.F. ? m 52 STALLS 1 1 to r— r BARKING PROVIDED: 52 STALLS cc TOTAL SITE AREA: 1.08 ACRES L �¢ '? BUILDING TYPE 20 - ps CONSTRUCTION TYPE 2N , 1 wf ZONING 2C T i1 • Nor s!�I h 0 •I.TIMN -•T•N lIN• 56th AVENUE NORTH 4. wi r s N t / L i Q W V Z \ \•; -r•J�. ce •.LTIN...,I -•• GRADING -&-UTILITY .SITE PLAN a a� 9 56th AVENUE NORTH X• X c►t1� Z > s F ain LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE = o ,1 y �t.� _ � I ' ' 1 •. r c o+. •.•.+ nr. ••.n.r .r ..w V OC ,. C c s. w Ax 6w r ' C n a..�.,.... r w ce r fi . x �If FF Z o p C '• to ! G - S _ C.( CL � } to `trj �• , B � a C ' f•1, 1 Do / a xe LANDSCAPE PLAN 4, INVESTORS SAVINGS BROOKLYN CENTER F 0 D olft* Oltic. offic. tA Ce LU << 6w 1A Z De M T 0 7� 19 To n ant Space 6an 7/ WT \.._�\� U�q -� CIO. �wor `�� -,... � J- 1.11 U, W.,k Lunch FLOOR PLAN -14 SCALE: 1/8' • 1 � r!I� i I7 'e a / T FF % FN a�4 -- -- sill a WEST ELEVATION o � J � J I V W j 4_ 4_ pj� _ —_ —._. - -___ 7 Z — — -- Ln 4Y ). EAST ELEVATION F Y 0 II l 1 ✓r�v3� � ' SOUTH ELEVATION N rrMCteo Gt- - WlU T • - ,� .ci��r.�...r zcreer - i ce • '0 wFfiN✓�NlD dorm n MGTH, rx.�INY N lul-11- i ] M III ., p q Ell o T _ NORTH- ELEVATION. t I 1 r t - -t 11• _ �,_ i -•-- ! 1' 02 1• it - MINCi ... ta i jil I DETAIL - a Tuns. tilt cA Z w Ilk _ z y 'IT .� f ( l srva o ,�rnT •o O ALT. co rail rc•4Y� � S rA4l N.. M'xn�UR •\..___ CLI LK TGT t Lbf. 1•nR p1RR�L}t 4 nAy ('T. b +T / � 5• ` - -� _ -. _ 1 t•/✓'S� raxllK � TrilD L 1 1 � � Y2 tXR. to 7� �rY r MitMa�Y V,d I NLCrDN - — - • = o cwuNU j ,t N av L r (t N .1 5o1 -deR ( •� rOUFC _ • a t2• i+ A • DTI +V iiT� � i - t .4 tout. '•// '[- •4 +. 3 SECTION- _AI_SKYLIGHL . SEC210 AT M VE-- JP TELLER... -_ -- __ ___ __ _ -_ + SECTION. AT_WDM OF 1 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/26/9 Agenda kern Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application Nos. 91013 and 91014 - City of Brooklyn Center ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: 0 0 0 �R 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 • Planning Commission Application No. 91013 is a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to replace the existing lift station at 5450 Lyndale Avenue North with a new lift station on the same parcel. Planning Commission Application No. 91014 is a request for a variance from both the front yard setback requirement off Lyndale Avenue and from the Mississippi River bluff line setback in order to build a new lift station at 5450 Lyndale Avenue North. Attached are the minutes, information sheets, map of the area, various drawings, variance and setback standards for the City Council's review. Recommendation Both applications were considered by the Planning Commission at its August 15, 1991 meeting and approval was recommended subject to the six conditions listed on page 3 (91013) and five findings listed on page 4 (91014) of that meeting. MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGU LAR SESSION AUGUST 15, 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Bertil Johnson, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Chairperson Malecki noted that Commissioner Ella Sander would be late. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer Mark Maloney and Recording Secretary Mary Lou Larsen. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 25, 1991 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the July 25, 1991 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS. 91013 AND 91014 (City of Brooklyn Center) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for site and building plan approval (Application No. 91013) to replace the existing lift station at 5450 Lyndale Avenue North with a new lift station on the same parcel and a request for special permit approval as publicly owned structures are a special use in the R2 zoning district. He stated there is also a companion application (Application No. 91014) which is a request for variance approval from the setback requirement from the Mississippi River bluff line (Critical Area regulations established by executive order of the governor in 1976) and from the setback requirement off Lyndale Avenue North. The Secretary explained that this lift station serves the east portion of the City. He noted that the Environmental Quality Board and Hennepin Parks District had been contacted and neither agency objected to the request. He stated that the Hennepin Parks District is acquiring property along the east side of Lyndale Avenue up to River Ridge Park for the Regional Trail System which will tie into the walkway /bike access with Anoka County Park District and Minneapolis Parks system. He added both agencies are aware of the odor problem and are not opposed to the relocation of the lift station. Bertil Johnson asked if assumption could be made that the odor will go away with the rebuilding of this lift station. City Engineer 8 -15 -91 1 Mark Maloney explained that the physical design and technology has been improved since the existing lift station was constructed in 1955. He stated that the new wet well process will not tumble over anything or mix with air which will help alleviate some of the odor problem. He added that installation of odor free equipment is very expensive, but that the proposed equipment will be 90% to 98% odor free. He stated that if odor problems arise in the future, a scrubber could be added. Commissioner Johnson asked what caused the odor problem. The Secretary and City Engineer concurred that the amount of sewage entering the system is much greater than before. The City Engineer stated that the lift station was rehabilitated in 1980, but that the flow continued to increase. Commissioner Johnson asked what is expected to happen now. The City Engineer stated that the population is dipping and that flow should stay constant nstant during the life of the lift station. Commissioner Johnson asked what the life expectancy of the lift station would be. The City Engineer stated that it should be 50 years. He stated there are three hree 1 : o tions to rehab the existing lift station to meet OSHA requirements; 2 more extensive rehabilitation; or 3) demolish the lift station. He explained the existing lift station is not easy to access for maintenance and now is at the point that it will have to be rebuilt or repaired. Commissioner Bernards asked how much the project will cost and where the funds will come from. The City Engineer stated it would cost 1/2 million dollars and that the funds will come from public utilities funds. Commissioner Holmes stated he would like clarification as to how the lift station works. The City Engineer explained that the City has nine lift stations to take care of its sewage and briefly explained the operation. Commissioner Holmes asked if there would be much noise from the pumping. The City Engineer stated that the new lift station would be pumping under fluid and there is very little noise. The Secretary explained that the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission regulates the City's capacity of sewage that enters the system. He stated that ways are being looked at to prevent clean water from getting into the sewage system. PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos. 91013 and 91014) Chairperson Malecki opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the applications. The Secretary stated that Patricia Finstad of 5451 Lyndale Avenue North had called to say that she would be unable to attend the meeting, but wanted to express her concerns regarding the odor problem. She stated she cannot have her windows open or go outside and that she believes it is a health hazard. She also stated that she is in favor of the new lift station. Mrs. Beverly Truan, 5433 Lyndale Avenue North, addressed the Commission and stated she agreed with Mrs. Finstad's comments. She 8 -15 -91 2 added that when the wind is in the east the odor penetrates her home and also, that she cannot hang clothes outside. She asked when the project would begin. The City Engineer explained if the project is approved by the City Council, that bidding will begin in October and construction should begin in early spring. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Johnson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Malecki asked how much down time there would be to switch over from the existing lift station to the new lift station. The City Engineer stated that it has to be instantaneous, possibly a 1/2 hour interval, with a bypass to ensure the switch over is complete. Commissioner Holmes asked if there is much traffic around the lift station. The City Engineer explained that the lift station is serviced by City trucks every day and by a large truck with a hoist once a month to lift out the pump for maintenance. He stated that several sizes of vehicles /equipment have to be able to enter the area which includes snow removal vehicles. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 91013 (City of Brooklyn Center) Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Ainas to approve Application No. 91013 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. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 4. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 5. Site and building plan and special use permit approval are subject to approval of variance Application No. 91014. 6. The special use permit is granted only for the specific use proposed by the City. The use may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 8 -15 -91 3 Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 91014 (City of Brooklyn Center) Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 91014 subject to the following findings: 1. The variance is necessary for the property to continue to be buildable. Relocation of the lift station is not feasible due to prohibitive costs involved in relocating utilities. 2. The physical circumstances of the lot with its river abutment and extremely shallow depth are relatively unique in the City. Similar properties to the north have also been granted setback variances. 3. The unique physical circumstances have not at any time been caused by the City. 4. The variance will not be detrimental to other property in the neighborhood inasmuchas it will allow for a new and relocated lift station that will eliminate the odor problem associated with the old lift station. 5. The variance is not contrary to the intent of the Critical A rea regulations which are aimed at preserving as much as possible the natural scenery along the Mississippi River corridor. The proposed screening and landscape plan appropriately fulfill this objective. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki Commissioners Bernards Lo inas, Mann, Johnson and Holmes. Voting against: none. The tion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS a) Car Wash Proposal The Secretary reviewed a memo y iew d from the planning staff regarding a forthcoming application for a gas station/ convenience store /car wash on the property at the southeast corner of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North. He asked the Commissioners for their opinions on the following four possible methods of resolving the issue of having a car wash in a separate building. He stated this does not commit the Commission to favorable a PP PP roval of the application. 8 -15 -91 4 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91013 Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center Location: 5450 Lyndale Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan /Special Use Permit Application No. 91013 is submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center to replace the existing lift station at 5450 Lyndale Avenue North with a new lift station on the same parcel. The land in question is zoned R2 and is bounded on the north by a single - family home, on the east by the Mississippi River, on the south by a vacant R2 zoned outlot, and on the west by Lyndale Avenue North. Under Section 35 -311 of the Zoning Ordinance, publicly owned structures are a special use in the R2 district. This use could also be considered a noncommercial use required for the public welfare in an R2 district, which is also a special use in that district. Access /Parking Access to the site will be gained via a 16' wide driveway at the southwest corner of the site. The existing driveway opening toward the middle of the property will be closed. There will be a double vehicular gate where the driveway meets the main portion of the site where the lift station is to be located. There will be space north of the lift station for three vehicles to park. There will also be a turnaround area to allow large vehicles to back up and then exit the site via the driveway. Landscaping The site is to be generously landscaped with a mixture of all planting types. A Greenspire Linden will be planted on each side of the entrance drive. Three Niobe Weeping Willow are proposed along the river bank to provide some screening of the lift station from the river. Three Japanese Tree Lilacs are to be planted in the green area along Lyndale. Six Spruce and an Austrian Pine are scheduled for the south end of the site and one Spruce on the north end. An extensive quantity of various shrubs is proposed around the lift station and paved area. The total point value of all plantings is 244 points for a site far less than an acre in size. An 8' high wood fence will screen the lift station somewhat on the river side. A 5' high chain link fence will secure the building on the other sides and tie in with the gate. Grading /Drainage /Utilities The lift station will be set at an elevation approximately 6' below street level at 818.42 The 100 year flood elevation in this location is 816.0 The structure will be located just outside the 100 year flood plain. The site will drain to two catch basins on either side of the entrance drive just inside the gate. These catch basins will be connected by a 12" storm sewer line to a large existing 42" storm sewer line that drains into the Mississippi River. The lift station will, of course, service the sanitary 8 -15 -91 1 0 Application No. 91013 continued sewer lines in this area of the City. A 24" sanitary sewer Line will enter an inlet structure north of the lift station, then be conveyed to a large manhole east of the lift station, then into the lift station. Sewage will be pumped out of the lift station through a meter station and then into a 16" force main that heads south along Lyndale Avenue North. Building The proposed above -grade building is about the size of a double garage (20' x 22 The exterior of the building is to be a cedar lap board siding. The roof will be asphalt shingles that resemble cedar shakes. A keystone masonry retaining wall will be constructed north and south of the west wall of the building. Another retaining wall will be constructed along the riverbank in the approximate location of the bluff line. The inlet structure and the meter station will be submerged below grade with accesses flush with grade. The lift station will set back approximately 9' from the Lyndale Avenue North right -of -way and approximately 27' from the bluff line along the Mississippi River. The standard setback requirements are 35' from Lyndale and 40' from the Mississippi River bluff line. Applying both requirements results in negative buildable area. In order to make use of the lot, therefore, some variance from both setbacks is required. (See Application No. 91014 for further review of this matter). Recommendation i All things seem to be 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. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 4. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 8 -15 -91 2 Application No. 91013 continued 5. Site and building plan and special use permit approval are subject to approval of variance Application No. 91014. 6. The special use permit is granted only for the specific use proposed by the City. The use may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. Submitted by, Cary Shallcross Planner Approved by, . a, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 8 -15 -91 3 i Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91014 Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center Location: 5450 Lyndale Avenue North Request: Variance Application No. 91014 is a request by the City for a variance from the front setback requirement off Lyndale Avenue North and from the setback requirement from the Mississippi River bluff -line in order to build a new lift station at 5450 Lyndale Avenue North. The property in question is zoned R2 and is located as noted in companion Application No. 91013. The variance from the setback requirement off Lyndale is from Section 35 -400 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The variance relative to the bluff line is from the j Critical Area regulations established by executive order of the governor in 1976. The required setback off Lyndale is 35' and off the bluff line is 40 The proposed plan calls for an approximate 9' setback off Lyndale and 27' off the bluff line. The plan thus attempts to maximize, within the constraints of the property, the setback from the river bluff line. Both aspects of this variance application are subject to a set of standards. (see variance standards, attached) The following is a brief review of each aspect in light of the relevant standards: 1. Setback off Lyndale a) Hardship: If both setback requirements are applied, the result is negative buildable area. Thus, the property is unbuildable without the granting of a variance. Since this property is a lot of record prior to 1976, it has some buildable status under the Zoning Ordinance. To build, some variance is necessary from both standards. The option of relocating the lift station across the street has been considered and rejected on the grounds that the costs would be prohibitive. b) Uniqueness: The circumstances of this property are fairly unique. The combination of river frontage and extremely shallow lot depth are shared by just a few adjacent properties to the north which also received setback variances in the past. C) Cause: The unique circumstances were not caused by the City. The river and bluff line are natural land features. The placement of Lyndale Avenue North was a decision by the Highway Department many years ago when Lyndale was a state highway. The hardship is caused by the regulations within this context, not by City action. 8 -15 -91 1 Application No. 91014 continued d) Impact: The effect of the reconstruction of the lift station will be a benefit to the neighborhood from the elimination of the present odor problem. Although the location of the new lift station will be slightly closer to the residences across the street, its presence will be less noticeable. 2. Setback off Mississippi River bluff line a) Hardship: Enforcement of the full 40' setback would render the property unbuildable and would deny reasonable use of the pre- existing lot. b) Uniqueness /Cause: As noted above, the physical circumstances of this property are relatively unique and were not caused by the City since April 25, 1975 (the date established in the Critical Area variance standards). C) Use: The use of the property is a special use in the land use district (R2) in which the property is located. In light of the plans submitted under Application No. 91013, we believe the standards for a special use permit are met in this case. d) Character of the Locality: The proposed lift station will not alter the essential character of the locality in which it is to be located. It will replace an existing lift station; be located further from the river; and will eliminate an odor problem in the area caused by the existing lift station. e) Intent of the Order: The proposed lift station will not be contrary to the intent of the executive order which established the Critical Area Regulations. The proposed plan calls for a fairly innocuous structure to be screened from the river by generous landscaping. The use is a continuation and an improvement of an existing public facility. We believe the proposed plans are consistent with the Critical Area regulations to the maximum extent feasible. Request In light of the above considerations, staff respectfully requests approval of the variance application with acknowledgement of the following findings: 8 -15 -91 2 Application No. 91014 continued 1. The variance is necessary for the property to continue to be buildable. Relocation of the lift station is not feasible due to prohibitive costs involved in relocating utilities. 2. The physical circumstances of the lot with its river abutment and extremely shallow depth are relatively unique in the City. Similar properties to the north have also been granted setback variances. 3. The unique physical circumstances have not at any time been caused by the City. 4. The variance will not be detrimental to other property in the neighborhood inasmuchas it will allow for a new and relocated lift station that will eliminate the odor problem associated with the old lift station. 5. The variance is not contrary to the intent of the Critical Area regulations which are aimed at preserving as much as possible the natural scenery along the Mississippi River corridor. The proposed screening and landscape plan appropriately fulfill this objective. Submitted by, Gary Sha lcross Planner Approved by, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 8 -15 -91 3 1 111 111 1 1 !� 1 111 ■ ■1 111 111 ■ � ♦ ♦�♦ Mi 1111 1 II`� ■111 11■■1� 1■ 11 11 1111 I I 1 111 ■i 1111 ■ 11 1111 i ♦ ` ` ♦ 1111 11�� � IIII 1 1111 ■ ■111 11 111 11 1111 �♦ � '• IIII 1 1111 1111 I II II ■ ®■ � •-• • 11 11 1111 ..1 11 1111 11 11 ► • 1 IIII 1 Ilia ■ _ ®■ ,111 11 II 1111 I II I III 11 ■ ■1 11 �� 1 1 1 11 � 1 1 1 111 .,.1 1111 • 1111 � � ■ I Iii I III ■111 1111 ■ 111 11 11 ' 111 11 11 111 / ,. ■��, 1111 . —7� 1 1111 1 1111 1111 I 111 i�'' 11 1 � _ 1111 1 111 11 11 1 . ,, ■ ■ 1 ::� � ■■ � ii11 : � i i1 X 1111 • ��■■�' � � ■ • . 11 111 � 1 1111 11 11� I 11 11■ :� o. s. � • . ■ ■ 111 11 • . 1 1 . ■ ■ 11111//1 ■ ■ � . a R��1 11 11 1 �r ��� ■ 1 1.:� � � � 1 '� 1' �' 111 1 ,;.,,,:.! �'^ . it , � s w • O O� ; N O N wll \ O Z z z Y 4 z L NDALE AVENUE N. t o J z =-Yl o 3 � � S I I uOVf fxifT A LONeTnULt AE M - nE°OVe fxlsT Aw coNSr i New s•I• c • o NEw ••�• c a .n uclSY UI __.. —. ._ - -- E450 CONSLnuLT fPES E TAP a MESSIME p l ! nuO ISEE SPECS.I EAST RIW rvEo CONSinULi � f. OV l a f nnSTPUGT nErwwq wAaa U I t eeu G • a LOesilluGT rtTA..a WA ° NC[ E _ c F ° E - IIL- TBTATION .2 Lo"sTPUGT METER I•'CI — J I I es.xGEO ,y, `h STATION- - - - - -- : V 1 •' i y/ .�Dy i ° STRUCTURE I !' ET ,o.. 'G..l •B E500 r •x `> io:o� E500 '� E�aEAn e � / cfwrc fEna awn sfECa ° i T M Irnl a w ra Ex. %� c e f ncP•sxss ce -• I E corsrRUCrrtuW.fs cLraSTRUCT fEMCE -SEE E � r � { 1 W J J( I n — I \ IM eF rteeWEOa Bluff Line Eli V. 16.0 E (River Bank) \ \� (Pr posed Construction) E w S \\ E550 ° _ E550 30' Temporary Easement 165' Permanent Easement 100 Yr Flood Elev. 816.0) E R o a P P R a -- S I S S 1 z O moT N � - p we OnD L•L MPAUA TO E A/W [NE Cm N z Z E MfWIE AYEWE L `w O � Z - SGUE: 1• -1 Iw.PY ��nM •+. v w� �w.a m ����� LIFT STATION NO. 2 wwm »�e:v.°"�...».m'°�"+..,.�.•.er SITE PLAN wtw PC BROOKLYN CENTER, MN. No. eY oArt rtvwoNa nEM ofvMN amacEU� Construct TaB - ei a Top Curb - E. Side Lywal* Awa I Top Releininq WsY NORTH— WEST SOUTH = EAST LIFT STATION NO, 2 Mae FCC Allow BROOKLYN CENTER MN. ELEVATION VIEWS °" r -ao -o I o�rz �vea+a ocvw c� «co o.» wa ».-- ••••••, IZ 0 0 o O p p Z [e1 Z 1 0- wNDe[lA lenl /[I( Z Z Z Y NDALE AVENUE N.\ , I, 9 - AtPmi Dnau Dv w D [ [t w wXl.ct - w � 1 oT 6- pvlwAP .nut nwRi \Q eIIGI [mr TMMDn ANO DoTANIG 9wnG, 3 - wct N xv.loo/.tw u•+vt - 4a I loRein wuD[NIAN Are 0 ♦ 00 . GUTTER N 048 Px•us wqu -C4-4 NI[otvrcwi _ - Air NC ••�tDR ) D h D / D A'J. NI��S x 4 10 h. DID COUM DnN[L /GxnY oRaPO'vtJCi wOo E450— P NnhN> \ - ` '- 11 •Pt. D.D T - .n.MI. AtOdtw *wi { ' � TNV)A OW DCNTA.,)'t(•/,[NPxLy _. - " y.A -.s. •xa —' -f/ -) 0 41a \ . l'� );..,) _ -� — -1>F;� \ — I _ co,to.r[+ gtwlp,2 ... ,. 1 _� `/ ) v. eve NIOOG we.Gnny wl[,�w x S- Nxn GY xwlPit, TG .' i R .: .. �• —• � Y - -_ y .. _ S M � � + � 1 IOR Dle IUVGR O,t4[ (cWnF) __ - a -Nwe+. test. +;��. /. l i - I I -- .' _. •'..... I __. _ 15 • >[' _. I II 4 •� `I� ) iO R. D[t Wwncx Tice u[x (<uor) _I- AuDTUw[Y nnc .¢�� T -- _ —��_ II [rr erATt)N x,- ..- � � � '�I •I � *q[,N. ¢n axfrw i I • _ _ ___ _ u 1 l,• r • I \ xL •O M AxIPORM JVNIRR � N•MP[t'1> ICR ,xxN,[fA " •ti' TGV • I•r x , �•. � /'� •rF.. \ � I I 1 Lo • 1— yVN �q)xf U� .1145 'nAnGT I I,tF 1 ES00 I'• _.. cD - -- d+l.; • # / '� 1 41 s R w• rtuy, T D[l mina°+y rcc•t�' — - ✓NANIRDLttY vit [NN1 /Q •\ _ -� RETAYONG WALL FACE M5. hr 'Ttl.lncD s,r T 4,roRMwrW. Ann• F1{MilYl / \� - . -- • WALL FA . C E _N 11 •S Frt nni int>w h �, � .,. — _.. _- ._._ —_. e - - - — -- -- -' [x \ � \ I I, I ,tACA. •wwsN' ytwwr ZA ver E550 — m c Iwt[.N1 nDln oQn - -� or Anet.wl xynwen [aA[1 ""---- _.__— a n.�n vAN•[ttY __� — ._. _ - _.... - y - n�oec`cxaPxn4 wlt+ow �._� tconP4 etp\ �,�- � �� n•`w.Gticx,. -- w wur�_ I S 1 R 1 V E F i - z ` p OI[N) b b JD a0 P O )xc[G w FGGT� 1 INCH n F[2T ' Z I I '""+°'°'r'n«nw.�,,,,a°I'"� x..w•w o-h ° LIFT STATION NO. 2 Fac ND. PO,YD BROOKLYN CENTER, MN. LANDSCAPE PLAN DA1D 1 AY,,aat Na sY D r[TVe,WS rtT„ o[•a[I rxoxrn SHEET lrrc_— fir, r ti A5i a � o r� - ``I�I�IIIIII I i I �ti �9 � - _ � -w•— �� Jam,.. -_ I I � �e� ary.rr w. oun„u N wrow•a cr m• w Ax ®�6.f PERSPECTIVE VIEW 0198 .../ BROOKLYN CENTER MN. an ru, sv o.*c �evan.w rtEU crEacEU „ ~��u wow � sy— LIFT STATION NO. 2 FROM RIVER AU(i. 91 35 -240 d. No less than seven 7 ( ) days before the date of the hearing, g, the Secretary to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall mail notice of the hearing to the applicant and to the property owners or occupants within 150 feet (including streets) of the subject property. The failure of any such owner or occupant to receive such notice shall not invalidate the proceedings thereunder. e. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall report its recommendations to the City Council not later than sixty (60) days following the date of referral to the Board. f. The application and recommendation of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council within eighteen (18) days following the recommendation of the Board, or in the event the Board has failed to make a recommendation, within seventy -eight (78) days of the date of referral to the Board. g. The City Council shall make a final determination of the application within forty -eight (48) days of the recommendation by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, or in the event the Board has failed to make any recommendation, within one hundred and eight (108) days of referral to the Board. h. The applicant or his agent shall appear at each meeting of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and of the City Council during which the application is considered. Furthermore, each applicant shall provide for the Board or the City Council, as the case may be, the maps, drawings, plans, records or other information requested by the Board or the City Council for the purpose of assisting the determination of the application. i. The Secretary of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals following the Board's action upon the application, the City Clerk, following the City Council's action upon the application, shall give the applicant a written notice of the action taken. A copy of this notice shall be kept on file as a part of the permanent record of f . the application. 2. Standards for Variances The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of this ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration. However, the Board shall not recommend and the City Council shall in no case permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this ordinance in the district where the affected person's land is located. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met: 35 -240 a. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. b. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. C. The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. d. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may impose conditions and restrictions in the granting of variances so as to insure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance and with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and to protect adjacent properties. 3. Dimension Variance a. Local units of government may grant a dimension from strict compliance with the setback, or height restrictions, or lot size or line of sight requirement contained in the Interim Development Regulations after an administrative hearing that shall be conducted according to the regulations of the local unit of government. b. A dimension variance may be granted only when the following findings are made: (1) the strict enforcement of the setback or height restrictions, or lot size or line of sight will result in unnecessary hardship. "Hardship" as used in the consideration of a dimension variance means that the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the dimension provisions of these Interim Development Regulations; (2) there are exceptional circumstances unique to the property that were not created by a landowner after April 25, 1975; (3) the dimension variance does not allow any use that is not a compatible use in the land use district in which the property is located; (4) the dimension variance will not alter the essential character of the locality as established by these Interim Development Regulations; (5) the dimensions variance would not be contrary to the intent of the Order. Section 35 -400. TABLE OF MINIP'IUM DISTRICT R MUIREM TS. Every use of land within the City of .Brooklyn Center s all con oh o the following minimum requirements which are applicable to the Land Use District in which such use is contemplated. (Note: Ref t o applicable footnotes (1) Yard Setbacks (10) (1'2) Land 3 5 2 Area Width (2) (5) Side Side R1 District (Sq. ft.) (Feet) Front Rear (6) Interior Corner One Family Dwelling (Inter.ior. Lot) 9,500 /unit 75 35 25 (9) 10 25 One Family Dwelling (Corner Lot) 10,500 /unit 90 35 — (5) 10 25 R2 One Family Dwelling (Interior Lot) 7,600 /unit 60 35 25 (9) 10 25 One Family Dwelling (Corner Lot) 8,750 /unit 75 35 -- (5) 10 25 Two Family Dwelling (Interior Lot) 6,200 /unit 75 35 40 10 25 Two Family Dwelling (Corner Lot) 6,200 /unit 90 35 — (5) 10 �5 R3 (See Sec. 35 - 410) 5,400 /unit. — (7) 35 40 — (7) 25 R4 (See Sec. 35 - 410) 3,600 /unit 100 35 40 10 25 R5 (See Sec. 35 - 410) 2,700 /unit 100 35 (4) 40 (4) 15 (4) 25 (4) R6 (See Sec. 35 - 410) 2,200 /unit 100 50 (4) 40 (4) 20 (4) 50 (4) R7 (See Sec. 35 -410) 1,400 /unit — 50 (4) 40 (4) 20 (4) 50 (4) C1 (See Section. 35 -411) — (11) 150 35 40 10 25 CIA (See Sec. 35 -411) -- (11) 150 35 (4) 40 (4) 10 (4) 25 (4) C2 (See Sec. 35 -412) -- 100 35 (4) 40 (4) 10 (4) 25 (4) I -1 (See Sec. 35 -413) — 100 50 25 10 50 I -2 (See Sec. 35- 413) -- 100 35 25 10 25 0 0 0 HOLMES & GRAVEN f ' CHARTERED Attorneys at Law JOHN M. LEFEVRE, JR. 470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 ROBERT J. LINDALL ROBERT A. ALsoP (612) 337 -9300 LAURA K. MOLLET ONALD H. BATTY DANIEL R. NELSON STEPHEN J. BUBUL Facsimile (612) 337 -9310 BARBARA L. PORTWOOD ROBERT C. CARLSON JAMES M. STROMMEN CHRISTINE M. CHALE STEVEN M. TALLEN JOHN B. DEAN JAMES J. THOMSON, JR. MART G. DOBBINS LARRY M. WERTHEIM STEFANIE N. GALEY W'RITER'S DIRECT DIAL BONNIE L. WILKINS CORRINE A. HEINE _ JAMES S. HOLMES DAVID L. GRAVEN (1929-1991) DAVID J. KENNEDY _ JOHN R. LARSON OF COUNSEL WELLINGTON H. LAW ROBERT L. DAVIDSON CHARLES L. LEFEVERE JOHN G. HOESCHLER August 8, 1991 Mr. Gerald Splinter City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Municipal Liability under Superfund Our File BR291 -17 Dear Mr. Splinter: Enclosed is an analysis of the Toxic Cleanup Equity and Acceleration Act of 1991, a bill introduced in the United States Senate by Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey. His address is SH -506 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510 -3002. The legislation would have the effect of exempting municipalities and other persons from contribution actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. §S 9601, et seq ( "CERCLA ") on the basis that they are liable for generation or transportation of municipal solid waste. Under the bill, municipal solid waste means solid waste generated by households and office buildings and other sources when it is similar to household waste. The proposed legislation would apply to any response action or suit in which final judgment had not been entered by a court before the date of the enactment of the act or in which a court approved settlement had been reached. The legislation would not exempt a municipality from liability for waste containing hazardous substances in an amount in excess of that which one would expect to find in waste generated by households. Strictly from the standpoint of its own protection, it would seem appropriate for the City of Brooklyn Center to consider adopting a resolution supporting this proposed legislation and sending a copy of the resolution to Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Gerald Splinter August 8, 1991 Page Two I am currently involved in defending three other cities from claims that they generated or transported solid waste to a landfill which is now in the process of cleanup pursuant to CERCLA. In all three cases it would appear that the cities had minimal association with the site. Nevertheless, because there is a small amount of connection to the site (e.g., "seven pickup loads of leaves "), they are forced to defend themselves from claims by- other PRP's that the cities should participate financially in cleanup of the site on a basis which we feel is excessive. Under a pending PRP group settlement these cities could be required to pay from $18 to $100 toward the clean up. If they don't participate they could later be adjudged to be liable for significantly more, depending on the number of parties to any litigation, the cost of clean up and the evidence available upon which to apportion liability. Under the pending settlement negotiations, companies which generated huge amounts of hazardous substances which may have been disposed of at the site are allocated only twice the share of cleanup costs of cities which generated minimal amounts of hazardous substances and recycled most of those. This experience has persuaded us that public bodies which don't generate more then minimal amounts of hazardous substances should not be treated the same as parties which do generate significant amounts of such wastes. Please let me know if you have any questions about the proposed legislation or other environmental matters. Ygert ery tr It RJ. ind 1 RJL:dh cc: Charles LeFevere SECTION -BY- SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE TOXIC CLEANUP EQUITY AND ACCELERATION ACT OF 1991 S. 1557 Section 1- -Short Title The short title of the legislation is the "'Toxic Cleanup Equity and Acceleration Act of 1991"' T ( CEAA). The legislation contains amendments to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et sea Any reference to N CERCLAO or "Superfund" should be construed as a reference to that act. Section 2 Amendments to CERCLA definitions This section adds three definitions to CERCLA. The section does not alter any existing definitions under CERCLA and thus, for example, continues to define "person" as virtually any public o p r rivate p entity or natural person, including federal, state, and local governments. The section defines "municipal solid waste"' (MSW) as including all waste materials generated by households and office buildings, as well as waste from other sources when it is similar to household waste. The definition also includes small amounts of hazardous waste that can legally become part of the municipal waste stream under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6921(d). The term includes all constituent components of MSW, even though some of them might be deemed hazardous 2 substances under CERCLA when they exist apart from MSW. The term does not include incinerator ash. The section defines 'sewage sludge' as essentially any residue removed during the treatment of waste water at a publicly -owned treatment works. The section defines "municipality"' to be any political subdivision of a state and includes individuals who act in an official capacity on behalf of a municipality. Section 3 -- Third - party . suits for MSW or sewage sludge Under CERCLA, "'potentially responsible parties"' (PRPs) who have been notified by EPA that they may be liable for cleanup costs have the right to sue other parties who may also be responsible for the hazardous waste site. Such "'third- party"' or 'contribution" suits provide PRPs a mechanism for making other polluters share the cleanup costs. This section modifies CERCLA to prevent third -party contribution suits against municipalities or other persons if their only actions were related to the generation or transportation of MSW or sewage sludge. As used herein, "'generation" or "'generators"' is meant to refer to actions or persons described by section 107(a)(3) of CERCLA and may include arranging for the transportation, treatment, or disposal of hazardous substances. "'Transportation' or "'transporters"' is meant to refer to actions or persons described by section 107(a)(4). If municipalities owned or operated a facility, or generated or transported waste materials that do not meet the 3 definitions of municipal solid waste and sewage sludge, the block on third -party suits does not apply. This section also codifies EPA's Interim Municipal Settlement Policy, 54 Fed. Reg. 51071 (1989). It states that the President must not sue municipalities or other persons who merely generated or transported MSW or sewage sludge, unless "'truly exceptional circumstances" exist. These circumstances exist when the President has reliable evidence from a particular site that hazardous substances have been released that are not ordinarily found in MSW or sewage sludge and that those substances have come from commercial, institutional, or industrial processes, not households. Truly exceptional circumstances also exist when the toxicity and volume of waste from commercial, institutional, and industrial sources is insignificant compared with the toxicity and volume of the MSW or sewage sludge, or when absent all the hazardous substances from commercial, institutional, and industrial sources, the hazardous substances from municipal solid waste or sewage sludge would be a significant cause of the contamination requiring the cleanup. When non - household trash at a site is alleged to be similar to ordinary household garbage, the President may require that the generators or transporters of the trash bear the burden of proving that similarity. The section identifies two specific situations that can never amount to truly exceptional circumstances. First, when MSW or sewage sludge have been contaminated with hazardous substances at a waste transfer station, the generator or transporter of the 4 - original MSW or sewage sludge is not held responsible for the subsequent contamination (unless the generator or transporter also owned or operated the waste transfer station). Second, when sewage sludge has been approved by the President for "'beneficial reuse"' such as fertilizer, or would have so qualified at the time of disposal, such sludge cannot be the basis for the President bringing a lawsuit under Superfund. The section defines one situation in which a municipality will not be liable under Superfund for exercising its regulatory power: when it owns a public right -of -way, such as a road or sewage pipeline, over which hazardous substances are transported. Section 4-- Settlements The section creates a special settlement opportunity for municipal generators and transporters of MSW and sewage sludge. When a municipality is notified by any person that it may be sued for generating or transporting MSW or sewage sludge, the section permits the municipality to request the President to enter into a settlement for all or part of the municipality's potential liability. The section requires that the settlement must be reached within 120 days, unless specific conditions are met. Once the municipality requests a settlement, a moratorium on administrative or judicial action against the municipality begins, and it continues until a negotiated settlement is reached or until the President publishes an explanation of why a settlement cannot be reached. A municipality may ask a federal 5 - district court to review the President's decision denying the request for settlement. The section provides for only three acceptable reasons for failing to settle: the municipality refuses to pay according to specific cost allocation criteria (see next paragraph), the municipality refuses to agree to settlement terms routinely required by the President in settlements with parties who bear insignificant responsibility for sites, or there is insufficient information to allocate costs. If the President believes there is insufficient information, the moratorium is extended until enough information is obtained, but a completed remedial investigation /feasibility study (RI /FS) is deemed to provide sufficient information, at least for the portion of the site studied in the RI /FS. Also, if the President has settled with another party (other than a de minimis party), it is presumed that he has enough information to settle with the municipality regarding matters addressed in the prior settlement. The section requires a municipality to pay for costs based on the portion of its MSW or sewage sludge that consists of hazardous substances, not on the total volume of the waste. MSW and sewage sludge are assumed to contain no more than one -half of one percent (0.5 %) constituent hazardous substances unless the President obtains reliable site - specific evidence to the contrary. The section also requires the President to limit the amount a municipality must pay if payments would force a municipality to dissolve, to declare bankruptcy, or to default on its debt obligations. A municipality can settle under this section even if it may face other liability for acts unrelated to its role as a generator or transporter of MSW or sewage sludge the s settlement c (although an ignore such other liability). The section states that the settlement, which can take the form of a consent decree or administrative order, must include both a promise from the President P unless contra to the public li c contrary P interest) not to sue the municipality again and protection g ion from contribution suits or other claims under Superfund for matters addressed in the settlement. The section provides that in the settlement the President cannot reserve any rights for further relief that he does not ordinarily reserve in settlements with parties who bear insignificant responsibility for sites. The President also cannot ask a municipality to indemnify the United States or require a municipality to violate laws about meeting its fiscal obligations. Finally, the President must encourage municipalities to contribute services instead of money and to make delayed payments or payments over time. Section 5-- Preliminary allocation of responsibility This section provides that at the request of a municipality, the President must prepare a nonbinding preliminary allocation of responsibility, unless doing so would be contrary to the public interest. In such allocations, the volume of MSW and sewage sludge must refer to the portion of its MSW or sewage sludge that consists of hazardous substances, not on the total volume of the waste. Section 6 -- Retroactivity This section provides that the TCEAA applies to all administrative or judicial actions that began before the effective date of the TCEAA, unless a final court judgment has been rendered or a court - approved settlement agreement has been reached. AMERICAN COMMUNITIES FOR CLEANUP EQUITY / 1350 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., SUITE 1100 0 WASHLNGTON, D.C. 20005 -4798 TELEPHONE (202) 393-3 TELECOPIERS (202) 879 -4001 (202) 879 -4081 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE WEDNESDAY JULY 17, 1991 EPA SETTLE NT INITIATIVE COMONDABLE, BUT LEGISLATION STILL NEEDED Washington, D.C., July 17, 1991 -- American Communities for Cleanup E q u ity ACCE a co ,- P � coalition o Y ( ), f 86 local governments in ten states today commended ended the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its new initiative on municipal liability under Superfund, but said that legislation was still needed to speed cleanup nd prevent P P p government resources from being squandered. 'The EPA initiative is a settlement initiative,' said Rena Steinzor, the group's chief lobbyist in Washington, "'and settlement is only appropriate if you think you should be liable for cleanup costs in the first place. For citizens across the country sued through their local governments for hundreds of millions because they took out the garbage, it is no comfort that they can run to the federal government and spend fewer millions settling their case." "'ACCE supports Superfund and the critical, national need to make cleanups faster and more effective, Steinzor added. M p Neither EPA nor counties, cities, and towns across America should be compelled to spend scarce resources wrangling about settlements because corporate defendants bring third party suits over garbage and sewage sludge." "ACCE will participate actively in the EPA initiative but its top priority will remain immediate legislative relief," Steinzor said. The coalition is seeking legislation that blocks corporate defendants from suing for billions in cleanup costs from parties who sent ordinary household garbage and sewage sludge to toxic waste sites. ACCE is also seeking amendments streamlining the settlement opportunities for local governments that are sued by the federal government and eliminating all liability when a local government's only involvement with a site was the regulation of private waste haulers. For further information, contact Rona Steinzor, David Eolkar, or Sandra Oarbrecht at (202) 393 - 3734. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING ENACTMENT BY THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS OF S.F. NO. 1557 LIMITING LIABILITY OF MUNICIPALITIES UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION AND LIABILITY ACT (. "CERCLA ") WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ( "CERCLA"), commonly referred to as the Federal Superfund Law, codified as 42 United States Code, Section 9601, et. sea. currently provides that any person, including a municipality, which generates, transports or disposes of solid waste in violation of federal law is jointly and severally liable for remediation of the disposal site; and WHEREAS, federal courts have interpreted CERCLA as imposing such a joint and several liability upon municipalities which had very remote and minimal contacts with the disposal site, with the result that the municipality was unable to avoid lengthy and costly litigation over the cost of remediation and allocation of the remediation costs even though the waste generated or transported by the municipality was almost totally mixed municipal solid waste (basically, household waste), rather than hazardous substances; and WHEREAS, continued interpretation of CERCLA in this manner could lead to municipalities bearing a much greater portion of the liability for clean up of Superfund sites than should properly be attributed to these municipalities if liability under CERCLA were based upon the strength and characteristics of the waste, or if based upon the volume of hazardous substances, rather than the volume of total waste; and WHEREAS, there is currently under consideration before the United States Senate, Senate File No. 1557, which would exempt municipalities and other parties responsible for generating or transporting waste which generally has the characteristics of household garbage from liability for clean up of disposal sites. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the City Council supports the adoption of said Senate File No. 1557 and that the City Manager be directed to transmit a copy of this resolution to the authors of said legislation and to members of the Minnesota congressional delegation, in order to assist in the possible passage of said legislation. 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 U2L21 • Agenda Item Number 0e? REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, FOR LIFT STATION NO. 2 REPLACEMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -05, CONTRACT 1991 -P DEPT. APPROVAL: � Sy Knapp, tVrector o ublic Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached • SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached The consulting firm SEH, Inc. has developed plans and specifications for Lift Station No. 2 Replacement, Improvement Project No. 1990 -05, in accordance with City Council Resolution No. 90 -236. This project is the proposed replacement of the existing sanitary sewer lift station at 5450 Lyndale Ave. No., recommended as "Alternate C" in the 1990 report prepared by SEH, Inc. The proposed lift station will be partially located on a parcel of property currently owned by Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, immediately south of the existing site. This project was first brought before the City Council and established on February 12, 1990. A summary of previous Council action is as follows: - Res. No. 90 -29, dated 02/12/90, established project and approved proposal for preliminary evaluation of design options. - Res. No. 90 -236, dated 10/29/90, accepted proposal from SEH, Inc. to provide professional design services for the project. - Res. No. 91 -46, dated 02/11/91, approved a proposed agreement with Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, for an exchange of properties along Lyndale Ave. No. SEH, Inc. has since completed plans and specifications for the proposed lift station replacement. City Staff is currently working out the details of the proposed exchange of properties, and Hennepin Parks Board of Commissioners approved the agreement and authorized their staff to execute the required documents. If authorized by the Council, it is anticipated that bids could be • taken and some construction could occur yet this year. The bulk of the project, however, should be in the spring of 1992. The construction cost, without contingencies, engineering, administration, etc. is currently estimated as $ 487,300. The estimate previously reported to City Council was $ 437,700, which did not include construction costs attributed to Metropolitan Waste Control Commission's metering vault. The City and MWCC will enter into an agreement for the reimbursement of those costs. The current construction cost estimate also reflects costs for more intensive landscaping and architectural treatments. Further analysis of the design led to the development of a more attractive siding, roofing and fencing materials, and additional planting materials. Staff believes that the proposed design assures compatibility with both Hennepin Parks' future development plans and the existing neighborhood. Accordingly, staff recommends approval of the plans and specifications, as prepared by the consulting firm SEH, Inc. and authorization for advertisement for bids. Note: Two Planning Commission Applications, No. 91013 and 91014, relating to site plan approval and setback variance, are scheduled for consideration at this Council meeting. • RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution approving plans and specifications and directing advertisement for bids is provided for consideration by the City Council. This resolution should only be adopted after Council approval of the two Planning Commission applications. • lOa�' Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, FOR LIFT STATION NO. 2 REPLACEMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -05, CONTRACT 1991 -P WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 90 -236, adopted October 29, 1990, the consulting firm of SEH, Inc. has prepared plans and specifications for Lift Station No. 2 Replacement, Improvement Project No. 1990 -05, Contract 1991 -P and has submitted the plans specifications to the City Council for review and approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center M innesota, innesota, that: 1. Said plans and specifications as prepared by the consulting firm of SEH, Inc. hereby approved. 2. The Deputy City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of such improvement in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, shall specify the work to be done and shall state the time and location at which bids will be opened by the Deputy City Clerk and the City Manager or their designees. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Deputy City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City Clerk for 5 percent of the amount of such bid. 3. The total estimated project cost for Improvement Project No. 1990 -05 is hereby established as $ 699,340. The estimated costs are as follows: Construction Contract 487 Contingency (10 %) 48,730 Professional Services: Preliminary Investigation 14,090 Design Phase 114,780 Construction Phase 13,000 Staff Engineering (2%) 10,720 Administration (1 %) 5,360 Legal (1 %) $ 5.360 Total Estimated Project Cost $ 699,340 RESOLUTION NO. 4. All costs for these improvements shall be financed by the Public Utilities Fund. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8 /a6isi Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED FOR SANITARY SEWER REPAIR ON WOODBINE LANE, AT CAMDEN AVENUE NORTH, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -12A, CONTRACT 1991 -L DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Di or of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached • SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Contract 1991 -L, Improvement Project No. 1991 -12A, Sanitary Sewer Repair on Woodbine Lane at Camden Ave. No., has been completed by Glendale Contracting, Inc. The City Council accepted their bid per Resolution No. 91 -170 and a contract was subsequently executed. The actual final value of work equals the original contract. Staff recommends acceptance of the work performed and authorization to make final payment to Glendale Contracting, Inc. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution accepting work performed and authorizing final payment to Glendale Contracting, Inc. is attached for consideration. / (/ i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED FOR SANITARY SEWER REPAIR ON WOODBINE LANE, AT CAMDEN AVENUE NORTH, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -12A, CONTRACT 1991 -L WHEREAS, pursuant to written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Glendale Contracting, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: SANITARY SEWER REPAIR ON WOODBINE LANE AT CAMDEN AVENUE NORTH IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -12A, CONTRACT 1991 -L NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: As Approved Final Amount Original Contract $ 6,500.00 $ 6,500.00 2. The actual value of work performed equals the original contract value. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $ 6,500.00. 4. Project No. 1991 -12A is final and is accepted and approved according to the following schedules: Project Costs As Established As Final Contract $ 6,500 $ 6,500 Contingency (15 %) 975 $ -- Subtotal Construction $ 7,475 $ 6,500 Staff Engineering (8%) $ 598 $ 520 Admin. & Legal (2%) 150 130 Total Est. Project Cost $ 8,223 $ 7,150 5. All costs relating to this project shall be charged to the Public Utility Fund. RESOLUTION NO. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy.Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date s/ZU Agenda Item Number /O c- • RE QUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED FOR SANITARY SEWER REPAIR ON 5TH STREET NORTH, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -12B, CONTRACT 1991 -M DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, D' ector of 1 Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached • Contract 1991 -M, Improvement Project No. 1991 -12B Sanitary Sewer Re o P � y pair n 5th Street No., has been completed by Glendale Contracting, Inc. The City Council accepted their bid per Resolution No. 91 -171 and a contract was subsequently executed. The actual final value of work equals the original contract. Staff recommends acceptance of the work performed and authorization to make final payment to Glendale Contracting, Inc. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution accepting work performed and authorizing final payment to Glendale Contracting, Inc. is attached for consideration. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED FOR SANITARY SEWER REPAIR ON 5TH STREET NORTH, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -12B, CONTRACT 1991 -M WHEREAS, pursuant to written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Glendale Contracting, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: SANITARY SEWER REPAIR ON 5TH STREET NORTH IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -12B, CONTRACT 1991 -M NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center Minnesota that: 1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: As Approved Final Amount Original Contract $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00 2. The actual value of work performed equals the original contract value. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $ 12,000.00. 4. Project No. 1991 -12B is final and is accepted and approved according to the following schedules: Project Costs As Established As Final Contract $ 12,000 $ 12,000 Contingency (15 %) 1,800 $ - -- Subtotal Construction $ 13,800 $ 12,000 Staff Engineering (8%) $ 1,104 960 Admin. & Legal (2%) $ 276 $ 240 Total Est. Project Cost $ 15,180 $ 13,200 5. All costs relating to this project shall be charged to the Public Utility Fund. RESOLUTION NO. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date s/26/91 Agenda Item Number �Q REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING.IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -24, CONSTRUCTION OF WATER SLIDE IN COMMUNITY CENTER, PROVIDING FUNDING THEREFORE AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES RELATING THERETO DEPT. APPROV Sy Knapp, i5irector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes • On August 12 1991 the Ci Co g y nc 1 adopted a motion supporting construction of a water slide and directing staff to prepare a "project approval and funding resolution ". At that same meeting the City Council also adopted a motion approving the new Professional Services Procurement Policy. Since that meeting a selection committee consisting of Art Mead (a member of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission), Recreation Director Arnie Mavis, and Director of Public Works Sy Knapp has interviewed two consulting firms for the purpose of providing architectural services for this project. A copy of the committee's report, in which the committee recommends the use of Mjorud Architecture, is attached. Based on the committee's recommendation staff requested Mjorud Architecture to submit a proposal for services relating to the water slide. A copy of Mjorud's proposal is attached. At our request the proposal also covers proposed design services relating to the expansion of the concession area in the Community Center (i.e. - development of skeletal plans and specifications which will allow the City to obtain competitive proposals from suppliers, while assuring that all equipment and materials will 1 com 1 with ith health codes building co comply g des, etc.) The estimated total costs for expansion of the concession area is $15,000. Staff has reviewed the proposal from Mjorud Architecture, and we believe their proposed fees are fair and reasonable, and note that their fees for the water slide project are $17,500, as compared to the $18,000 which is included in our project cost estimate. Also, we believe their $800 fee for services relating to the concession area is fair and reasonable. • RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution which (1) formally approves the project; (2) provides funding for the project; and (3) accepts the proposal for Architectural Services, is provided for consideration by the City Council. If this resolution is approved, the architect will prepare the detailed plans and specifications for the project, and these plans and specifications will be submitted to the City Council for final approval prior to advertising for bids for construction. • • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -24, CONSTRUCTION OF WATER SLIDE IN COMMUNITY CENTER, PROVIDING FUNDING THEREFORE AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES RELATING THERETO WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Council that a water slide should be installed in the swimming pool area of the Community Center, along with related facilities to provide needed recreational opportunities for citizens; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has estimated the costs of the improvements as follows: for water slide $200,000 (including construction and professional services) for heat exchanger 15,000 for expansion of concession area 15,000 for start -up costs 3.000 Estimated Total Costs $233,000 AND WHEREAS, the Capital Projects Fund was established by Resolution No. 68 -246 for the purpose of financing major permanent facilities as needed; and WHEREAS, a professional services selection committee and the City Manager have recommended that the firm of Mjorud Architecture be employed to provide architectural services as needed relating to these improvements, and have advised the Council that the fees proposed are fair and reasonable. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The proposed installation of a water slide and accessory facilities at an estimated cost of $233,000 is hereby approved and will be designated as Improvement Project No. 1990 -24. 2. All costs for this project shall be allocated from the Capital Projects Fund. 3. The proposal submitted by Mjorud Architecture to provide professional services as needed relating to these improvements at a total cost of $18,300 ($17,500 fees relating to the water slide. and $800 fees relating to the expansion of the concession area) is hereby accepted. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute and agreement with said firm on the basis of that proposal. RESOLUTION NO. 4. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to obtain competitive proposals for installation of a new heat exchanger, and for expansion of the concession area in accordance with conceptual plans developed by the architect. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF � RCKI -YI°� CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 BROOKLYN i TELEPHONE: 569 - 3300 C ENTER FAX 569 -3494 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: G. G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Selection Committee for Architectural Services for Proposed Water Slide DATE: August 22, 1991 RE: Selection Process Report and Recommendations At your request our committee selected and interviewed two architectural consulting firms for the design of the proposed water slide. The two firms interviewed are: Ankeny, Kell and Richter - the architectural firm which designed the Chaska Community Center, a $7.8 million project which included construction of two swimming pools (one competitive and one recreational) and a water slide. All reports we have received indicate that this is a very successful project and that the client (the City of Chaska) is very satisfied with it. In addition, it is noted that this firm also designed the clubhouse at Edinborough in Brooklyn Park, and has a significant number of private and municipal clients. Mjorud Architecture - the firm which the City of Brooklyn Center has used for recent projects including modifications in the Police Department, rehabilitation of Constitution Hall, installation of the new roof on the Community Center, remodeling work at the City garage, and the Civic Center space needs study. In addition, it is noted that this firm has recently provided architectural design services for: (1) construction of a new $3.5 million community center and ice arena at New Ulm; (2) construction of a $900,000 community pool at Jackson; and (3) the $3.5 million Animal Humane Society facility for Hennepin County; as well as a number of other public and private building projects. 1, 1988A AMEQK, ':i_; August 22, 1991 Page two Following is our summary evaluation of these firms, based on our interviews and reference checks: AnKeny, Kell & Richter Item AK &R Mjorud a. Knowledge of water slide design excellent excellent b. Knowledge of Minnesota Health Dept. requirements and other codes excellent excellent C. Awareness of special problems relating to pool design and maintenance excellent excellent d. Knowledge of special problems relating to skylight and roof penetration good excellent e. Knowledge of how to write specifications to assure quality product and avail- ability of parts and service good (2) good(2) f. HVAC /Electrical subconsultant good excellent (3) g. Availability for this project excellent excellent h. Ability to fast -track this project good (4) excellent (4) i. Overall rating, based on references and experience excellent excellent (1) Both firms recognize the need for special precautions in the design of the skylight - to prevent and /or deal with condensation problems. Mjorud provided architectural design relating to the installation of the new roofing /insulation system, and is in the best position to assure that the manufacturer's warranty will not be lost as a result of penetrating the roof to allow installation of the skylight. (2) City staff will work with the selected consultant to assist in preparing specifications in a way which assures that: (a) The water slide is manufactured with quality materials; (b) installation is properly completed; and (c) replacement parts and service will be available on the completed product. Each of these items are of critical importance to the long -term viability and economy of the water slide. (3) Both firms propose to utilize Oftedahl, Locke and Broadston - the firm which has provided excellent service to the City in troubleshooting operation and maintenance problems. Because AK &R have not worked with OL &B previously, there is the opportunity for miscommunication, etc. Mjorud has worked with OL &B on several projects for Brooklyn Center, and they have established a good working relationship. (4) Because Mjorud is fully familiar with the detailed plans and specifications for this building, and did the preliminary design work for this project, we believe he could "hit the ground running," whereas AK &R would need to spend some amount of time becoming familiar with the building and the project. August 22, 1991 Page three Summary and Recommendations Based on the above considerations we recommend the selection of Mjorud Architecture for this project, if fair and reasonable fees can be negotiated with that firm. We also recommend both firms for consideration relating to any future City projects which require architectural services. We were highly impressed by both. Art ' Arnie Mavis Sy Kna fp E T H E A M E R I C A N I N S T I T U T E O F A R C H I T E C T S fi. AIA Document B141 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect 1987 EDITION THIS DOCU161ENT HAS LWPORTANT LEGAL CONSEQUENCES; CONSULTATION WITH AN ATTORNEY IS ENCOURAGED WITH RESPECT TO ITS COAIPLETION OR MODIFICATION. AGREEMENT made as of the Twenty Sixth day of August in the year of Nineteen Hundred and Ninety One BETWEEN the Owner: City of Brooklyn Center (Name and address) 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 and the Architect: Mjorud Architecture (Name and address) 12400 12th Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55441 For the following Project: Water Slide for the Community Center, Kitchen Expansion (Include detailed description of Project, location, address and scope.) Location Community Center and Address: 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Scope: Project One, Water Slide Full service including Architectural, Structural, Mechanical and Electrical engineering to install one Water Slide per Exhibit B attached to this document. The Owner and Architect agree Project Two Kitchen Expansion Design work only with - as set forth below, out structural, mechanical or electrical. Copyright 1917, 1926, 1948, 1951, 1953, 1958, 1961, 1963, 1966, 1967, 1970, 1974, 1977, ©1987 by The American Institute of Architects, 1735 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006. Reproduction of the material herein or substantial quotation of its provisions without written permission of the AIA violates the copyright laws of the United States and will be subject to legal prosecution. AIA DOCUMENT 6141 • OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • FOURTEENTH EDITION • AIAO • ©1987 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 8141 -1987 1 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND ARCHITECT ARTICLE 1 schedule or construction budget, the Architect shall prepare, ARCHITECT'S RESPONSIBILITIES for approval by the Owner, Design Development Documents consisting of drawings and other documents to fix and describe 1.1 ARCHITECT'S SERVICES the size and character of the Project as to architectural, struc- tural, mechanical and electrical systems, materials and such 1.1.1 The Architect's services consist of those services per- other elements as may be appropriate. formed by the Architect, Architect's employees and Architect's 2,3.2 The Architect shall advise the Owner of any adjustments consultants as enumerated in Articles 2 and 3 of this Agreement to the preliminary estimate of Construction Cost. and any other services included in Article 12, 1.1.2 The Architect's services shall be performed as expedi- 2.4 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PHASE tiously as is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Work. upon request of the Owner, the men Based on the approved Design Development quality o o Architect shall submit for the Owner's approval a schedule for merits and any further adjustments in the scope quallity f the performance of the Architect's services which may be the Project or in the construction budget authorized by the adjusted as the Project proceeds, and shall include allowances Owner, the Architect shall prepare, for approval by the Owner, for riods of time required for the Owner's review and for Construction Documents consisting of Drawings and Specifica- approval of submissions by authorities having jurisdiction over P q b g requirements setting forth in detail the re uirements for the construc- the Project. Time limits established by this schedule approved tion of the Project. by the Owner shall not, except for reasonable cause. be exceeded 2.4.2 The Architect shall assist the Owner in the preparation of by the Architect or Owner. the necessary bidding information, bidding forms, the Condi- 1.1.3 The services covered by this Agreement are subject to tions of the Contract, and the form of Agreement between the the time limitations contained in Subparagraph 11.5.1. Owner and Contractor. 2.4.3 The Architect shall advise the Owner of any adjustments ARTICLE 2 to previous preliminary estimates of Construction Cost indi- SCOPE OF ARCHITECT'S BASIC SERVICES cated by changes in requirements or general market conditions. 2.4.4 The Architect shall assist the Owner in connection with 2.1 DEFINITION the Owner's responsibility for filing documents required for the approval of governmental authorities having jurisdiction 2.1.1 The Architect's Basic Services consist of those described over the Project. in Paragraphs 2.2 through 2.6 and any other services identified in Article 12 as part of Basic Services, and include normal struc- 2,5 BIDDING OR NEGOTIATION PHASE tural mechanical and electrical engineering services. 2.5.1 The Architect, following the Owner's approval of the 2.2 SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE Construction Documents and of the latest preliminary estimate 2.2.1 The Architect shall review the program furnished by the of Construction Cost, shall assist the Owner in obtaining bids Owner to ascertain the requirements of the Project and shall or negotiated proposals and assist in awarding and preparing arrive at a mutual understanding of such requirements with the contracts for construction. Owner. 2.6 CONSTRUCTION PHASE — ADMINISTRATION 2.2.2 The Architect shall provide a preliminary evaluation of OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT the Owner's program, schedule and construction budget requirements, each in terms of the other, subject to the limita- 2.6.1 The Architect's responsibility to provide Basic Services tions set forth in Subparagraph 5.2.1. for the Construction Phase under this Agreement commences w 2.2.3 The Architect shall review with the Owner alternative ith the award of the Contract for Construction and terminates at the earlier of the issuance to the Owner of the final Certificate approaches to design and construction of the Project. for Payment or 60 days after the date of Substantial Completion 2.2.4 Based on the mutually agreed -upon program, schedule of the Work, unless extended under the terms of Subparagraph and construction budget requirements, the Architect shall 10.3.3. prepare, for approval b the Owner, Schematic Design P PP Y Docu 2.6.2 The Architect shall provide administration of the Con - ments consisting of drawings and other documents illustrating tract for Construction as set forth below and in the edition of the scale and relationship of Project components. AIA Document A201, General Conditions of the Contract for 2.2.5 The Architect shall submit to the Owner a preliminary Construction, current as of the date of this Agreement, unless estimate of Construction Cost based on current area, volume or otherwise provided in this Agreement. • other unit costs. 2.6.3 Duties, responsibilities and limitations of authority of the 2.3 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE Architect shall not be restricted, modified or extended without written agreement of the Owner and Architect with consent of 2.3.1 Based on the approved Schematic Design Documents the Contractor, which consent shall not be unreasonably and any adjustments authorized by the Owner in the program, withheld. AIA DOCUMENT 8141 • OWNER - ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • FOURTEENTH EDITION • AIAO • ©1987 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENGE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 8141 -1987 2 2.6.4 The Architect shall be a representative of and shall advise quantity of the Work, (2) reviewed construction means, meth - and consult with the Owner (1) during construction until final ods, techniques, sequences or procedures, (3) reviewed copies payment to the Contractor is due, and (2) as an Additional Ser- of requisitions received from Subcontractors and material sup - vice at the Owner's direction from time to time during the cor- pliers and other data requested by the Owner to substantiate rection period described in the Contract for Construction. The the Contractor's right to payment or (4) ascertained how or for Architect shall have authority to act on behalf of the Owner what purpose the Contractor has used money previously paid only to the extent provided in this Agreement unless otherwise on account of the Contract Sum. modified by written instrument. 2.6.11 The Architect shall have authority to reject Work which 2.6.5 The Architect shall visit the site at intervals appropriate does not conform to the Contract Documents. Whenever the to the stage of construction or as otherwise agreed by the Architect considers it necessary or advisable for implementa- Owner and Architect in writing to become generally familiar tion of the intent of the Contract Documents, the Architect will with the progress and quality of the Work completed and to have authority to require additional inspection or testing of the determine in general if the Work is being performed in a man- Work in accordance with the provisions of the Contract Docu- ner indicating that the Work when completed will be in accor- ments, whether or not such Work is fabricated, installed or dance with the Contract Documents. However, the Architect completed. However, neither this authority of the Architect nor shall not be required to make exhaustive or continuous on -site a decision made in good faith either to exercise or not to exer- inspections to check the quality or quantity of the Work. On cise such authority shall give rise to a duty or responsibility of the basis of on -site observations as an architect, the Architect the Architect to the Contractor, Subcontractors, material and shall keep the Owner informed of the progress and quality of equipment suppliers, their agents or employees or other per - the Work, and shall endeavor to guard the Owner against sons performing portions of the Work. defects and deficiencies in the Work. (blore extensive site representation may be agreed to as an Additional Service, as 2.6.12 The Architect shall review and approve or take other described in Paragraph 3.2.) appropriate action upon Contractor's submittals such as Shop Drawings, Product Data and Samples, but only for the limited 2.6.6 The Architect shall not have control over or charge of purpose of checking for conformance with information given and shall not be responsible for construction means, methods, and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents. techniques, sequences or procedures, or for safety precautions The Architect's action shall be taken with such reasonable and programs in connection with the Work, since these are promptness as to cause no delay in the Work or in the con - solely the Contractor's responsibility under the Contract for struction of the Owner or of separate contractors, while allow - Construction. The Architect shall not be responsible for the ing sufficient time in the Architect's professional judgment to Contractor's schedules or failure to carr out the Work in accor - permit adequate review. Review of such submittals is not con - dance with the Contract Documents. The Architect shall not ducted for the purpose of determining the accuracy and com- have control over or charge of acts or omissions of the Contrac- pleteness of other details such as dimensions and quantities or tor, Subcontractors, or their agents or employees, or of am for substantiating instructions for installation or performance of other persons performing portions of the Work. equipment or systems designed by the Contractor, all of which remain the responsibility of the Contractor to the extent 2.6.7 The Architect shall at all times have access to the %X'ork required by the Contract Documents. The Architect's review wherever it is in preparation or progress. shall not constitute approval of safety precautions or, unless otherwise specifically stated by the Architect, of construction 2.6.8 Except as may otherwise be provided in the Contract means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures. The Documents or when direct communications have been spe- Architect's approval of a specific item shall not indicate cially authorized, the Owner and Contractor shall communicate ,approval of an assembly of which the item is a component. through the Architect. Communications by and with the Archi- When professional certification of performance characteristics test's consultants shall be through the Architect. of materials, systems or equipment is required by the Contract 2.6.9 Based on the Architect's observations and evaluations of Documents, the Architect shall be entitled to rely upon such the Contractor's Applications for Payment, the Architect shall certification to establish that the materials, systems or equip - review and certify the amounts due the Contractor. ment will meet the performance criteria required by the Con- tract Documents. 2.6.10 The Architect's certification for payment shall consti- 2,6.13 The Architect shall prepare Change Orders and Con - tute a representation to the Owner, based on the Architect's struction Change Directives, with supporting documentation observations at the site as provided in Subparagraph 2.6.5 and and data if deemed necessary by the Architect as provided in on the data comprising the Contractor's Application for Pav Subparagraphs 3.1.1 and 3.3.3, for the Owner's approval and ment, that the Work has progressed to the point indicated and execution in accordance with the Contract Documents, and that, to the best of the Architect's knowledge, information and may authorize minor changes in the Work not involving an belief, quality of the Work is in accordance with the Contract adjustment in the Contract Sum or an extension of the Contract Documents. The foregoing representations are subject to an Time which are not inconsistent with the intent of the Contract evaluation of the Work for conformance with the Contract Documents. Documents upon Substantial Completion, to results of subse- quent tests and inspections, to minor deviations from the Con- 2.6.14 The Architect shall conduct inspections to determine tract Documents correctable prior to completion and to spe- the date or dates of Substantial Completion and the date of final cific qualifications expressed by the Architect. The issuance of a completion, shall receive and forward to the Owner for the Certificate for Pavment shall further constitute a representation Owner's review and records written warranties and related that the Contractor is entitled to payment in the amount certi- documents required by the Contract Documents and assem- fied. However, the issuance of a Certificate for Pavment shall bled by the Contractor, and shall issue a final Certificate for Pav- not be a representation that the Architect has (1) made exhaus- ment upon compliance with the requirements of the Contract tive or continuous on -site inspections to check the quality or Documents. .3 B�4� -957 AIA DOCUMENT B141 • OWNER - ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • FOURTEENTH EDITION • AIA® • ©1987 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 2.6.15 The Architect shall interpret and decide matters con- 3.2.3 Through the observations by such Project Represen- cerning performance of the Owner and Contractor under the tatives, the Architect shall endeavor to provide further protec- requirements of the Contract Documents on written request of tion for the Owner against defects and deficiencies in the Work, either the Owner or Contractor. The Architect's response to but the furnishing of such project representation shall not such requests shall be made with reasonable promptness and modify the rights, responsibilities or obligations of the Architect within any time limits agreed upon. as described elsewhere in this Agreement. 2.6.16 Interpretations and decisions of the Architect shall he 3.3 CONTINGENT ADDITIONAL SERVICES consistent with the intent of and reasonably inferable from the Contract Documents and shall be in writing or in the form of 3.3.1 Making revisions in Drawings, Specifications or other drawings. When making such interpretations and initial deci- documents when such revisions are: sions, the Architect shall endeavor to secure faithful perfor- mance by both Owner and Contractor, shall not show partiality .1 inconsistent with approvals or instructions previously to either, and shall not be liable for results of interpretations or given by the Owner, including revisions made neces- decisions so rendered in good faith, sary by adjustments in the Owner's program or Proj- 2.6.17 The Architect's decisions on matters relating to aesthe- ect budget; tic effect shall be final if consistent with the intent expressed in .2 required by the enactment or revision of codes, laws the Contract Documents. or regulations subsequent to the preparation of such 2.6.18 The Architect shall render written decisions within a documents; or reasonable time on all claims, disputes or other matters in ques- .3 due to changes required as a result of the Owner's fail - tion between the Owner and Contractor relating to the execu- ure to render decisions in a timely manner. tion or progress of the Work as provided in the Contract Documents. 3.3.2 Providing services required because of significant 2.6.19 The Architect's decisions on claims, disputes or other changes in the Project including, but not limited to, size, qual- matters, including those in question between the Owner and ity, complexity, the Owner's schedule, or the method of bid Contractor, except for those relating to aesthetic effect as pro- ding or negotiating and contracting for construction, except for vided in Subparagraph 2.6.17, shall be subject to arbitration as services required under Subparagraph 5.2.5. provided in this Agreement and in the Contract Documents. 3.3.3 Preparing Drawings, Specifications and other documen- tation and supporting data, evaluating Contractor's proposals, and providing other services in connection with Change ARTICLE 3 Orders and Construction Change Directives. ADDITIONAL SERVICES 3.3.4 Providing services in connection with evaluating substi- tutions proposed by the Contractor and making subsequent 3.1 GENERAL revisions to Drawings, Specifications and other documentation resulting therefrom. 3.1.1 The services described in this Article 3 are not included in Basic Services unless so identified in Article 12, and thev shall 3.3.5 Providing consultation concerning replacement of Work be paid for by the Owner as provided in this Agreement, in damaged by fire or other cause during construction, and fur - addition to the compensation for Basic Services. The services nishing services required in connection with the replacement described under Paragraphs 3.2 and 3.4 shall only be provided of such Work. if authorized or confirmed in writing by the Owner. If services 3.3.6 Providing services made necessary by the default of the described under Contingent Additional Services in Paragraph Contractor, by major defects or deficiencies in the Work of the 3.3 are required due to circumstances beyond the Architect's Contractor, or by failure of performance of either the Owner or control, the Architect shall notify the Owner prior to com- Contractor under the Contract for Construction. mencing such services. If the Owner deems that such services described under Paragraph 3.3 are not required, the Owner 3.3.7 Providing services in evaluating an extensive number of shall give prompt written notice to the Architect. If the Owner claims submitted by the Contractor or others in connection indicates in writing that all or part of such Contingent Addi- with the Work. tional Services are not required, the Architect shall have no obli- 3.3.8 Providing services in connection with a public hearing, gation to provide those services. arbitration proceeding or legal proceeding except where the 3.2 PROJECT REPRESENTATION BEYOND BASIC Architect is party thereto. SERVICES 3.3.9 Preparing documents for alternate, separate or sequential 3.2.1 If more extensive representation at the site than is bids or providing services in connection with bidding, negotia- described in Subparagraph 2.6.5 is required, the Architect shall tion or construction prior to the completion of the Construc- provide one or more Project Representatives to assist in carry- tion Documents Phase. ing out such additional on -site responsibilities. 3.2.2 Project Representatives shall be selected, employed and 3.4 OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL SERVICES directed by the Architect, and the Architect shall be compen- 3.4.1 Providing analyses of the Owner's needs and program- sated therefor as agreed by the Owner and Architect. The ming the requirements of the Project. duties, responsibilities and limitations of authority of Project 3.4.2 Providing financial feasibility or other special studies. Representatives shall be as described in the edition of AIA Document B352 current as of the date of this Agreement, unless 3.4.3 Providing planning surveys, site evaluations or com- otherwise agreed. parative studies of prospective sites. AIA DOCUMENT 8141 - OWNER - ARCHITECT AGREEMENT - FOURTEENTH EDITION - AIA® - ©1987 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 2(XX)6 B141 -1987 4 3.4.4 Providing special surveys, environmental studies and 4.2 The Owner shall establish and update an overall budget for submissions required for approvals of governmental authorities the Project, including the Construction Cost, the Owner's other or others having jurisdiction over the Project. costs and reasonable contingencies related to all of these costs. 3.4.5 Providing services relative to future facilities, systems 4.3 if requested by the Architect, the Owner shall famish evi- and equipment. dente that financial arrangements have been made to fulfill the 3.4.6 Providing services to investigate existing conditions or Owner's obligations under this Agreement. facilities or to make measured drawings thereof. 4.4 The Owner shall designate a representative authorized to 3.4.7 Providing services to verify the accuracy of drawings or act on the Owner's behalf with respect to the Project. The other information furnished by the Owner. Owner or such authorized representative shall render decisions in a timely manner pertaining to documents submitted by the 3.4.8 Providing coordination of construction performed by Architect in order to avoid unreasonable delay in the orderly separate contractors or by the Owner's own forces and coordi- and sequential progress of the Architect's services. nation of services required in connection with construction performed and equipment supplied by the Owner. 4.5 The Owner shall furnish surveys describing physical 3.4.9 Providing services in connection with the work of a con- characteristics, legal limitations and utility locations for the site struction manager or separate consultants retained by the of the Project, and a written legal description of the site. The Owner. surveys and legal information shall include, as applicable, grades and lines of streets, alleys, pavements and adjoining 3.4.10 Providing detailed estimates of Construction Cost. property and structures; adjacent drainage; rights -of -way, 3.4.11 Providing detailed quantity surveys or inventories of restrictions, easements, encroachments, zoning, deed restric- tions, boundaries and contours of the site; locations, dimen- material, equipment and labor. sions and necessary data pertaining to existing buildings, other 3.4.12 Providing analyses of owning and operating costs. improvements and trees; and information concming available utility services and lines, both public and private, above and 3.4.13 Providing interior design and other similar services below grade. including inverts and depths. All the information required for or in connection with the selection, procurement on the survey shall be referenced to a project benchmark. or installation of furniture, furnishings and related equipment. 4.6 The Owner shall furnish the services of geotechnical engi- 3.4.14 Providing services for planning tenant or rental spaces. neers when such services are requested by the Architect. Such 3.4.15 Making investigations, inventories of materials or equip- services may include but are not limited to test borings, test ment, or valuations and detailed appraisals of existing facilities. pits. determinations of soil bearing values, percolation tests, evaluations of hazardous materials, ground corrosion and resis- 3.4.16 Preparing a set of reproducible record drawings show- tivit tests, including necessary operations for anticipating sub - ing significant changes in the Work made during construction soil conditions, with reports and appropriate professional based on marked -up prints, drawings and other data furnished recommendations. by the Contractor to the Architect. 4.6.1 The Owner shall furnish the services of other consul- 3.4.17 Providing assistance in the utilization of equipment or tants when such services are reasonably required by the scope systems such as testing, adjusting and balancing, preparation of of the Project and are requested by the Architect. operation and maintenance manuals, training personnel for operation and maintenance, and consultation during operation. 4.7 The Owner shall furnish structural, mechanical, chemical, 3.4.18 Providing services after issuance to the Owner of the air and water pollution tests, tests for hazardous materials, and other laboratory and environmental tests, inspections and final Certificate for Payment, or in the absence of a final Cer- reports required by law or the Contract Documents. tificate for Payment, more than 60 days after the date of Sub- stantial Completion of the Work. 4.8 The Owner shall furnish all legal, accounting and insurance 3.4.19 Providing services of consultants for other than archi- counseling services as may be necessary at any time for the tectural, structural, mechanical and electrical engineering poi Project, including auditing services the Owner may require to bons of the Project provided as a part t how Basic Services. verify the Contractor's Applications for Payment or to ascertain or for what purposes the Contractor has used the money 3.4.20 Providing any other services not otherwise included in paid by or on behalf of the Owner. this Agreement or not customarily furnished in accordance with generally accepted architectural practice. 4.9 The services, information, surveys and reports required by Paragraphs 4.5 through 4.8 shall be furnished at the Owner's expense, and the Architect shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness thereof. ARTICLE 4 4.10 Prompt written notice shall be given by the Owner to the Architect if the Owner becomes aware of an fault or defect in OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES the Project or nonconformance with the Contract Documents. 4.1 The Owner shall provide full information regarding 4.11 The proposed language of certificates or certifications requirements for the Project, including a program which shall requested of the Architect or Architect's consultants shall be set forth the Owner's objectives, schedule, constraints and cri- submitted to the Architect for review and approval at least 14 teria, including space requirements and relationships, flexi- days prior to execution. The Owner shall not request certifica- bility, expandability, special equipment, systems and site tions that would require knowledge or services beyond the requirements. scope of this Agreement. 5 8141 -1987 AIA DOCUMENT B141 • OWNER- ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • FOURTEENTH EDITION • AIA® • ©1987 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 ARTICLE 5 .3 if the Project is abandoned, terminate in accordance with Paragraph 8.3; or CONSTRUCTION COST .4 cooperate in revising the Project scope and quality as 5.1 DEFINITION required to reduce the Construction Cost. 5.1.1 The Construction Cost shall be the total cost or esti- 5.2.5 If the Owner chooses to proceed under Clause 5.2.4.4, mated cost to the Owner of all elements of the Project designed the Architect, without additional charge, shall modify the Con - or specified by the Architect. tract Documents as necessary to comply with the fixed limit, if established as a condition of this Agreement. The modification 5.1.2 The Construction Cost shall include the cost at current of Contract Documents shall be the limit of the Architect's market rates of labor and materials furnished by the Owner and responsibility arising out of the establishment of a fixed limit. equipment designed, specified, selected or specialiv provided The Architect shall be entitled to compensation in accordance for by the Architect, plus a reasonable allowance for the Con- with this Agreement for all services performed whether or not tractor's overhead and profit. In addition, a reasonable allow- the Construction Phase is commenced. ance for contingencies shall be included for market conditions at the time of bidding and for changes in the Work during construction. ARTICLE 6 5.1.3 Construction Cost does not include the compensation of USE OF ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS, the Architect and Architect's consultants, the costs of the land. SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS rights -of -way, financing or other costs which are the respon- sibility of the Owner as provided in Article 4. 6.1 The Drawings, Specifications and other documents pre - 5.2 RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONSTRUCTION COST pared by the Architect for this Project are instruments of the Architect's service for use solely with respect to this Project 5.2.1 Evaluations of the Owner's Project budget. preliminary and, unless otherwise provided, the Architect shall be deemed estimates of Construction Cost and detailed estimates of Con- the author of these documents and shall retain all common law, struction Cost, if any, prepared by the Architect, represent the statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright. Architect's best judgment as a design professional familiar with The Owner shall be permitted to retain copies, including repro - the construction industry. It is recognized, however, that nei- ducible copies, of the Architect's Drawings, Specifications and ther the Architect nor the Owner has control over the cost of other documents for information and reference in connection labor, materials or equipment, over the Contractor's methods with the Owner's use, and occupancy of the Project. The Archi- of determining bid prices, or over competitive bidding, market tect's Drawings, Specifications or other documents shall not be or negotiating conditions. Accordingly, the Architect cannot used by the Owner or others on other projects, for additions to and does not warrant or represent that bids or negotiated prices this Project or for completion of this Project by others, unless will not vary from the Owner's Project budget or from any the Architect is adjudged to be in default under this Agreement, estimate of Construction Cost or evaluation prepared or agreed except by agreement in writing and with appropriate compen- to by the Architect. sation to the Architect. 5.2.2 No fixed limit of Construction Cost shall be established 6.2 Submission or distribution of documents to meet official as a condition of this Agreement by the furnishing, proposal or regulatory requirements or for similar purposes in connection establishment of a Project budget, unless such fixed limit has with the Project is not to be construed as publication in deroga- been agreed upon in writing and signed by the parties hereto. If tion of the Architect's reserved rights. such a fixed limit has been established, the Architect shall be permitted to include contingencies for design, bidding and price escalation, to determine what materials, equipment, com- ponent systems and types of construction are to be included in the Contract Documents, to make reasonable adjustments in ARTICLE 7 the scope of the Project and to include in the Contract Docu- ARBITRATION ments alternate bids to adjust the Construction Cost to the fixed limit. Fixed limits, if any, shall be increased in the amount of an 7 increase in the Contract Sum occurring after execution of the .1 Claims, disputes or other matters in question between the Contract for Construction. parties to this Agreement arising out of or relating to this Agree- ment or breach thereof shall be subject to and decided by arbi- 5.2.3 If the Bidding or Negotiation Phase has not commenced tration in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitra- within 90 days after the Architect submits the Construction tion Rules of the American Arbitration Association currently in Documents to the Owner, any Project budget or fixed limit of effect unless the parties mutually agree otherwise. Construction Cost shall be adjusted to reflect changes in the 7.2 Demand for arbitration shall be filed in writing with the general level of prices in the construction industry between the other party to this Agreement and with the American Arbitra- date of submission of the Construction Documents to the lion Association. A demand for arbitration shall be made within Owner and the date on which proposals are sought. a reasonable time after the claim, dispute or other matter in 5.2.4 If a fixed limit of Construction Cost (adjusted as pro- question has arisen. In no event shall the demand for arbitration vided in Subparagraph 5.2.3) is exceeded by the lowest bona be made after the date when institution of legal or equitable fide bid or negotiated proposal, the Owner shall: proceedings based on such claim, dispute or other matter in 1 give written approval of an increase in such fixed question would be barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. limit; 7.3 No arbitration arising out of or relating to this Agreement .2 authorize rebidding or renegotiating of the Project 'shall include, by consolidation, joinder or in any other manner, within a reasonable time; an additional person or entity not a party to this Agreement, AIA DOCUMENT 8141 • OWNER - ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • FOURTEENTH EDITION • ALA* • ©1987 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.w., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 8141 -1987 6 except by written consent containing a specific reference to .2 Ten percent of the total compensation for Basic and this Agreement signed by the Owner, Architect, and anv other Additional Services earned to date if termination person or entity sought to be joined. Consent to arbitration occurs during the Design Development Phase; or involving an additional person or entity shall not constitute .3 Five percent of the total compensation for Basic and consent to arbitration of any claim, dispute or other matter in Additional Services earned to date if termination question not described in the written consent or with a person occurs during any subsequent phase. or entity not named or described therein. The foregoing agree- ment to arbitrate and other agreements to arbitrate with an additional person or entity duly consented to by the parties to ARTICLE 9 this Agreement shall be specifically enforceable in accordance with applicable law in any court having jurisdiction thereof. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 7.4 The award rendered by the arbitrator or arbitrators shall be final, and judgment may be entered upon it in accordance with 9.1 Unless otherwise provided, this Agreement shall be gov- applicable law in any court having jurisdiction thereof. erned by the law of the principal place of business of the Architect. 9.2 Terms in this Agreement shall have the same meaning as ARTICLE 8 those in AIA Document A201, General Conditions of the Con- TERMINATION, SUSPENSION OR ABANDONMENT tract for Construction, current as of the date of this Agreement. 9.3 Causes of action between the parties to this Agreement 8.1 This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon pertaining to acts or failures to act shall be deemed to have not less than seven days' written notice should the other party accrued and the applicable statutes of limitations shall com- fail substantially to perform in accordance with the terms of this mence to run not later than either the date of Substantial Com- Agreement through no fault of the party initiating the termination. pletion for acts or failures to act occurring prior to Substantial Completion, or the date of issuance of the final Certificate for 8.2 If the Project is suspended by the Owner for more than 30 Payment for acts or failures to act occurring after Substantial consecutive days, the Architect shall be compensated for ser- Completion. vices performed prior to notice of such suspension. When the Project is resumed, the Architect's compensation shall be equi- 9.4 The Owner and Architect waive all rights against each tably adjusted to provide for expenses incurred in the interrup- other and against the contractors, consultants, agents and tion and resumption of the Architects services. employees of the other for damages, but only to the extent cov- ered by p r operly insurance during construction, except such 8.3 This Agreement may be terminated by the by upon rights as they may have to the proceeds of such insurance as set not less than seven days' written notice to the Architect in the forth in the edition of AIA Document A201, General Conditions event that the Project is permanently abandoned. If the Project of the Contract for Construction, current as of the date of this is abandoned by the Owner for more than 90 consecutive days, Agreement. The Owner and Architect each shall require similar the Architect may terminate this Agreement by giving written waivers from their contractors, consultants and agents. notice. 9.5 The Owner and Architect, respectively, bind themselves, 8.4 Failure of the Owner to make payments to the Architect in their partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to accordance with this Agreement shall be considered substantial the other party to this Agreement and to the partners, succes- nonperformance and cause for termination. sors, assigns and legal representatives of such other party with 8.5 If the Owner fails to make payment when due the Archi- respect to all covenants of this Agreement. Neither Owner nor Architect shall assign this Agreement without the written con sect for services and expenses, the Architect may, upon seven sent of the other. days' written notice to the Owner, suspend performance of ser- vices under this Agreement. Unless payment in full is received 9.6 This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agree - by the Architect within seven days of the date of the notice, the ment between the Owner and Architect and supersedes all suspension shall take effect without further notice. In the event prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either wfit of a suspension of services, the Architect shall have no liability ten or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by written to the Owner for delay or damage caused the Owner because instrument signed by both Owner and Architect. of such suspension of services. 9.7 Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create a contrac- 8.6 In the event of termination not the fault of the Architect, tual relationship with or a cause of action in favor of a third the Architect shall be compensated for services performed prior party against either the Owner or Architect. to termination, together with Reimbursable Expenses then due 9.8 Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Architect and all Termination Expenses as defined in Paragraph 8.7. and Architect's consultants shall have no responsibility for the 8.7 Termination Expenses are in addition to compensation for discovery, presence, handling, removal or disposal of or expo - Basic and Additional Services, and include expenses which are sure of persons to hazardous materials in any form at the Project directly attributable to termination. Termination Expenses shall site, including but not limited to asbestos, asbestos products, be computed as a percentage of the total compensation for polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) or other toxic substances. Basic Services and Additional Services earned to the time of ter- mination, as follows: 9.9 The Architect shall have the right to include representa- tions of the design of the Project, including photographs of the 1 Twenty percent of the total compensation for Basic exterior and interior, among the Architect's promotional and and Additional Services earned to date if termination professional materials. The Architect's materials shall not occurs before or during the predesign, site analysis, or include the Owner's confidential or proprietary information if Schematic Design Phases; or the Owner has previously advised the Architect in writing of AIA DOCUMENT 8141 OWNER- ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • FOURTEENTH EDITION • AIAs • ©1987 7 8141 -1987 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE,? I.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 the specific information considered by the Owner to be conk- 10.3 PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF BASIC SERVICES dental or proprietary. The Owner shall provide professional credit for the Architect on the construction sign and in the pro- 10.3.1 An initial payment as set forth in Paragraph 11.1 is the motional materials for the Project. minimum payment under this Agreement. 10.3.2 Subsequent payments for Basic Services shall be made monthly and, where applicable, shall be in proportion to ser- ARTICLE 10 vices performed within each phase of service, on the basis set PAYMENTS TO THE ARCHITECT forth in Subparagraph 11.2.2. 10.3.3 If and to the extent that the time initially established in 10.1 DIRECT PERSONNEL EXPENSE Subparagraph 11.5.1 of this Agreement is exceeded or extended through no fault of the Architect, compensation for any ser- 10.1.1 Direct Personnel Expense is defined as the direct vices rendered during the additional period of time shall be salaries of the Architect's personnel engaged on the Project and computed in the manner set forth in Subparagraph 11.3.2. the portion of the cost of their mandatory and customary con - tributions and benefits related thereto, such as employment 10.3.4 When compensation is based on a percentage of Con - taxes and other statutory employee benefits, insurance, sick struction Cost and any portions of the Protect are deleted or leave, holidays, vacations, pensions and similar contributions otherwise not constructed, compensation for those portions of and benefits. the Project shall be payable to the extent services are per- formed on those portions, in accordance with the schedule set 10.2 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES forth in Subparagraph 11.2.2, based on (1) the lowest bona fide bid or negotiated proposal, or (2) if no such bid or proposal is 10.2.1 Reimbursable Expenses are in addition to compensa- received, the most recent preliminary estimate of Construction tion for Basic and Additional Services and include expenses Cost or detailed estimate of Construction Cost for such por- incurred by the Architect and Architect's employees and con- tions of the Project. sultants in the interest of the Project, as identified in the follow- 10.4 PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL ing Clauses. SERVICES 10.2.1.1 Expense of transportation in connection with the 10.4.1 Payments on account of the Architect's Additional Project; expenses in connection with authorized out -of -town Services and for Reimbursable Expenses shall be made monthly travel; long- distance communications; and fees paid for secur- upon presentation of the Architect's statement of services ren- ing approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. dered or expenses incurred. 10.2.1.2 Expense of reproductions, postage and handling of 10.5 PAYMENTS WITHHELD Drawings, Specifications and other documents. 10.2.1.3 If authorized in advance by the Owner, expense of 10.5.1 No deductions shall be made from the Architect's com- overtime work requiring higher than regular rates. pensation on account of penalty, liquidated damages or other sums withheld from payments to contractors, or on account of 10.2.1.4 Expense of renderings, models and mock -ups requested the cost of changes in the Work other than those for which the- by the Owner. Architect has been found to be liable. 10.2.1.5 Expense of additional insurance coverage or limits, 10.6 ARCHITECT'S ACCOUNTING RECORDS including professional liability insurance, requested by the Owner in excess of that normally carried by the Architect and 10.6.1 Records of Reimbursable Expenses and expenses per - Architect's consultants. taining to Additional Services and services performed on the basis of a multiple of Direct Personnel Expense shall be avail- 10 9;-.pei;se P f aide ' `' draf;4;g able to the Owner or the Owner's authorized representative at mutually convenient times. ARTICLE 11 BASIS OF COMPENSATION The Owner shall compensate the Architect as follows: 11.1 AN INITIAL PAYMENT of Dollars ($ —0— ) shall be made upon execution of this Agreement and credited to the Owner's account at final payment. 11.2 BASIC COMPENSATION 11.2.1 FOR BASIC SERVICES, as described in Article 2, and any other services included in Article 12 as part of Basic Services, Basic Compensation shall be computed as follows: (Insert basis Y compensation, including stipulated suns, multiples ur percmtages. and identity pbasei to abie'b particular nt of " pe atio Ir, necessary.) Project One Slide for a stipulated sum of seventeen t trVe tt `Mn"dred dollars ($17,500) including architectural services at 11,750, structural at 3,800, mechanical at 485, and electrical at 1,465 dollars. Project Two, Kitchen Expansion for a stipulated sum of eight hundred dollars ($800). AIA DOCUMENT 8141 • OWNER- ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • FOURTEENTH EDITION • AIA® • ©1987 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1 -35 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W , WASHINGTON, D.C. 2(X" B141 -1987 8 11.2.2 Where compensation is based on a stipulated sum or percentage of Construction Cost, progress payments for Basic Services in each phase shall total the following percentages of the total Basic Compensation payable: (Insert additional pbases as appmprtate.) Schematic Design Phase: Fifteen percent (15 %) Design Development Phase: Twenty percent (2 0 %) Construction Documents Phase: Forty percent (40 %) Bidding or Negotiation Phase: Five percent( 5 %) Construction Phase: Twenty percent (20 %) Total Basic Compensation: one hundred percent (100 %) 11.3 COMPENSATION FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES 11.3.1 FOR PROJECT REPRESENTATION BEYOND BASIC SERVICES, as described in Paragraph 3.2, compensation shall be com- puted as follows: If needed, Compensation for these services rendered by Principals, employees and Architectural Consultants shall be based on the Architect's current Hourly Billing Rates. 11.3.2 FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES OF THE ARCHITECT, as described in Articles 3 and 12, other than (1) Additional Project Representation, as described in Paragraph 3.2, and (2) services included in Article 12 as part of Additional Services, but excluding ser- vices of consultants, compensation shall be computed as follows: (Insert basis of comPensarton, including rates and/or mulnotes of Direct Personnel F_=wnse for Principals and employees, and identify Principals and classify employees. if required. Identify specific services to wbtcb parricuiar metbods of compensation apply, if necessary_) If needed, Compensation for these services rendered by Principals, employees and Architectural Consultants shall be based on the Architect's current Hourly Billing Rates. 11.3.3 FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES OF CONSULTANTS, including additional structural, mechanical and electrical engineering services and those provided under Subparagraph 3.4.19 or identified in Article 12 as part of Additional Services, a multiple of one point two ( 1 , 2 ) times the amounts billed to the Architect for such services. (Identify specific types of consultants in Arride 12, if required.) 11.4 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES 11.4.1 FOR REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES, as described in Paragraph 10 2, and any other items included in Article 12 as Reimbursable Expenses, a multiple of one point one ( 1 .1 ) times the expenses incurred by the Architect, the Architect's employees and consultants in the interest of the Project. 11.5 ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS 11.5.1 IF THE BASIC SERVICES covered by this Agreement have not been completed within twelve ( 12 ) months of the date hereof, through no fault of the Architect, extension of the Architect's services beyond that time shall be compensated as provided in Subparagraphs 10.3.3 and 11.3.2. 11.5.2 Payments are due and payable f if t e e n ( 15 ) days from the date of the Architect's invoice. Amounts unpaid t h i r t y ( 30 ) days after the invoice date shall bear interest at the rate entered below, or in the absence thereof at the legal rate prevailing from time to time at the principal place of business of the .Architect. (insert rate of i--t agr e d up—) ( Usury lams and requirements under the Federal Truth in Lending Act. surnlar stars aid local consumer trade lams and otber regulations at the Owner's and Arcbi- t Places o fonts. 144 location of rbe PMIM and elsewhere may a(fecs fbs validity of flits provuwm specific legal adore sbadd be obtained with lkahO+tR and also regarding requirements sucb as ronnere aia(osures or wanvrs.) 9 81411987 AIA DOCUIE?T 8141 •OWNER•ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • FOURTEENTH EDITION • ALAS • 01987 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 11.5.3 The rates and multiples set forth for Additional Services shall be annually adjusted in accordance with normal salary review practices of the Architect. ARTICLE 12 OTHER CONDITIONS OR SERVICES (Insert descriptions of other services, identify Additional Serrices included within Basic compensation and modifications to the payment and compensation terms included in this Agreement.) Article 10.2.1 Delete extra expense for computer -aided design and drafting listed in Article 10.2.1.6. There will be no extra charge for computer time. Article 12.1 If the City of Brooklyn Center would need additional services, the current Hourly Billing Rates are attached as Exhibit A pages 1, 2 and 3. Article 12.2 A document entitled "Drawing of Water Slide" is attached to this agree- ment to define the scope of work listed on page 1. This document is identified as Exhibit B, page 1. This Agreement entered into as of the day and year first written above. OWNER CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ARCHITECT MJORUD ARCHITECTURE (Signature) (Signature) Al Mjorud, AIA Architect (Printed name and title) (Printed name and title) AIA DOCUMENT B141 • OWNER - ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • FOURTEENTH EDITION • AIA° • ©1987 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1 -35 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 8141 -1987 10 Exhibit "A" Page No.1 ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING FEES ARCHITECT'S HOURLY BILLING RATES -1991 Architectural and Project Management Services: Principal time of Al Mjorud will be invoiced at a fixed rate of seventy -five dollars ($75.00) per hour. Supervisory time will be invoiced at the fixed rate of fifty -five dollars ($55.00) per hour. Supervisory personnel include: Project Representatives or Clerks of the Works Project Architects Project Managers Professional time will be invoiced at a fixed rate of fifty dollars ($50.00) per hour. Professional personnel include: Architects Specifiers Technical Level time will be invoiced at a fixed rate of forty -five dollars ($45.00) per hour. Technical level personnel include: Drafters Designers Model Builders Renderers Clerical time will be invoiced at a fixed rate of twenty -seven dollars ($27.00) per hour. Clerical personnel include: Computer /Word Processing Operators Secretaries Typists, etc. Page 1 of 3, Architect's Rates: Miorud Architecture Exhibit "A" Page No. 2 ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING FEES STRUCTURAL ENGINEER'S HOURLY BILLING RATES -1991 Structural Engineering Services Principal time of Jeffrey S. Rudin shall be invoiced at a fixed rate of seventy dollars ($70.00) per hour. Professional engineering time shall be invoiced at a fixed rate of fifty -two ($52.00) per hour. Professional engineering personnel include: Structural Engineers Field Engineers Specifiers Technical level time shall be invoiced at a fixed rate of forty-one ($41.00) per hour. Technical level personnel include: Drafters CADD operators Designers Engineers in training Clerical time at a fixed rate of twenty -seven dollars ($27.00) per hour. Clerical personnel include: Secretaries Receptionist Typists, etc. Page 2 of 3, Structural Engineer's Rates: Rudin Structures Exhibit "A" Page No. 3 ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING FEES MECHANICAL /ELECTRICAL ENGINEER'S HOURLY BILLING RATES - 1991 Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Services: Principal time shall be invoiced at a fixed rate of sixty -five dollars ($65.00) per hour. The principals are: Bruce E. Follestad Norman K. Knafla Design engineering time shall be invoiced at a fixed rate of fifty -five dollars ($55.00) per hour. Design engineering personnel include: Design Engineers Engineers in Training Clerical time shall be invoiced at a fixed rate of twenty -seven dollars ($27.00) per hour. Clerical personnel include: Secretaries Receptionist Typists, etc. Page 3 of 3, Mech /Elec Engineer's Rates: OLB FLUME LENGTH: 150 FEET T 24• WIDE CROSSOVER BRIDGE —__ _____ ONE HIDDEN LOOP Z W SKYLIGHT ABOVE FOR 11£ADROUM —\ O EXISTING HANDICAPPED RAMP I � I �� I W I INTAKE SUCTION TANK DOOR TO PUMP ROOM m — 1 I X t I I � I I PUYP BELOW 'A PLATFORM SET AT 20' OFF POOL DECK V r ' I I PLUNGE POOL ' `p - _- m I I NEW SURFACE SAFETY MARKER COLUMN UNDER PLATFORM 2 _`aIL EXISTING SURFACE LANE MARK E R•^' �— I -- --THREE SETS OF STAIRS OF 11 RISERS EACH PARTIAL PLAN OF SWIMMING POOL CONSTITUTION HALL I MJORUD ARCHITECTURE °. 1240012TH AVENUE NORTH COMMUNITY CENTER City of Brooklyn Center SHEET 1 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55441 WATER SLIDE 6301 Shingle Creek cr Y Dated: June 3, 1991 6121"4 zal Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Scale: 1 /8' = 1" • 0" • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 08/26/91 Agenda Item Number / O E REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED SHADE TREES DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Direct r of Pub Ki orks MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONMIENDATION: 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 all as new trees are marked. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION It is recommended the Council adopt the attached resolution. • Member introduced the following resolution and IoE moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES (ORDER NO. DST 08/26/91 ) 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 ---------------------- - - - - -- ----------- ------------ - - - - -- -- - - - - -- ARLIE & ANNA GALLUP 6001 ALDRICH AVE N 228 GORDON & DONNA NYLIN 6425 PERRY AVE N 229 DANIEL & CHERI PARADISE 6945 MAJOR AVE N 230 JEFFREY & NANCY FULLER 6044 N LILAC DR 315 GIL & MARLENE BUDNIK 6112 FREMONT AVE N 316 JAMIE TESKE /LISA SILBERT 6945 LEE AVE N 317 JAMIE TESKE /LISA SILBERT 6945 LEE AVE N 318 PATRICIA KOESTER 5213 WINCHESTER LA 319 CLARENCE DOBIAS 5207 WINCHESTER LA 320 RICHARD & KATHRYN SCHULTZ 701 69TH AVE N 321 DIANNA O'CONNOR 711 69TH AVE N 322 DIANNA O'CONNOR 711 69TH AVE N 323 DIANNA O'CONNOR 711 69TH AVE N 324 DIANNA O'CONNOR 711 69TH AVE N 325 DIANNA O'CONNOR 711 69TH AVE N 326 DIANNA O'CONNOR 711 69TH AVE N 327 DIANNA O'CONNOR 711 69TH AVE N 328 DIANNA O'CONNOR 711 69TH AVE N 329 MICHAEL HOLMQUIST 3707 66TH AVE N 330 JOANNE LENZEN 5436 OLIVER AVE N 331 JOHN & GLORIA SAWCHAK 6812 SCOTT AVE N 332 ELIZABETH BLAKE 7130 KYLE AVE N 333 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: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date AuQUSi 26, 1991 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: 1992 City Manager's Preliminary Proposed Budget DEPT. APPROVAL: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOABIENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) Attached is the 1992 City Manager's Prelmininary Proposed Budget. This Preliminary Proposed Budget is designed to give the City Council sufficient information to establish a preliminary 1992 property tax levy and budget total by State mandated September 1 certification deadline. Under current State requirements, taxing entities, such as cities, must establish preliminary budget and levy figures by September 1 of each year. The County is responsible under the same laws for mailing notices to property taxpayers notifying them of the required hearings to be held by cities, school districts, and counties between November 15 and December 20 of each year. This year under State regulations, cities must finalize their property tax levies and budget prior to December 30, 1991. The 1992 City Manager's Preliminary Proposed Budget has been prepared based on preliminary estimates on revenues and expenditures. Please understand these are preliminary figures which must be finalized in October and November and, as in past years, are subject to considerable modification and change. The preliminary 1992 proposed maximum budget levy of $6,127,359 would increase taxes on the average Brooklyn Center home ($74,000 value) by approximately $34 per year or $2.83 per month. Please understand these estimates are based on very preliminary information, property value, and revenue estimates. October and November will give us significantly more reliable figures. The 1992 preliminary proposed budget represents no additional personnel requests, in fact, eliminates three positions from the 1991 adopted budget allocation. These positions are City Clerk, and a Maintenance I and Maintenance II position in the Public Works division. All three of these positions are currently vacant. The proposed total General Fund budget figure of $11,097,486 represents slightly over a one -half percent (0.64 %) increase in spending over the 1991 final approved general fund budget. Even with this modest increase in the total General Fund budget, the preliminary proposed 1992 budget is still $450,000 out of balance without consideration of the use of any fund balance. With slightly over a half percent increase in the budget, the imbalance is obviously caused by something other than expenditures. In 1992, we expect significant decreases in revenue, especially from State aids, and last year State law allowed a three percent increase in our levy limit base, and this year there is a zero percent increase allowance. We are also subjected to a number of mandated expenditures such as increase in jail service costs which are impacting the 1992 budget. At this time, I would encourage the Council not to become overly concerned or excited about the 1992 budget. In November and December, we will have a better idea on how the 1991 budget will final out and then you can make a more informed judgment about a fund balance transfer. During the year, the City Council members have indicated an interest in considering the expansion of certain programs and budgets in the following area: 1) forestry and reforestation, 2) addition of a position of management /communication assistant as suggested by Mayor Paulson, 3) expanded lobbying efforts to influence the legislature to give City needs and issues a higher priority, and 4) more emphasis on neighborhood revitalization issues, including street reconstruction. I recommend the Council approve the attached resolution setting the 1992 preliminary property tax levy at $6,127,359 and the preliminary 1992 budget total at $11,906,724. Under State law, the preliminary property tax levy figure cannot be exceeded once the Council approves the preliminary levy. The budget figure can be exceeded later if authorized by the City Council. Because you can only lower the proposed property tax levy, we recommend the 1992 property tax figure be set as high as it is allowed under State levy limits and special levy requirements including the use of certificates of indebtedness. The proposed preliminary figure is at that amount. If approved, it will allow the Council as much flexibility as possible when considering the final 1992 budget in • December. It is my intention to submit to the Council the City Manager's final proposed budget for 1992 in early October. This document will have more reliable figures on which you can make intelligent and informed policy decisions. This preliminary document is designed strictly for the Council to establish the required preliminary property tax levy and budget figures to comply with State notice requirements. This year staff will also be working closely with the Financial Task Force in reviewing the 1992 budget. RECOMMENDATION I recommend your favorable consideration of the attached resolution establishing the preliminary 1992 levy and budget figures prior to September 1, 1991, in accordance with State law. (HH92RECAP) 1992 PRELIMINARY BUDGET AS REQUESTED SUMMARY SHEET (8- 19 -91) - - -- ---------------------------------------------- PROPERTY TAXES PROPOSED TO BE LEVIED FOR 1992: --------------------------------------------- FOR DEBT RETIREMENT 809,238 FOR GENERAL FUND 5,318,121 6,127,359 TAXES LEVIED FOR 1991 5,619,134 1992 PROPOSED TAX INCREASE OVER 1991 508,225 9.04% LEVY LIMIT: PER DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 5,162,682 ADD SPECIAL LEVIES 964,677 6,127,359 TAX TO BE LEVIED EXCEEDS LIMIT BY 0 0.00% APPROPRIATIONS SUMMARY: ---------------- - - - - -- 1992 1991 INCREASE % INCREASE ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- GENERAL FUND OPERATIONS 10,593,688 10,135,924 457,764 4.52% GENERAL FUND CAP OUTLAY 503,798 891,017 (387,219) - 43.46% - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- TOTAL GENERAL FUND 11,097,486 11,026,941 70,545 0.64% ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- 1980 PARK IMPR BOND 350,238 363,363 (13,125) -3.61% 1991 CERT OF INDEBT 261,000 306,000 (45,000) - 14.71% 1992 CERT OF INDEBT 198,000 0 198,000 ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- TOTAL DEBT RETIREMENT FUNDS 809,238 669,363 139,875 20.90% ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS 11,906,724 11,696,304 210,420 1.80% - -- ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- - REVENUE SUMMARY: 1992 1991 INCREASE % INCREASE ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- PROPERTY TAXES FOR GENERAL 5,318,121 4,949,771 368,350 7.44% LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID (LGA) 1,647,162 1,955,069 (307,907) - 15.75% SALE OF CERT OF INDEBT 475,000 700,000 (225,000) - 32.14% FUND BALANCE TRANSFER 450,537 312,358 138,179 44.24% OTHER 3,206,666 3,109,743 96,923 3.12% ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- TOTAL GENERAL FUND 11,097,486 11,026,941 70,545 0.64% ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- PROPERTY TAXES FOR DEBT 809,238 669,363 139,875 20.90% ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- TOTAL REVENUE 11,906,724 11,696,304 210,420 1.80% NET BUDGET DEFICIT IF PROPERTY TAX LEVIED TO LIMIT: 450,537 (NHOBCS) PREL1 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA COMBINED ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET ----------------- - - - - -- FOR ALL BUDGETED CITY FUNDS --------------------------- (GENERAL AND DEBT RETIREMENT) 1992 PROPOSED SUMMARY 1 (ISOERAA) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR ALL BUDGETED CITY FUNDS :• (GENERAL AND DEBT RETIREMENT) ------------- ------ - - - - -- 1992 PROPOSED ----------------------------------------------- SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED REVENUE AND APPROPRIATIONS ----------------------------------------------- REVENUE: 1992 1991 1991 Percent --- - - - - -- Revenue Revenue Increase Increase Estimate Estimate (Decrease) - Decrease ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- I. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 6,147,359 5,639,134 508,225 9.01% II. LODGING SALES TAX 385,000 390,600 (5,600) -1.43% III. BUSINESS LICENSES & PERMITS 183,402 184,900 (1,498) -0.81% IV. NON- BUSINESS LICENSES & PERMITS 111,400 130,100 (18,700) - 14.37% V. INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE 1,915,162 2,255,067 (339,905) - 15.07% VI. GENERAL GOVT. SERVICE CHARGES 177,210 126,800 50,410 39.76% VII. PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICE CHARGES 17,000 17,000 0 0.00% VIII. RECREATION FEES 942,554 734,545 208,009 28.32% IX. FINES AND FORFEITURES 210,000 285,000 (75,000) - 26.32% X. MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 838,000 1,034,000 (196,000) - 18.96% XI. FUND BALANCE TRANSFERS 450,537 312,358 138,179 44.24% XII. TRANSFERS FROM OTHER FUNDS 529,100 586,800 (57,700) 9.83% ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- o TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE 11,906,724 11,696,304 210,420 1.80% ---------- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- APPROPRIATIONS: 1992 1991 - ----- --- - -- - -- Adopted Adopted 1992 Percent Approp- Approp- Increase Increase riations riations (Decrease) - Decrease I. GENERAL FUND --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- A. GENERAL GOVERNMENT 2,023,802 2,023,670 132 0.01% B. PUBLIC SAFETY 3,876,929 4,007,852 (130,923) -3.27% C. PUBLIC WORKS 2,023,658 2,105,507 (81,849) -3.89% D. HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 119,190 118,432 758 0.64% E. RECREATION 1,966,073 1,993,053 (26,980) -1.35% F. CONS. OF NAT. RESOURCES 0 0 0 0.00% G. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 182,000 183,000 (1,000) -0.55% H. UNALLOCATED DEPT. EXPENSES 905,834 595,427 310,407 52.13% ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- TOTAL GENERAL FUND 11,097,486 11,026,941 70,545 0.64% - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- II. DEPT REDEMPTION FUNDS 809,238 669,363 139,875 20.90% ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS 11,906,724 11,696,304 210,420 1.80% 2 ;r (HHRORAR) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA ,r► COMBINED ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR ALL BUDGETED CITY FUNDS GENERAL AND DEBT RETIREMENT)+� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1992 PROPOSED --------------------------------------- RESUME OF REVENUE AND ESTIMATED REVENUE 9/1/90 Esti- 1992 1992 1992 1989 1990 mate of Esti- Increase Increase Actual Actual 1991 mated (Decrease)- Decrease Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue From 1991 From 1991 --------- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- I. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES Ad Valorem Levy 3,354,509 4,790,645 5,619,134 6,127,359 508,225 9.04% Penalties & Interest 28,759 2,089 20,000 20,000 0 0.00% --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- Total 3,383,268 4,792,734 5,639,134 6,147,359 508,225 9.01% --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- II. LODGING TAXES 177,304 365,680 390,600 385,000 (5,600) -1.43% --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- III. BUS. LICENSES & PERMITS 190,204 185,940 184,900 183,402 (1,498) -0.81% --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- • IV. NONBUS. LIC. & PERMITS 175,044 111,555 130,100 111,400 (18,700) - 14.37% V. INTERGOVERNMENTAL REV. 3,623,652 3,201,888 2,255,067 1,915,162 (339,905) - 15.07% --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- VI. GEN. GOVERN. CHARGES 130,427 184,227 126,800 177,210 50,410 39.76% VII. PUBLIC SAFETY CHARGES 17,414 17,151 17,000 17,000 0 0.00% - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- VIII.RECREATION FEES 677,894 718,160 734,545 942,554 208,009 28.32% --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- IX. FINES & FORFEITURES 278,812 215,804 285,000 210,000 (75,000) - 26.32% --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- X. MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Sale of Certificates 0 0 700,000 475,000 (225,000) Other Revenue 413,205 431,623 346,358 363,000 16,642 4.80% --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- Total 413,205 431,623 1,046,358 838,000 (208,358) - 19.91% - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- XI. FUND BALANCE TRANSFERS 0 0 300,000 450,537 150,537 50.18% --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- XII. TRANSFERS -OTHER FUNDS 486,629 503,183 586,800 529,100 (57,700) -9.83% TOTAL REVENUE 9,553,853 10,727,945 11,696,304 11,906,724 210,420 ° 1.80% 3 (AAAROAAE) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA ` COMBINED ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR ALL BUDGETED CITY FUNDS 'r GENERAL AND DEBT RETIREMENT�`� ----------------------- - - - - -- 1992 PROPOSED ----------------------------------------- RESUME OF APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES ----------------------------------------- 1989 1990 1991 1992 1992 1992 Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Increase Increase Unit Expend- Expend- Approp- Approp- - Decrease - Decrease Number itures itures riations riations From 1991 From 1991 - - - - -- -- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- I. GENERAL FUND BY FUNCTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT ------------------------------------------------ A. GENERAL GOVERNMENT 1,749,925 1,826,303 2,023,670 2,023,802 132 0.01% --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- B. PUBLIC SAFFETY 3,103,225 3,474,111 4,007,852 3,876,929 (130,923) -3.27% --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- C. PUBLIC WORKS 1,765,439 1,916,432 2,105,507 2,023,658 (81,849) -3.89% --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- D. HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 107,367 114,632 118,432 119,190 758 0.64% --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- E. RECREATION 1,814,362 1,842,299 1,993,053 1,966,073 (26,980) -1.35% --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- F. CONS OF NATURAL RESOURCES 17,247 46,125 0 0 0 --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- G. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 168,305 169,942 183,000 182,000 (1,000) -0.55% --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- H. UNALLOCATED EXPENSES 689,276 396,551 595,427 905,834 310,407 52.13% --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- Total General Fund 9,415,146 9,786,395 11,026,941 11,097,486 70,545 0.64% --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- II. DEBT SERVICE FUNDS BY FUND -------------------------- A. 1969 Bldg. & Improvement Bond Redemption Fund 167,700 0 0 0 0 0.00% B. 1980 Park Improvement Bond Redemption Fund 205,191 364,119 363,363 350,238 (13,125) -3.61% C. 1991 Cert. of Indebtedness Redemption Fund 0 0 306,000 261,000 (45,000) D. 1992 Cert. of Indebtedness Redemption Fund 0 0 0 198,000 198,000 --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- Total Debt Redemption 372,891 364,119 669,363 809,238 139,875° 20 --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- III. TOTAL — APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES 9,788,037 10,150,514 11,696,304 11,906,724 210,420 1.80% 4 ? t (WWRTATB)Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 91- RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 1992 PROPOSED BUDGET -------------------------------------------- BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the appropriations for budgeted funds for the calendar year 1992 shall be: GENERAL FUND Unit No. Organizational Unit Amount -- - - - - -- ------------------------------ - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- 11 Council $ 81,810 12 Charter Commission 1,500 13 City Manager's Office 359,334 14 Elections and Voters' Registration 51,650 15 Assessing 193,588 16 Finance 396,869 17 Independent Audit 15,000 18 Legal Counsel 203,200 19 Government Buildings 407,344 20 Data Processing 313,507 31 Police Protection 3,029,454 32 Fire Protection 431,667 33 Planning and Inspection 305,049 34 Emergency Preparedness 71,989 35 Animal Control 38,770 41 Engineering 455,946 42 Street Construction and Maintenance 968,381 43 Vehicle Maintenance 415,231 44 Traffic Signs and Signals 37,100 45 Street Lighting 144,100 46 Weed Control 2,900 51 Health Regulation and Inspection 88,930 52 Social Services 30,260 61 Recreation and Parks Administration 302,872 62 Adult Recreation Programs 306,836 63 Teen Recreation Programs 13,575 64 Children's Recreation Programs 72,924 65 General Recreation Programs 91,933 66 Community Center 570,097 69 Parks Maintenance 607,836 70 Convention and Tourism Bureau 182,000 80 Unallocated Departmental Expense 905,834 Total General Fund $11,097,486 1980 PARK IMPROVEMENT BOND REDEMPTION FUND 350,238 1991 CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS REDEMPTION FUND 261,000 1992 CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS REDEMPTION FUND °198,000 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR BUDGETED FUNDS $11,906,724 ; and 5 RESOLUTION N0. 91_ Eli Mltia` BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the source of financing the sums appropriated are expected to be: General Property Taxes $ 6,127,359 Penalties and Interest on Property Taxes 20,000 Sales Taxes on Lodging 385,000 Business Licenses and Permits 183,402 Nonbusiness Licenses and Permits 111,400 Intergovernmental Revenue 1,915,162 General Government Charges for Services 177,210 Public Safety Charges for Services 17,000 Recreation Fees 942,554 Fines and Forfeits 210,000 Miscellaneous Revenue 838,000 Fund Balance Transfers 450,537 Transfers From Other Funds 529,100 TOTAL ESTIMATED SOURCE OF FINANCING $11,906,724 ------------------- - - - - -- ------------------------------------ Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion of 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. 6 L� f IRTATL) Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 91- RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A PROPOSED TAX LEVY FOR 1992 BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS -------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, The City of Brooklyn Center is annually required by Charter and state law to approve a resolution setting forth an annual tax levy to the Hennepin County Auditor; and WHEREAS, Minnesota statutes currently in force require certification of a proposed tax levy o the Hennepin Count Auditor on or before September 1 1991 and y P Y P a final tax levy on or before December 30, 1991. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center: 1. There is hereby approved for expenditures from general taxes, the following sums for the purpose indicated: GENERAL FUND $5,318,121 1992 CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS REDEMPTION FUND 198,000 $5,516,121 The foregoing does not include levies already certified to the County Auditor for the payment of outstanding loans, which levies for the year 1992 are as follows: 1980 PARK IMPROVEMENT BONDS REDEMPTION FUND $ 350,238 1991 CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS REDEMPTION FUND 261,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES FOR THE YEAR 1992 FROM GENERAL TAXES $6,127,359 2. Of the above amounts, $964,677 has been determined to be a special levy and is exempt from the overall levy limitations set forth in Laws of 1973, Chapter 650 as amended. 3. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property lying within the City of Brooklyn Center, in addition to all levies heretofore certified to the County Auditor as indicated in paragraph one hereof, the sum of $5,516,121, and the City Clerk shall cause a copy of this resolution to be certified to the County Auditor so that said sum shall be spread upon the tax rolls and will be payable in the year 1992. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion of 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. 7 (RRP3011) RO1 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ANNUAL BUDGET 1992 REVENUE PROJECTIONS TYPE: AD VALOREM LEVY (3011) INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY: DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 1991 LEVY LIMIT COMPUTATION: ---------------------------- 1. PAYABLE 1990 ADJUSTED LEVY LIMIT BASE $ 6,661,520 2. Times Inflation Adjustment of 103.00% 3. Equals Inflation Adjusted 1991 Levy Limit Base 6,861,366 4. Add Adjustment For Growth In Population or Households (Uses One -Half of the Greater of the Following Ratios) Population Households ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- A. 1989 28,578 11,301 B. 1988 29,420 11,270 C. Ratio (1989/1988) 0.971 1.003 D. Times Adjustment for Growth 1.002 5. Equals Population /Household Adjusted 1991 Levy Limit Base 6,875,089 6. Less Levy Limit Base Adjustment for 100% of 1990 Aid Reduction 107,919 7. Equals Final Adjusted 1991 Levy Limit Base 6,767,170 8. Less 1991 Local Government Aids 1,955,069 9. EQUALS PAYABLE 1991 LEVY LIMITATION $ 4,812,101 1992 LEVY LIMIT COMPUTATION: --------------------------- 1. FINAL ADJUSTED 1991 LEVY LIMIT BASE (Item 7 Above) $ 6,767,170 2. Add Levy Limit Base Adjustment For the Payable 1991 Amount of Special Levy Repealed for Payable 1992 (Payable 1991 Special Levy for the Unfunded Accrued Liability of Public Pension Funds) 42,674 3. EQUALS FINAL ADJUSTED 1992 LEVY LIMIT BASE 6,809,844 4. Less 1992 Local Government Aid 1,647,162 5. EQUALS PAYABLE 1991 LEVY LIMITATION 5,162,682 6. Add Special Levies: A. Debt Retirement for 1980 Park Improvement Bonds $ 350,238 B. Debt Retirement for 1991 Certificates of Indebtedness 261,000 C. Debt Retirement for 1992 Certificates of Indebtedness 198,000 809,238 D. Loss of Tax Receipts Due to Tax Abatements 97,665 E. Drug Abuse Task Force 57,774 964,677 ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- 7. EQUALS TOTAL ALLOWABLE 1992 TAX LEVY $ 6,127,359 8 Y a F y HHBCCl N ( ) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET 5 FOR FUNDS ALL BUDGETED CITY 1992 PROPOSED ------------------------------------------------ TO BE FINANCED WITH CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS Certificates of Indebtedness are to be dated January 1, 1992 and will mature on December 31, 1992, 1993, and 1994 at an annual projected interest rate of 8 %. Principal at January 1, 1992 $ 475,000 Interest Payment on 12 -31 -92 $ 38,000 Principal Payment on 12 -31 -92 160,000 (160,000) Debt Retirement Levy For 1992 Budget $ 198,000 Principal at January 1, 1993 315,000 Interest Payment on 12 -31 -93 $ 25,200 Principal Payment on 12 -31 -93 160,000 (160,000) Debt Retirement Levy For 1993 Budget $ 185,200 Principal at January 1, 1994 155,000 Interest Payment on 12 -31 -94 $ 12,400 Principal Payment on 12 -31 -94 155,000 (155,000) Debt Retirement Levy For 1994 Budget $ 167,400 ----- - - - - -- Principal at January 1, 1995 $ 0 9 PR EIININA * Ry (HHBCCI) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR ALL BUDGETED CITY FUNDS --------------------- - - - - -- 1992 PROPOSED ------------------------------------------------ TO BE FINANCED WITH CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS ------------------------------------------------ DEPARTMENT CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEM DEPT TOTAL -------- - - - - -- --------------------------- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ASSESSING (15) Other Equipment $ 0 FINANCE (16) Office Furnishings & Equipment 2,300 GOVT BLDGS(19) Office Furnishings & Equipment $ 0 Other Equipment 3,060 3,060 DATA PROCESS(20) Office Furnishings & Equipment 145,343 Other Equipment 5,000 150,343 POLICE (31) Office Furnishings & Equipment 475 Other Equipment 500 Mobile Equipment 76,500 77,475 FIRE (32) Furniture and Fixtures 5,575 Other Equipment 60,555 Mobile Equipment 19,500 85,630 PLAN &INSP (33) Office Furnishings & Equipment 385 ANIMAL CNTRL(35) Mobile Equipment 15,350 ENGINEERING(41) Office Furnishings & Equipment 450 Other Equipment 400 Mobile Equipment 350 1,200 STREET MTNC(42) Mobile Equipment 76,500 REC &PRKS ADM(61) Mobile Equipment 0 ADULT REC (62) Other Equipment 400 TEEN REC (63) Furniture and Fixtures 600 CHILRENS REC(64) Furniture and Fixtures 197 COMM CENTER (66) Furniture and Fixtures 2,136 Other Equipment 4,600 6,736 PARKS MTNC (69) Other Equipment 15,600 Mobile Equipment 10,200 25,800 UNALLOCATED (80) Office Furnishings & Equipment 30,200 Total Equipment to be Financed With C.I.'s $ 476,176 10 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROPOSED TAX CAPACITY LEVY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATION, PROVIDING INFORMATIONAL SERVICE, AND RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MSA 469.001 THROUGH 469.047 OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR THE YEAR 1992 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center is the governing body of the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received a resolution from the Housing and and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center entitled a "Resolution Establishing the Proposed Tax Levy for the Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment Authority for the Year 1992 "; and WHEREAS, Minnesota statutes currently require certification of a proposed tax levy to the Hennepin County Auditor on or before September 1, 1991 and a final tax levy on or before December 28, 1991. WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to the provisions of MSA 469.033, Subdivision 6, must by resolution consent to the proposed tax levy of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that a special tax be levied upon all real and personal property within the City of Brooklyn Center at the rate of 0.0144% of taxable market value of all taxable property, real and personal, situated within the corporate limits of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota and not exempted by the Constitution of the State of Minnesota or the valid laws of the State of Minnesota. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that there be and hereby is levied, for the year 1992, an additional $2,647.54 for 1990 cancellations and abatements processed by Hennepin County for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the said property tax levy be used for the operation of the Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment Authority pursuant to the provisions of MSA 469.001 through 469.047. ---------------------------- - - - - -- ------------------------------------ Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER comoa Meeting Date 8-26-91 Agenda Item Number AU ' REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTATION AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) DUMP BODY AND HOIST DEPT. APPROVAL: Patricia A. Page, Deputy City d rk MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOATMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached • SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) Quotations were received for this piece of equipment on Wednesday, August 20, 1991. Three quotations were received (two from Crysteel). One of the quotations from Crysteel was for a piece of equipment which did not meet the specifications. I recommend rejection of the quotation from Crysteel for the piece of equipment which did not meet our specifications. I further recommend approval of the attached resolution which will accept the other quotation from Crysteel. • �Q t Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTATION AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) DUMP BODY AND HOIST WHEREAS, an appropriation was approved in the 1991 budget for the purchase of one (1) dump body and hoist; and WHEREAS, three quotations were received as follows: Company Quote (or bid) Crysteel $9 MacQueen $9,900 Crysteel $8 WHEREAS, the quotation received from Crysteel in the amount of $8,487 was for equipment which did not meet specifications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the purchase of one (1) dump body and hoist from Crysteel, in the amount of $9,690 is hereby approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the quotation received from Crysteel in the amount of $8,487 is duly rejected on the grounds the equipment did not meet specifications. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8-26-91 M Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION �- ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution Authorizing Mayor and City Manager to Execute Year XVII Third -Party Funding Agreement for Operation of the City's Single - Family Rehabilitation Program DEPT. APPROV To Bublitz, Assistant ED oordinator MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECON MNDATION: No comments to supplement this report . Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes • This Resolution would approve the agreement with the Metropolitan Council to administer a portion of the City's Home Rehabilitation Grant Program. The Metropolitan Council, through the Metropolitan Housing and Redevelopment Authority, processes all applications for assistance under the City's Home Rehabilitation Grant Program. Metro HRA does all income verifications, mortgage status verifications, property title verifications, etc. for the program. Metro HRA also provides assistance and responds to questions of persons applying for the program. The fee charged to the City by Metro HRA for this service is $600 per grant. It should be noted this agreement covers fiscal year 1990. Apparently, there was some administrative problem with getting the 1990 agreement executed by the Metropolitan Council; therefore, this agreement is in effect a retro- active approval of our on -going contract with Metro HRA. I spoke with a representative from Hennepin County who indicated agreements with the Metropolitan Council for fiscal years 1991 and 1992 will be forthcoming. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Staff recommends approval of the Resolution. /DJ Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE YEAR XVII THIRD -PARTY FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR OPERATION OF THE CITY'S SINGLE - FAMILY REHABILITATION PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center has authorized a subrecipient agreement with Hennepin County for the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into an agreement with the Metropolitan Council to continue to administer part of the City's Home Rehabilitation Grant Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that its Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute a third -party agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center and the Metropolitan Council for the purpose of providing administrative services in the implementation of the City's Home Rehabilitation Grant Program. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. THIRD PARTY AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM This agreement made and entered into by and between the City of Brooklyn Center (City) and the Metropolitan Council (Provider). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City is a cooperating unit in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) by virtue of a joint coopera- tion agreement executed between the City and Hennepin County pursuant to MSA 471.59, and WHEREAS, the City has executed a Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County which allocates $135,632 from the FY 1990 Urban Hennepin County CDBG program for the purpose of supporting the activities as identified in Exhibit 1, attached and made a part of this agreement, hereinafter referred to as "activ- ities." NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement, the parties hereto mutually agree to the following terms and conditions: 1. The Uniform Administrative Requirements in 24 CFR 570.502 issued by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), shall apply to activity. 2. The City shall be responsible for procurement of all supplies, equipment, services, and construction necessary for implementation of the activity. Procurement shall be carried out in accordance with the OMB Circular A -110. The City shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, all advertisements, negotiations, notices, and documents; enter into all contracts; and conduct all meetings, conferences, and interviews as necessary to insure compliance with the above described procurement requirements. 3. The City shall be responsible for carrying out any acquisitions of real property necessary for implementation of activity. The City shall conduct all such acquisitions in its name and shall hold title to all properties purchased. The City shall be responsible for preparation of all notices, appraisals, and documentation required in conducting acquisition under the latest applicable regulations of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 and of the CDBG Program. The City shall also be responsible for providing all relocation notices, counseling, and services required by said regulations. 4. The City shall comply with the acquisition and relocation require- ments of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as required under 24 CFR 570.606(a) and HUD implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 42; the requirements in 24 CFR 570.606(b) governing the residential anti - displacement and relocation assistance plan under section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (the Act); the relocation require- ments of 24 CFR 570.606(c) governing displacement subject to section 104(k) of the Act; and the requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(d) governing optional relocation assistance under Section 105(a)(11) of the Act, as pertaining to the activity. 5. The Provider shall maintain records for the expenditure of all CDBG funds it receives, such records to be maintained in accordance with OMB Circular A -110 and A -122, as applicable. All records shall be made available, upon request of the City for monitoring by the City. The City shall have authority to review any and all procedures and all materials, notices, documents, etc., prepared by the Provider in implementation of activity, and the Provider agrees to provide all information required by any person authorized by the City to request such information from the Provider for the purpose of reviewing the same. 6. The Provider shall take all necessary actions required to implement activity and to comply with any related requests by the City, it being understood that the City has responsibility to Hennepin County for insuring compliance with such requirements. The Provider also will promptly notify the City of any changes in the scope or character of activity. 7. The Provider does hereby agree to release, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from and against all costs, expenses, claims, suits, or judgments arising from or growing out of any injuries, loss or damage sustained by any person or corporation, including employees of Provider and property of Provider, which are caused by or sustained in connection with the tasks carried out by the Provider under this Agreement. 8. The City agrees to provide the Provider with CDBG funds in such amounts as agreed upon in this Agreement to enable the Provider to carry out activity. It is understood that the City shall be held accountable to Hennepin County for the lawful expenditure of CDBG funds under this Agreement. The City shall therefore make no payment of funds to the Provider and draw no funds from Hennepin County on behalf of Provider, prior to having received from the Provider a request for reimbursement including copies of all documents and records needed to insure that the Provider has complied with all appropriate requirements. 9. The City shall be responsible for the preparation of all requests to Hennepin County for HUD wage rate determinations on activity. The Provider shall notify the City prior to initiating activity, including advertising for contractual services which will include costs likely to be subject to the provisions of Federal Labor Standards and Equal Employment Opportunity and related implementing regulations. 10. The City agrees to provide technical assistance to the Provider in the form of oral and /or written guidance and on -site assistance regarding CDBG procedures and project management. This assistance will be provided as requested by the Provider, and at other times, at the initiative of the City, when new or updated information concerning the CDBG Program is received by the City from Hennepin County and deemed necessary to be provided to the Provider. 11. In accordance with the provisions of 24 CFR 85.43, suspension or termination of this Agreement may occur if the Provider materially fails to comply with any term of this Agreement. This Agreement may be terminated for convenience in accordance with 24 CFR 85.44. The Agreement may be terminated with or without cause by either party hereto by giving thirty (30) days written notice of such termination. CDBG funds allocated to the Provider under this Agreement may not be obligated or expended by the Provider following such date of termination. Any funds allocated to the Provider under this Agreement which remain unobligated or unspent following such date of termination shall automatically revert to the City. 12. Any material alterations, variations, modifications or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement approved by Hennepin County through its Office of Planning and Development and properly executed by the authorized representatives of the parties. All amendments to this Agreement shall be made a part of this Agreement by inclusion in Exhibit 2 which shall be attached at the time of any amendment. 13. All data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated for any purpose by the Provider in the performance of this Agreement is governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minne- sota Statutes, Chapter 13, and all other statutory provisions governing data privacy, the Minnesota Rules implementing such act now in force or hereafter adopted, as well as federal regulations on data privacy. 14. During the performance of this Agreement, the Provider agrees to the following: In accordance with the Hennepin County Affirmative Action Policy and the County Commissioners' Policies Against Discrimination, no person shall be excluded from full employment rights or participation in, or the benefits of, any program, service or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, affectional /sexual preference, public assistance status, ex- offender status, or national origin; and no person protected by applicable federal or state laws against discrimination shall otherwise be subjected to discrimination. 15. The effective date of this Agreement is July 1, 1990. The termina- tion date of this agreement is December 31, 1991, or at such time as activity is satisfactorily completed prior thereto. Upon expira- tion, the Provider shall relinquish to the City all program funds unexpended or uncommitted for the activity. 16. Any program income as a result of the activity shall be returned immediately to the City upon receipt and the provisions of 24 CFR 570.504 shall apply. 17. Any real property acquired or improved as a result of activity, in whole or in part, using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000 shall either be. a. Used to meet one of the national objectives in 24 CFR 570.208 until five years after expiration of this Agreement; b. Disposed of in a manner that results in the City being reimbursed in the amount of the current fair market value of the property less any portion of the value attributable to expenditures of non -CDBG funds for acquisition of, or improvement to, the property. 18. The following standards shall apply to real property acquired or improved as a result of activity, in whole or in part: a. The Provider shall inform the City at least thirty (30) days prior to any modification or change in the use of the real property from that planned at the time of acquisition or improvements, including disposition. b. The Provider shall reimburse the City in an amount equal to the current fair market value (less any portion thereof attribut- able to expenditures of non -CDBG funds) of property acquired or improved as a result of activity that is sold or transferred for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG regulations. Said reimbursement shall be provided to the City at the time of sale or transfer of the property. 19. The Provider agrees to provide City with an annual audit report consistent with OMB Circular A -110, Uniform Requirements for Grants to Universities, Hospitals and Non - Profit Organizations and OMB Circular A -122 Cost Principles for Non - profit organizations. a. The audit report is to be provided to City on July 1 of each year this Agreement is in effect and any findings of non- compliance affecting the use of CDBG funds shall be satisfied by Provider within six (6) months of the provision date. b. The audit may not be paid from CDBG funds. C. City reserves the right to recover from Provider the full amount of any CDBG funds found to be improperly expended or otherwise disallowed. 20. The Provider shall comply with the general condition of 24 CFR 570.200, particularly sections; (f) (Means of Carrying Out Eligible Activities); and (j) (Constitutional Prohibitions Concerning Church /State Activities). 21. The Provider as appropriate shall comply with the Lead -Based Paint notification, inspection, testing and abatement procedures estab- lished in 24 CFR 570.608. 22. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the Provider, to any person for influencing or attempt- ing to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. 23. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influ- ence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement Standard Form -LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," will be completed and submitted in accordance with its instructions. Provider, having signed this Agreement, and the City of Brooklyn Center having duly approved this Agreement on August 26 19 91 , and pursuant to such approval the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provi- sions herein set forth. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and affixed their seals this 26 day of August , 1991. Upon proper execution, this Agreement will be legally valid and binding. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER STATE OF MINNESOTA By Mayor and Its City Manager PROVIDER METROPOLITAN COUNCI Its Executive Director and Its THIRD PARTY AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM EXHIBIT 1. STATEMENT OF WORK The following activity shall be carried out by the Provider under the terms of this Agreement and the details and processes set forth below: 1. ACTIVITY: Rehabilitation of Private Property 2. LOCATION: ADDRESS: Citywide CENSUS TRACT: 3. NUMBER: 001 4. BUDGET: $135,632 5. BENEFIT: L/M (Housing) 6. DESCRIPTION: Provide grants to eligible low /moderate income homeowners for improve- ments to their homes consistent with the Urban Hennepin County Procedural Guides for Housing Rehabilitation and pursuant to Metropolitan Council Administrative Services Contract No. M- 88 -33, attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 7. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this activity. [X] Supplemental Agreement [ ] Non - Profit Agency [X] Public Agency [ ] Other An agreement must be executed with any other agency providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of Provider. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in Third Party Agreement and such other requirements as are identified herein. [X] Schedule Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December 31, 1991. [X] Environmental Review Record Per 24 CFR Part 58 Subpart E the environmental review status for this activity has been determined as follows: [ ] Exempt (EX) [ ] Categorically Excluded (CE) [X] Categorically Excluded /Exempt (CE /EX) [ } Assessment Required (AR) [ ] Funds Released (FR) Date: [ J Labor Standards /Equal Employment Opportunity All construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis -Bacon Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act and the Copeland (Anti - Kickback) Act. All federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcontracts of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto, 41 CFR Part 60. [ ] Procurement Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by one of the following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate. - Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. - Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when the purchase /s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed -price contract is to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is preferred for soliciting-construction bids. - Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than one source submits an offer, and either a fixed -price or cost - reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically used for procuring professional services. [X] Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition The standards described in 49 CFR Part 24 shall apply to activity that involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons, including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition. [ ] Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance All occupied and vacant occupiable low- moderate income dwelling units demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each displaced low- moderate income household in accordance with the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Anti - displacement and Relocation Assistance Policy, pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Develop- ment Act of 1974, as amended. [ ] Property Management The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply to all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in part using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a period of five (5) years after the termination of this agreement. [X] Low and Moderate Income Using the applicable Section 8 income limits established by HUD, it shall be demonstrated that a low- and moderate- income activity so indicated in 5. Benefit, above, meets one of the four criteria of 24 CFR Part 570.208, relating to: [ ] Area Benefit [X] Limited CliQntele [ ] Housing [ ] Job Creation or Retention [ ] Prevention or Elimination of Slums and Blight It shall be demonstrated that a slum and blight activity so indicated in 5. Benefit, above, meets one of the following criteria: [ j Area Determination. The boundaries of the slum or blighted area must be defined and meet the requirements of 24 CFR Part 570.208 (b)(1)• [ ] Spot Basis. The specific conditions of blight or physical decay not located in a slum or blighted area must be described. ( ] Urgent Community Need It shall be demonstrated that an urgent need activity, so indicated in 5. Benefit, above, is designed to alleviate a recent (within 18 months) condition which poses a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community. [ ] Other Requirements EYI-IIBIT 3 CONTRACT NO. H -88-33 CONTRACT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES BETWEEN THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THIS AGREEMENT is effective the 1st day of January, 1988, by and between the Metropolitan Council, hereinafter called the "Council," and the City of Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment Authority, hereinafter referred to as the "City." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City has received a Community Development Block Grant, hereinafter called the "HUD Home Improvement Grant," from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ( "HUD ");. W the City intends to use the HUD Home Improvement Grant funds to award subgrants to low and moderate income homeowners to assist them in making repairs to their homes for the purpose of correcting defects directly affecting the safety, habitability, ener& -y usage, or accessibility of the property; WhEREA3, the Council has been duly organized pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 473.123, and, pursuant to the prov isicns of Minnesota Statutes Section 473.195, it has the powers and-duties of a housing and redevelopment authority; and WHEREAS, the City desires to purchase certain necessary administrative services from the Council in connection with the implementation and administration of the HUD Home Improvement Grant. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants i hereinafter contained, she parties hereto agree as ' follows: I. SCOPE OF SERVICES The City hereby agrees to engage the Council, and the Council hereby agrees to do, perform, and carry out in a satisfactory and proper manner, as determined by the City, the services specified in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. II. COMPENSATION; METHOD OF PAYMENT t The Cit shall compensate 2.01 Rate of Comoensa ion. y the Council for all P services performed and expenses incurred under this contract at a rate of 600.00 per home improvement subgrant for which the Council provides administrative services. 2.02 Method of Pavment. A. Within ten days following the end of each three month period of performance of this contract the first three month period ending on Council aL submit to the City a March "'1 1 88 ) �.Le Coun�.__ �h y n ch 9 � 1 contract , discussing he co i � .. and disc quarterly progress ._pert describing � 0 3- 1 L; work completed to date. A quarterly written invoice detailing the subgrants for which administration was completed during the quarter shall be submitted to the City with the quarterly progress report. B. On the City's verification and acceptance of each quarterly progress report and invoice, the City shall pay the Council each invoiced amount. III. GENERAL PROVISIONS 3.01 Period of Performance. The services of the Council shall commence on January 1, 1988, and shall continue until the termination of HUD Home Improvement Grant funding to the City by HUD. 3.02 Amendments. The terms of this contract may be changed or modified by mutual agreement of the parties hereto. Such amendments, changes or modifications shall be effective only on the execution of written amendment(s) signed by the Council and the City. 3.03 Assignability. The Council shall perform with its own organization the total work provided for under this agreement and shall not assign, subcontract, sublet, or transfer any of the work provided for hereunder without receiving the express written consent of the City. 3.04 Audits and Insoecticn. The Council agrees to: A. Keep and maintain during the performance of this contract and for a period of three years following, records and files relating to the financial aspects of this contract and the services performed hereunder. B. Allow the City or designated and authorized federal or state personnel to enter on the Council's premises and to (1) inspect and audit the above records, files and premises; and (2) inspect and review the equal employment opportunity and affirmative action programs of the Council. 3.05 Citv's Authorized Agent. -The City's authorized agent for purposes of administration of this contract is Brad Hoffman, who shall have authority for preliminary acceptance of the Council's services under this contract, and if such services are accepted as satisfactory, shall so certify on each invoice presented pursuant to Paragraph 2.02 of this contract. 3.06 Eeual Employment Opoortunity; Affirmative Action; Women and Hinoritv Business Enterprise Participation. The Council agrees not to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race., color, religion, sex, or national origin, and to take affirmative action to assure that applicants and employees are treated equally with respect to all forms of employment, selection for training, rates of pay, and other forms of compensation. The Council further agrees to take affirmative action to include the participation of women and minority business enterprises in the performance of the contract, wherever possible. v� 3 -2 -3- 3.07 Conflict of Interest All members, officers, and employees of the parties hereto shall comply with applicable provisions of state conflict of interest law contained in Minnesota Statutes Section 469.009. 3.08 Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. The parties hereto agree that all data or information collected and maintained in the performance of this contract shall be collected and maintained in a manner consistent with the provisions Of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, and that no provision of this contract shall be interpreted or construed in a manner inconsistent with said Act. 3.09 Termination of Contract. The City and the Council shall both have the right to terminate this contract-at any time and for any reason by submitting written notice of the intention so to do to the other party at least thirty (30) days prior to the specified effective date of such termination. If the contract is terminated pursuant to this provision, the Council will be paid for all expenses incurred and all services satisfactorily performed up to the date of the contract termination. 3.10 Construction and Severabilitv of Contract Provisions The City and the Council agree that no provision of or performance under this contract shall be interpreted or applied in a manner which violates applicable federal or state statutes, rules, or regulations, including, without limitation, those provisions governing the implementation and administration of the HUD Home Improvement Grant. If any term or provision of this contract is determined to be invalid, the remaining terms and provisions shall remain in full force and effect, and they shall be interpreted, performed, and enforced as if said invalid provision did not appear herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Approved as to form Counsel David Renz, Exve Director 7 Date ,'� CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By ReraldV Its Executive Director Date June 15, 1988 LB0019 v 3 -3 7 -XH131T A SCCPE OF SERVICES The administrative services to be performed by the Council for the City's HUD Home Improvement Grant program are as follow3: 1. Initial Screening of Applicants a. Answer telephone and in- person inquiries from residents as to eligibility for the program; b. Assist applicants in filling out required forms and verify information as necessary with outside sources to determine eligibility. 2. Selection of Applicants a. Coordinate inspection of property with City inspection department to determine repairs needed and record information on proper forms. b. Assist City staff in deter =fining initial ranking of applicants for approval by City. C. Inform applicants of approval or disapproval. 3. Coordination of Rehabilitaticn a. Assist selected homeowners to obtain a minimum of two bids for the approved repairs, and to obtain contractor warranties. b. Obtain a signed repayment agreement from each selected homeowner. C. Notify each selected homeo�,ner and selected contractor(s), after review of bids and authorization from City staff to proceed working. d. Prepare amendments to scope of work as necessary during the process and request authorization from City staff before notifying homeowner and contractor of changes to scope of work. e. Notify City staff as contractor completes rehabilitation (either partial or final) and recommend payment for work completed. f. Record repayment agreement with County Recorder after work is completed. g. Maintain complete files for the City of required documents on all applicants and selected homeowners, from initial application through completion of rehabilitation. 3 .4 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 8-26-91 Agenda Item Number D REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution Regarding Status of Certain Rental Properties in the City of Brooklyn Center DEPT. APPROVAL: Tom Bu Litz, Assistant EDA Coordi r MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMIVIENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached No ) • Recently, the City's building inspection staff became aware of several apartment buildings in the City that are in, or about to go into, foreclosure. The owner of the apartment buildings at 6715, 6717, 6719 and 6721 Humboldt Avenue North informed the City's housing inspector the properties are going into foreclosure. Additionally, the City's housing inspector has been informed the apartment building at 6637 Humboldt Avenue North has been foreclosed on by a bank in receivership to the RTC. The disposition of these properties is not clear at the present time. The Resolution is being proposed to give some general direction to staff to monitor the situation with regard to these properties and explore possible administrative and legal remedies should the properties present any hazard to the public health and safety. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Staff recommends approval of Resolution. i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING STATUS OF CERTAIN RENTAL PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City staff has become aware of certain conditions regarding the ownership and management of the rental properties located at 6715, 6717, 6719, 6721 and 6637 Humboldt Avenue North in Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS the City staff believes the current status of these properties may present a potential hazard to the public health and safety. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by Y the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the City Manager is hereby directed to monitor the situation with regard to the rental properties at 6715, 6717, 6719, 6721 and 6637 Humboldt Avenue North in Brooklyn Center with regard to any potential or actual hazard to public health or safety. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Manager is directed to research and investigate any possible administrative or legal remedies regarding any potential or actual hazard to public health and safety presented by the properties including the provisions of Minnesota Statutes regarding hazardous and substandard buildings. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Manager is directed to report to the City Council at the earliest possible date any recommendations regarding the status of these properties and any potential or actual threats to public safety and health presented by these properties. 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 followin g voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. �V Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING CONCEPT OF AN MTC OPTING -IN PROGRAM AND OFFERING BROOKLYN CENTER AS A PILOT -CITY WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center, over the years, has been interested in improving intra- and -inter suburban transit capabilities; and WHEREAS, the current transit system is orientated toward servicing the two central city downtown areas; and WHEREAS, suburban communities are no longer able to "opt - out" of MTC transit services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Brooklyn Center that it supports the concept of an Opting -In program which would allow suburban communities input into transit service for their areas and offers Brooklyn Center as a "Pilot- City" for this program. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor P 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. 1� Licenses to be approved by the City Council on August 26, 1991: GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLES Browning Ferris Industries of MN 9813 Flying Cloud Dr. Gallagher's Service, Inc. 1691 91st Ave. NE Robbinsdale Transfer 3601 - 48th Ave. N. Super Cycle, Inc. 775 Rice Street Waste Management - Blaine 10050 Naples St. NE Q f Sanitarian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS (� Northwestern Service, Inc. 791 Hampden Avenue a• Building Official 4 RENTAL DWELLINGS Initial: Judd and Deb Smith 5837 June Ave. N. Susan Licciardi 2024 Ericon Drive Debra Schlick 6727 Perry Ave. N. Renewal: Helene Ebhardt 5639 Girard Ave. N. Lewis and Vivian Hedlund 5316 Russell Ave. N. Robert Nechal 5332 -36 Russell Ave. N. Julie Haugen /Sharon Haugen 4806 Twin Lake Ave. N. Cherie Wyman 3901 52nd Ave. N. �. Q��C�IVIfLK Director of Planning Z j.- and Inspection GENERAL APPROVAL: P. Page, DepuO Clerk