HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 12-18 CCP Regular Session 1
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
DECEMBER 18, 1990
7 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Invocation
4. Open Forum
5. Approval of 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 from the consent agenda and
considered in its normal sequence on the agenda.
6. Approval of Minutes:
*a. October 29, 1990 - Regular Session
*b. November 27, 1990 - Work Session
7. Mayoral Appointments:
*a. HRG Director - Gerald Splinter
*b. Northwest Community Television - Dr. Duane Orn
8. Performance Bond Release:
*a. Toys R Us, 5425 Xerxes Avenue North
9. Resolutions:
*a. Authorizing the City Manager to Write -Off Uncollectible
Checks
*b. Approving Phase III of the Communications Audit
*c. Amending the 1990 General Fund Budget to Increase
Appropriations for various Operating Departments
d. Accepting Proposal from Progressive Consulting
Engineers, Inc. to Provide Design Services Relating to
1990 Distribution System Improvements, Improvement
Project No. 1990 -03
*e. Recognizing the Achievement of Diane Johnson
- Ms. Johnson has swam 500 miles
*f. Amending the 1990 General Fund Budget and Acknowledging
a Gift from the Brooklyn Center Lions
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- December 18, 1990
*g. Accepting Work Performed under Contract 1990 -J,
Improvement Project No. 1990 -07, Central Park
Irrigation System
h. Approving Amendment No. 1 to Agreement for Engineering
Services Relating to Construction of Well No. 10,
Improvement Project No. 1990 -02
i. Authorizing Purchase of Ultimap Workstation No. 2
*j. Expressing Recognition of and Appreciation for the
Dedicated Public Service of Reynold Johnson
k. Setting Wages and Salaries for Calendar Year 1991
10. Planning Commission Item: (7:30 p.m.)
a. Planning Commission Application No. 90026 submitted by
Edina Realty/ Blumentals Architecture, Inc. requesting
rezoning from R -5 to Cl the land at 7100 Brooklyn
Boulevard. This request has been expanded to include
the vacant parcel to the east.
-This item was considered by the Planning Commission at
its October 18, 1990, meeting, was tabled and referred
to the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review
and comment. That group met and issued its
recommendations to the Planning Commission. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of this
application on December 6, 1990.
1. Resolution Regarding Disposition of Planning
Commission Application No. 90026 Submitted by Edina
Realty
2. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City
Ordinances Regarding Zoning of Certain Land
-This item is offered this evening for a first
reading.
11. Continuation of Public Hearing on Proposed 1991 Budget
a. Resolution Establishing the Tax Levy for the Brooklyn
Center Housing and Redevelopment Authority for the Year
1991
b. Resolution Approving the Brooklyn Center Housing and
Redevelopment Authority Budget for the Year 1991
Pursuant to MSA Chapter 469.033, Subdivision 6 and MSA
Chapter 469.107, Subdivision 1
C. Resolution to Adopt the 1991 Final Budget
d. Resolution to Authorize a Final Tax Levy for 1991
Budget Appropriations
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- December 18, 1990
e. Resolution Approving a 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 1991
12. Discussion Items:
a. Administrative Traffic Committee Recommendation
Regarding Brooklyn Boulevard between 49th Avenue North
and T.H. 100
-This item was continued from the November 19, 1990,
agenda.
b. North Metro Mayors' Association Opposition to Toll Road
Issue
C. Hennepin Recycling Group - Plastic's Program
d. Authorization of Payment of 1990 League of Minnesota
Cities Dues
13. Consideration of Specified Licenses:
*a. On -sale Intoxicating Liquor License - Class A
-Red Lobster Restaurant
*b. On -sale Intoxicating Liquor License - Class B
- Applebee's
-Days Inn
-Earle Brown Bowl
- Ground Round Restaurant
- Holiday Inn
- LaCasita Restaurant
-T. Wright's Restaurant
*c. On -sale Intoxicating Liquor License - Class C
- Lynbrook Bowl
*d. On -sale Intoxicating Liquor License - Class F
-Earle Brown Heritage Center
*e. On -sale Intoxicating Liquor Sunday License
- Applebee's
-Earle Brown Heritage Center
-Days Inn
-Earle Brown Bowl
-The Ground Round
- Holiday Inn
- LaCasita Restaurant
- Lynbrook Bowl
-Red Lobster
-T. Wright's Restaurant
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -4- December 18, 1990
*f. On -sale Wine Licenses
- Dayton's Brookdale Inn
Denny's Restaurant
-Yen Ching Restaurant
*g. On -sale Nonintoxicating Malt Liquor License
- Beacon Bowl
- Centerbrook Golf Course
- Central Park Concessions
-Chuck Wagon Inn
- Davanni's
- Dayton's Brookdale Inn
- Denny's Restaurant
-The 50's Grill
- Little Brooklyn Restaurant
-Pizza Hut
- Scoreboard Pizza
-Yen Ching Restaurant
*h. Off -sale Nonintoxicating Malt Liquor License
- Country Club Markets
- Country Store
-Super America #4160
-Super America #4058
i. On -sale Club License
-Duoos Brothers' American Legion
j. Charitable Gambling License
-Duoos Brothers' American Legion
*14. Licenses
15. Adjournment
s
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
OCTOBER 29, 1990
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order
by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Todd Paulson, Jerry Pedlar, and
Philip Cohen. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of
Public Works Sy Knapp, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and
Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, City Engineer Mark
Maloney, Public Works Coordinator Diane Spector, and Administrative Aide Patti
Page.
INVOCATION
The invocation was offered by Councilmember Scott.
OPEN FORUM
Mayor Nyquist recognized Kathleen Carmody, 6312 Brooklyn Drive. Ms. Carmody
stated on October 13, 1990, there was an attempted break -in at her home. She
stated when the police arrived, there was a man outside, at the house next door,
who was incoherent and causing trouble. She noted the police did not arrest
this man, and she was wondering why. The City Manager stated he would look into
this issue with the Police Chief and contact Ms. Carmody.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from
the consent agenda. No requests were made.
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson
to approve the final plat for E & H Properties Addition. The motion passed
unanimously.
PROCLAMATION
Member Celia Scott introduced the following proclamation and moved its adoption:
PROCLAMATION DECLARING OCTOBER 30, 1990, AS FRED W. CAPSHAW DAY IN BROOKLYN
CENTER
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing proclamation was duly seconded by
member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION NO 90 -231
10/29/90 _1
e
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC
SERVICE OF THOMAS SLUPSKE
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -232
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE AGREEMENTS FOR 69TH AVENUE RIGHT -OF -WAY,
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -233
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR REMOVAL OF SIX HOUSES ON
69TH AVENUE NORTH, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -21, CONTRACT 1990 -K
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -234
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WELLHOUSE NO.
10, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -16, CONTRACT 1990 -G
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -235
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED
SHADE TREES (ORDER NO. DST 10/29/90)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously.
LICENSES
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson
to approve the following list of licenses:
AMUSEMENT DEVICE - VENDOR
Mark John Haider 3630 Admiral Lane
CHRISTMAS TREE SALES LOT
10/29/90 -2-
P.Q.T. Company 4007 58th Ave. N.
Weber's Greenhouse 5040 Brooklyn Blvd.
P.Q.T. Company 4007 58th Ave. N.
Jerry's NewMarket 5801 Xerxes Ave. N.
COMMERCIAL KENNEL
Wonderful World of Pets 1269 Brookdale Center
ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
Brooklyn Center Lioness 6500 Humboldt Ave. N.
Brooklyn Harmonettes 6155 Earle Brown Dr.
Willow Lane Elementary School 7020 Perry Ave. N.
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS
Minndak Mechanical 14918 200th Ave. NW
RENTAL DWELLINGS
Initial:
Manfred & Sandra Bergstrom 5328 Emerson Ave. N.
Melvin & Mildred Jampsa 5619 Hillsview Road
Paula Brodin 1600 55th Ave. N.
Renewal:
Maranatha Place 5415 69th Ave. N.
Twin Lake North Apartments 4500 -4590 58th Ave. N.
Victoria Townhouses 6740 -6861 Grimes Place
Eugene J. Sullivan 5329, 33 Brooklyn Blvd.
Randall B. Cook 5347 Brooklyn Blvd.
Roland Scherber 5243 Ewing Ave. N.
Daniel & Georgette Kitchin 5601 Logan Ave. N.
Mr. and Mrs. John Schroeder 5312 Oliver Ave. N.
Savage II /Portfolio Properties 5300 -5322 Ponds Drive
Savage II /Portfolio Properties 5301 -5315 Ponds Drive
Savage II /Portfolio Properties 5319 -5333 Ponds Drive
Savage II /Portfolio Properties 5400 -5422 Ponds Drive
Savage II /Portfolio Properties 5401 -5423 Ponds Drive
Savage II /Portfolio Properties 5426 -5448 Ponds ^rive
Savage II /Portfolio Properties 5427 -5441 Ponds Drive
Duane & Jenny Christiansen 5400 Sailor Lane
Savage II /Portfolio Properties 7225 -7247 Unity Ave. N.
Savage II /Portfolio Properties 7240 -7254 Unity Ave. N.
Savage II /Portfolio Properties 7251 -7273 Unity Ave. N.
Savage II /Portfolio Properties 7260 -7274 Unity Ave. N.
Richard R. Dawson 3955 69th Ave. N.
The motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED)
The City Manager presented a Resolution Accepting Proposal from SEH, Inc. to
Provide Professional Design Services Relating to Replacement of Lift Station No.
2, Improvement Project No. 1990 -05. The City Manager noted this lift station is
located near 55th and Lyndale. He stated this proposal was for preliminary
10/29/90 3
lie
design work on the lift station.
The EDA Coordinator entered the meeting at 7:09 p.m.
The Director of Public Works explained the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
has requested the City include the design and construction of a metering station
for this lift station. He noted a preliminary agreement has been prepared in
which Metropolitan Waste Control Commission will reimburse the City for the cost
of installing this metering station. He explained staff has discussed with the
Hennepin Parks' staff the use of a portion of property which they currently
purchased. He noted the Hennepin Parks' staff has indicated its support of this
proposal. He noted the City is now submitting a formal request for use of this
property for consideration by the park board.
Councilmember Pedlar stated in the past the Council has discussed the City's
relationship with SEH, Inc. and noted he still believes the City should develop
relationships with other firms. The Director of Public Works stated he intends
to work with other firms; however, he feels it will be beneficial to continue
using SEH, Inc. with this project because of their preliminary work.
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -236
Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FROM SEH, INC. TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL DESIGN
SERVICES RELATING TO REPLACEMENT OF LIFT STATION NO. 2, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO.
1990 -05
The motion for.the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE
The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City
Ordinances Regarding the Zoning of Certain Land. The Director of Public Works
stated this amendment involves the rezoning from R -5 to C2 and C1 of certain
land owned by Howard Atkins, located at the southeast quadrant of T.H. 252 and
66th Avenue North. He noted this rezoning was approved by the City Council
under Planning Commission Application No. 90003. He noted this item is offered
this evening for a first reading. Councilmember Pedlar noted at the April 9,
1990, meeting, he voted against this rezoning.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to
approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City
Ordinances Regarding the Zoning of Certain Land and setting a public hearing
date for November 19, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. The motion passed with Councilmember
Pedlar opposed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO 90027 SUBMITTED BY JOHNSON CONTROLS INC.
REQUESTING SITE AND BUILDING APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 6.666 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO
THE EXISTING 10.000 SQ. FT. JOHNSON CONTROLS' BUILDING LOCATED AT 1801 67TH
AVENUE NORTH
10/29/90 -4-
s
The City Manager noted this item was recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission at its October 18, 1990, meeting. The Director of Planning and
Inspection referred the Mayor and Councilmembers to pages four and five of the
October 18, 1990, minutes and information sheet. He briefly went on to review
the site and noted the proposed landscaping plan exceeds the required number of
points for the landscaping system. He noted there were nine conditions
recommended for approval, and he went on to review these for the Council. He
stated that a public hearing is not required for this application.
There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott
approving Planning Commission Application No. 90027 submitted by Johnson
Controls, Inc. subject to the following conditions:
1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building
official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of
permits.
2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits.
3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an
amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior
to the issuance of permits.
4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment
shall be appropriately screened from view.
i 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 property owner shall enter in an Easement and Agreement for
Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems prior
to the issuance of permits.
The motion passed unanimously.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY PROPOSAL
The Director of Public Works reviewed the report prepared for the Council. He
noted a comprehensive study was conducted for the City of Roseville in 1985 and
has been used by many metro area suburbs as a model for establishing storm
10/29/90 -5-
drainage fees. He noted City staff has reviewed this model and found it to be
technically and financially sound. He stated staff recommends its use with a
few minor adjustments to more accurately reflect factors which are specific to
Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Cohen inquired if any consideration has been
given to charging those properties under Class 1 differently because of the type
of runoff they produce by the chemicals used for lawn treatments. The Director
of Public Works stated the figures are based on the current runoff; however, he
believes this will have to be a factor in the future. He noted the actual fee
structure for this utility would be set by resolution after adoption of the
ordinance. The City Manager pointed out the intent of this utility would be to
improve the quality of storm drainage before it hits the lakes and streams.
Councilmember Cohen noted when information is sent to the community, it should
indicate these charges are only the beginning. The City Manager noted
information will be sent out to the residents in the near future.
EDA Assistant Coordinator Tom Bublitz entered the meeting at 7:45 p.m.
The Director of Public Works reviewed the proposed budget for the storm drainage
utility. The City Manager noted some items contained within this budget are
currently being paid for through the general fund budget.
There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar
to approve for first reading An Ordinance Adding Chapter 16 Regarding Storm
Drainage Utility and setting a public hearing date for November 19, 1990, at 8
p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
REVIEW OF NEW DESIGN CONCEPTS FOR PROPOSED INTERCHANGE AT T.H. 100 AND FRANCE
AVENUE
The Director of Public Works reviewed the suggested design revisions as
developed by SEH, Inc.
RECESS
The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:18 p.m. and reconvened at 8:35
p.m.
CANVASSING MUNICIPAL ELECTION
The City Manager noted at this time it is difficult to predict what time results
will be available at City Hall for canvassing. He noted the City Clerk would be
contacting Councilmembers later in the week with more information.
CHARTER COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION REGARDING CHANGES TO SECTION 2.05 VACANCIES IN
THE COUNCIL AND SECTION 3.01 COUNCIL MEETINGS
The City Manager introduced Barb Sexton, chairperson for the Charter Commission.
A discussion then ensued regarding the changes being recommended by the Charter
Commission. Mayor Nyquist noted he had several questions regarding the wording
of certain sections. Ms. Sexton stated the Charter Commission could do further
work on those sections.
Mayor Nyquist inquired if the Council had any questions regarding filling
vacancies. Ms. Sexton noted that if the term to be filled is for less than one
year, then the Council may appoint someone, and if the term is for more than one
year then a special election would be required. Mayor Nyquist inquired how much
10/29/90 -6-
a special election would cost. The City Manager stated it would generally cost
between $8,000 and $10,000. He noted if the City were required to use the
optech scanners, then the cost would be closer to $12,000. The City Attorney
stated he has a number of comments regarding the proposed changes and stated he
would like to have time to review these proposed changes. Councilmember Cohen
noted he feels these proposed amendments go in the opposite direction from those
amendments made in 1986. Councilmember Paulson stated he feels there are four
things which must be kept in mind when filling the vacancy. He noted these
items are openness, democratic values, the cost of a special election, and the
voter turnout for a special election. The City Manager stated he would have the
City Attorney review the proposed changes and work with the Charter Commission
on revisions.
ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES (AMM) POLICIES AND LEGISLATIVE
PROPOSALS
The City Manager noted an extensive document representing the proposed policies
and legislative proposals which the AMM will be working with was included in the
Councilmember's packets. He stated he would recommend the Council request a
modification of the policy regarding transportation needs so that the needs for
housing and infra structure replacement are included.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar
directing staff to prepare a resolution to be presented at the November 1, 1990,
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities meeting. The motion passed
unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar
to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center
City Council adjourned at 9:16 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
10/29/90 -7-
BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL BUDGET WORK SESSION NO. 2
NOVEMBER 27
1990
Members present: Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Celia Scott,
Todd Paulson, Jerry Pedlar, and Philip Cohen.
Staff present: City Manager Gerald Splinter and Finance Director
Paul Holmlund.
The City Council commenced their continuing review of the 1991
City Manager's proposed budget at 7:05 p.m.
The Council started with reviewing the government buildings
budget and went through the remainder of the 1990 budget
completing the final review.
The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Recording Secretary Gerald G. Splinter,
City Manager
Date
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 12 -18 -90
Agenda Item Number 3 _
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Performance Guarantee Release - Toys R Us
DEPARTMENT APPR
r 4 Aill" A ) 11 1 % 4,OL"*,w 0'
Signature - title i rector of Planning and Inspection
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:'
No comments to supplement this report Co ments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
The following performance guarantee is recommended for release:
O 1. Toys R Us
5425 Xerxes Avenue North
Planning commission Application No. 88009
Amount of Guarantee - $132,000
Obligor - Toys R Us
All site improvements have been installed in accordance with
the approved plans. Utility corrections have been completed
and an acceptable as -built utility survey has been submitted.
Recommend total release.
Submitted by,
Gary Shallcross
Planner
q
Member introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO WRITE -OFF UNCOLLECTIBLE CHECKS
WHEREAS, the City Manager has reported the following checks made payable
to the City of Brooklyn Center are uncollectible because the payers checking accounts
upon which they are drawn have been closed and that attempts to locate the payors
have been unsuccessful:
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center to authorize the City Manager to write -off from the City records as
uncollectible the following checks:
CHECK REASON FOR CHECK
PAYOR DATED RETURN AMOUNT DISPOSITION
----------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -------------- - - - - -- - - - - - -- --------------- --
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORES:
------------------------
Adamaley, Marcus 02/03/89 Account Closed 11.22 Collection Agency
Aguilar, Nicole 10/26/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 5.85 Collection Agency
Ainas, Mildred 12/17/88 Non - Sufficient Funds 13.28 Letter
Ainas, Mildred 05/15/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 7.39 Letter
Anderson, G. 02/04/89 Account Closed 30.00 Collection Agency
Anderson, Jeff 03/08/89 Account Closed 19.44 Collection Agency
Aretz, Cynthia 05/05/89 Stop Payment 52.40 Letter
Arneson, Joy S. 09/26/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 12.68 Collection Agency
Backes, Willie A. 10/21/89 Forgery 17.95 Police Dept.
Back, Allen /Tamra 10/14/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 13.01 Collection Agency
Baker, Pamela 12/31/88 Non - Sufficient Funds 16.21 Collection Agency
Batta, Ronald 06/30/89 Non- Sufficient Funds 11.60 Collection Agency
Batta, Ronald 07/12/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 11.82 Collection Agency
Bencker, Laurie 12/23/88 Account Closed 26.59 Letter
Bera, Stanely 05/01/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 16.84 Collection Agency
Bera, Stanely 05/06/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 16.22 Collection Agency
Berg, Wayne D. 10/28/89 Account Closed 19.92 Collection Agency
Bertelsen, Linda 03/04/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 14.89 Collection Agency
Bjerke, James 01/21/89 Account Closed 7.32 Letter
Blount, Wanda 09/25/89 Account Closed 17.35 Police Dept.
Blount, Wanda 02/27/89 Account Closed 18.00 Police Dept.
Boyer, Kurt 07/15/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 7.70 Collection Agency
Brennen, Joseph 08/05/89 Account Closed 15.87 Collection Agency
Brown, Kosygin 07/28/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 6.67 Collection Agency
Brown, Sandra 06/24/89 Account Closed 15.70 Collection Agency
Bursaw, Stephanie R. 10/14/89 Non- Sufficient Funds 10.39 Collection Agency
Carrillo, Sylvia 12/24/88 Account Closed 26.38 Letter
Cherne, Rebecca 09/12/89 Account Closed 13.23 Letter
Cherne, Rebecca 09/15/89 Account Closed 6.72 Letter
Conde, Lori 06/10/89 Forgery 31.67 Letter
Coyle, Kimberly 07/13/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 7.25 Collection Agency
Dalgaard, Kris 07/25/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 14.57 Collection Agency
Delaney, Patricia 10/23/89 Account Closed 31.01 Collection Agency
Dellwo, Dennis J. 02/17/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 3.35 Collection Agency
Dozier, John G. 12/24/88 Non- Sufficient Funds 33.30 Collection Agency
Eicher, Noel P. 12/02/89 Forgery - 16.26 Police Dept.
Elagroe, Aspasia 05/19/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 17.35 Letter
Ferrand, Robert 09/20/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 10.09 Collection Agency
Flynn, Susanne 08/31/89 Account Closed 10.19 Collection Agency
Fonville, William 01/04/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 11.18 Collection Agency
Fonville, William 12/30/88 Non - Sufficient Funds 15.17 Collection Agency
Fraedrich, Theodore 07/29/89 Forgery 68.40 Police Dept.
Fuentes, Claudia 10/07/89 Forgery 44.32 Police Dept.
Ganzer, Michael 12/07/88 Non - Sufficient Funds 7.79 Letter
Garmon, Terry 05/17/89 Account Closed 4.76 Collection Agency
Graves, Caree 06/09/89 Payment Stopped 32.72 Letter
Grendahl, Samantha 05/27/89 Account Closed 20.69 Collection Agency
Grendahl, Samantha 06/14/89 Account Closed 17.88 Collection Agency
Grendahl, Samantha 06/15/89 Account Closed 9.39 Collection Agency
Griggs, Dawn 06/14/89 Account Closed 6.67 Collection Agency
Hannon, William 09/29/89 Account Closed 13.39 Collection Agency
Hanson, Dale 06/03/89 Non- Sufficient Funds 21.46 Collection Agency
Harmon, Terry 08/10/89 Forgery 7.80 Police Dept.
Harvell, Sophie 07/'10/89 Account Closed 6.67 Collection Agency
Hennen, Randy 06/10/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 13.56 Collection Agency
Hillman, Reginald 07/29/89 Account Closed 19.46 Collection Agency
Hinkle, Angela 10/21/89 Forgery 49.00 Forgery
Hooker, Robert G. 09/09/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 14.04 Police Dept.
Hooker, Robert G. 09/09/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 50.00 Police Dept.
Huff, Sandra Lee 09/08/89 Account Closed 46.60 Collection Agency
Hurley, Deidre 07/03/89 Non- Sufficient Funds 13.80 Collection Agency
Jackson, Iradale 12/19/88 Non - Sufficient Funds 27.41 Letter
Jacobson, Ronald 06/09/89 Account Closed 19.08 Collection Agency
Jader, Jon 05/06/89 Account Closed 4.11 Collection Agency
Jader, Jon 05/17/89 Account Closed 9.00 Collection Agency
Jader, Jon 05/20/89 Account Closed 16.77 Collection Agency
Johnson, Craig S. 08/07/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 32.09 Collection Agency
Johnson, Margaret 11/30/89 Forgery 49.90 Police Dept.
Jones, Paul 03/11/89 Account Closed 29.47 Collection Agency
Ladue, Geo 01/10/89 Forgery 67.76 Police Dept.
Lamp, Brent /Lynn 08/04/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 23.19 Letter
Landela Elizabeth 08/15/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 12.33 Collection Agency
Laurin, Wayne 02/14/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 5.41 Collection Agency
Leach, Lorinda 01/02/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 16.35 Letter
Lee, Valerie L. 04/22/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 4.25 Letter
Lemke, Kari 07/14/89 Account Closed 14.64 Collection Agency
Lewis. Corrinne 09/19/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 7.38 Collection Agency
Lewis. Corrinne 09/19/89 Non- Sufficient Funds 2.92 Collection Agency
Lewis. Corrinne 09/20/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 6.99 Collection Agency
Loring, Wayne 12/22/88 Non - Sufficient Funds 45.80 Letter
Lowell, Linda 09/15/89 Account Closed 16.03 Collection Agency
Lynch, Lawrence 05/22/89 Account Closed 13.43 Police Dept.
Lynch, Lawrence 05/24/89 Account Closed 10.29 Police Dept.
Lynch, Lawrence 05/26/89 Account Closed 13.01 Police Dept.
Lynch, Lawrence 07/19/89 Account Closed 16.40 Police Dept.
Lynch, Lawrence 07/20/89 Account Closed 16.40 Police Dept.
Lynch, Lawrence 07/27/89 Account Closed 19.68 Police Dept.
Lynch, Lawrence 07/28/89 Account Closed 19.16 Police Dept.
Lynch, Lawrence 07/29/89 Account Closed 11.43 Police Dept.
Lynch, Lawrence 07/31/89 Account Closed 19.16 Police Dept.
Lynch, Lawrence 07/31/89 Account Closed 19.16 Police Dept.
Lynch, Lawrence 07/31/89 Account 'Closed 23.06 Police Dept.
Lynch, Lawrence 08/02/89 Account Closed 18.26 Police Dept.
Lynch, Lawrence 07/20/89 Account Closed 9.97 Police Dept.
Malone, Janice Marie 09/08/89 Account Closed 17.75 Police Dept.
Malone, Janice Marie 09/23/89 Account Closed 9.75 Police Dept.
Malone, Janice Marie 09/25/89 Account Closed 18.46 Police Dept.
Malone, Janice Marie 09/29/89 Account Closed 19.29 Police Dept.
Martinsen, Kris 12/31/88 Non - Sufficient Funds 15.23 Letter
Mayfield, Katherine 06/17/89 Payment Stop 75.35 Collection Agency
Mayfield, Katherine 06/14/89 Payment Stop 34.96 Collection Agency
McGowan, Patrick 01/09/89 Account Closed 6.46 Collection Agency
McGowan, Patrick 01/12/89 Account Closed 11.16 Collection Agency
McGowan, Patrick 04/21/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 11.71 Collection Agency
McGuire, Michelle 02/22/89 Forgery 18.63 Police Dept.
Morton, Sheliah 11/17/89 Account Closed 10.13 Collection Agency
Moux, Rafael 07/19/89 Account Closed 9.09 Collection Agency
Nuest, Walter 12/24/88 Non - Sufficient Funds 22.93 Letter
Nyren, Roger 10/11/89 Forgery 29.60 Police Dept.
011inger, Michael 10/14/89 Account Closed 8.66 Collection Agency
Olson, Doreen 01/03/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 6.00 Collection Agency
Parham, Barbara 10/13/89 Account Closed 34.36 Collection Agency
Perfetti, Sherrie R. 12/18/89 Account Closed 6.87 Collection Agency
Peterson, Mark 06/10/89 Account Closed 48.69 Collection Agency
Phillips, Calvin 08/19/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 6.67 Police Dept.
Phillips, Calvin 08/25/89 Account Closed 65.16 Police Dept.
Prosper, Angelelika 11/10/89 Account Closed 24.38 Collection Agency
Rauchman, Mary 07/22/89 Account Closed 13.52 Collection Agency
Ray, David or Julie 11/16/89 Non- Sufficient Funds 9.35 Collection Agency
Reedy, Steven A. 08/04/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 6.67 Collection Agency
Rheingans, Scott 11/20/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 17.29 Collection Agency
Rose, Craig 02/07/89 Account Closed 12.52 Collection Agency
Schmid, Mark G. 11/10/89 Account Closed 25.25 Collection Agency
Schmid, Mark G. 11/20/89 Account Closed 20.48 Collection Agency
Schwalbe, Steven 05/26/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 14.73 Collection Agency
Sheffield, Bradely 05/13/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 6.67 Collection Agency
Shockey, Willaim 12/15/88 Non - Sufficient Funds 9.48 Letter
Sonnenberg, Jaime 11/24/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 17.35 Collection Agency
Stamos, Kimberly 05/06/89 Account Closed 6.67 Collection Agency
Stamos, Kimberly 05/08/89 Account Closed 1.00 Collection Agency
Stamos, Kimberly 05/15/89 Account Closed 6.67 Collection Agency
Stamos, Kimberly 06/08/89 Account Closed 13.35 Collection Agency
Sublett, Katherine 10/21/89 Account Closed 68.15 Police Dept.
Thompson, Robert E. 12/11/89 Forgery 71.61 Police Dept.
Thompson, Robert E. 12/13/89 Forgery 39.03 Police Dept.
Thurman, Steven 07/12/89 Account Closed 7.37 Collection Agency
Turner, Gary 02/17/89 Account Closed 32.85 Collection Agency
Vagle, David 07/13/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 7.37 Collection Agency
Waller, Susan 06/23/89 Account Closed 17.65 Collection Agency
Walsh, Robert 08/20/89 Account Closed 7.12 Collection Agency
Westphal, Deborah 02/15/89 Forgery 53.97 Police Dept.
Williams, Charles 01/04/89 Account Closed 53.22 Police Dept.
Williams, Charles 01/18/89 Account Closed 29.66 Police Dept.
Williams, Charles 12/28/88 Account Closed 34.73 Police Dept.
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORES' TOTALS: 2,867.74
GENERAL FUND:
CDW Inc. - 05/10/89 Non - Sufficient Funds 345.00 Letter
McGaw, Scott 03/10/89 Non- Sufficient Funds 2.50 Letter
GENERAL FUND TOTALS: - 347.50
GOLF COURSE FUND:
--------------- --
Lundeen, Jason 06/11/89 Account Closed 18.33 Letter
PUBLIC UTILITIES FUND:
---------------- - - - - --
Debbie's Fudge 01/16/89 Legal Hold 44.83 Letter
TOTAL ALL FUNDS: 3,278.40
--------------- -
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken, 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 12118/90
Agenda Item Numbe
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION APPROVING PHASE III OF THE COMMUNICATIONS AUDIT
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Signature -title City Manager
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: i
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _)
Attached please find a copy of a resolution approving Phase III of the communications audit. As you
O will recall, the original proposal for the communications audit included Phase I, the communications
survey, for $8 Phase II, communications audit, for $5,100; and Phase 111, plan of action, for
$2,125, for a total of $16,048.75. The original staff recommendation was to give initial approval to
Phase 11 of the audit for $5,100 followed by approval of Phase 111, plan of action, for $2,125. At the
Council meeting when the Council approved the communications audit, their discussions included both
Phase 11 and Phase III approval, but our records show only Phase 11 approval for $5,100. Coleman
and Christison, Inc. have completed both Phase II and Phase III as per the discussions at the Council
meeting; however, our records indicate only approval of Phase 11. The attached resolution formally
authorizes the final payment for Phase III of the audit in the amount of $2,125.
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends favorable approval of the attached resolution authorizing
approval for Phase III plan of action work in the amount of $2,125.
q-b
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING PHASE III OF THE COMMUNICATIONS
AUDIT
WHEREAS, the firm of Coleman & Christison, Inc. has
conducted a communications audit for the City of Brooklyn Center
as commissioned by the City Council with Resolution No. 90 -23;
and
WHEREAS, the firm has completed the audit and on
August 13, 1990, presented to the City Council Phase III of the
audit, which is new program recommendations and plans for
implementation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of
the City of Brooklyn Center that payment for Phase III of the
communications audit by Coleman & Christison, Inc. is hereby
authorized in the amount of $2,125.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member , and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date _/
Agenda Item Numbe
(IRESDESC) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1990 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO INCREASE
APPROPRIATIONS FOR VARIOUS OPERATING DEPARTMENTS
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Signature - title
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: e
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
• The attached resolution adjusts the 1990 General Fund budget so that no
department should exceed its appropriation. This adjustment becomes
necessary because of the eighteen month lapse of time between budget
preparation and the conclusion of the budget year. In the case of the
departments listed in section 2, there simply were higher levels of
activity than were anticipated and these costs will have to be covered
by a transfer from the contingency appropritation. The Health
Department costs are rising because of Broolyn Park dropping out of
the joint program with Crystal and Brooklyn Center. Some Community
Center programs are experiencing higher costs in spite of the fact that
memberships and admission fees are_short of the amounts budgeted.
(IADJBUD)
Member introduced the following resolution and
i
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
1 RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1990 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO INCREASE
APPROPRIATIONS FOR VARIOUS OPERATING DEPARTMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, Section 7.08 of the City Charter does provide the
City Council with the authority to transfer unencumbered appropriation
balances from one department to another within the same fund; and
WHEREAS, Section 7.09 of the City Charter of the City of
Brooklyn Center does provide for a contingency appropriation as part of
the General Fund Budget, and provides that the contingency appropriation
may be transferred to any other appropriation by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, in the course of carrying out city operations during
1990, some departments have found it necessary to operate at higher
levels of activity than was anticipated in the 1990 Budget.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Brooklyn Center to amend the 1990 General Fund Budget as follows:
1. Transfer $60,000 from the Contingency Account in the Unallocated
Department Budget.
2. To the following departmental appropriations in the amount shown:
Legal Counsel (Department No. 18) $10,000
Health Regulation and Inspection (Dept No. 51) 20,000
Community Center (Department No. 66) 30,000
$60,000
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 12/18/9
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FROM PROGRESSIVE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. TO PROVIDE
PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES RELATING TO 1990 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS,
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -03
********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
SY KNAPP, DIF ESLTOR PUBLIC WORKS
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ************ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes )
• On January 8 of this year the City Council established 1990 Water Distribution
System Improvements, Improvement Project No. 1990 -03. This project implements the
Phase I improvements recommended in the 1989 Report on Water Works Facilities for
the City of Brooklyn Center. These Phase I improvements are necessary to ensure
that Water Supply Well No. 10 (currently under construction) is "on- line" for the
summer of 1991. The proposed improvements include modifications of the existing
water mains, valves, etc. in the vicinity of Tower No. 2.
The Director of Public Works has received a proposal from the firm of Progressive
Consulting Engineers, Inc. (PCE, Inc.), to provide a review of the proposed
improvements and determine their effects on the existing distribution system. PCE,
Inc. has provided similar services to other cities in the Metro area and have
experience in modeling water distribution systems. PCE, Inc. has proposed to
provide these services for a cost not to exceed $ 6,000.00. A copy of their
proposal is attached for reference.
Council Action Required
A resolution accepting the PCE, Inc. proposal is provided for consideration by the
City Council.
•
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FROM PROGRESSIVE CONSULTING
ENGINEERS, INC. TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES
RELATING TO 1990 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS,
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -03
WHEREAS, the 1989 report on water works facilities for the City of
Brooklyn Center recommends Phase I improvements and the City Council
subsequently established 1990 Water Distribution System Improvements,
Improvement Project No. 1990 -03; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has obtained a proposal from
Progressive Consulting Engineers, Inc. to model the existing water
distribution system with the proposed improvements, and make recommendations
regarding said improvements, at a cost not -to- exceed $ 6000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The proposal submitted by Progressive Consulting Engineers, Inc.
to provide professional engineering services relating to 1990
Water Distribution System Improvements, Improvement Project No.
1990 -03 at a cost not -to- exceed $ 6000 is hereby accepted and
approved. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and
directed to execute a contract with said firm on the basis of said
proposal.
2. All costs relating to this work shall be charged to the Public
Utility Fund.
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:
1 :C10 Progressive Consulting Engineers Inc.
6120 Earle Brown Drive, Suite 629, Minneapolis, MN 554342581 (612) 560.9133 FAX (612) 560 -0333
December 12, 1990
Sy Knapp
Director of Public Works
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Re: Report on Water Works Facility
Dear Mr. Knapp:
Progressive Consulting Engineers, Inc. would be delighted to review the report on the
water works facility for Brooklyn Center and review the proposed piping system to
increase the effectiveness of Water Tower No.2.
We propose to use our computer program to model the City water distribution system
north of 1694 and analyze the proposed changes in the existing distribution system in
the vicinity of Tower No.2. We would use peak hourly demand data to determine the
demands of the crossing south of 1694. We would also provide recommendations for
valving, including pressure reducing valves location, and provide input for design.
We propose to work on this project for our usual hourly rate as follows:
Project Manager $75.00 /hour
Project Engineer $50.00 /hour
The total cost of our work is not expected to exceed $6,000.00 unless the scope of the
work is changed and an additional authorization is given by the City.
We look forward to working with you. Please call me should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
t aZ e e, w
Naeem Qureshi, P.E.
NQ:js
Civil • Structural • Water Supply • Municipal
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF DIANE JOHNSON
WHEREAS, over an eight -year period, Diane Johnson, 6724
Bryant Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, has swam 500 miles in the
Brooklyn Center pool; and
WHEREAS, this achievement reflects the dedication,
skill, and perseverance of Diane Johnson; and
WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that the City Council
recognizes her accomplishment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Brooklyn Center that the achievement of Diane Johnson
is recognized and she is hereby congratulated by the Brooklyn
Center City Council.
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.
(RESLIONS)
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1990 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND
ACKNOWLEDGING A GIFT FROM THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS
-----------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, Section 7.08 of the City Charter does provide
the City Council with the authority to increase a budget
appropriation if the actual receipts exceed the estimates, but not
to exceed the actual receipts; and
WHEREAS, THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB has presented the
City a gift of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) and has
designated that it be used for "Holly Sunday" on December 2; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is appreciative of the gift and
commends the Brooklyn Center Lions Club for its civic efforts:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the gift of the Lions Club is acknowledged with
gratitude.
2. To amend the 1990 General Fund Budget as follows:
A. To increase the appropriations for the Recreation
Department Special Events program #379 by $250.00.
B. To increase Estimated Revenues for Contributions
and Donations account #3860 by $250.00.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member , and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
,
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 12 18 90
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1990 -J, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO.
1990 -07, CENTRAL PARK IRRIGATION SYSTEM
********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
SY KNAPP, DI C R OF BLIC WORKS
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )
• Contract 1990 -J, Central Park Irrigation Main, (Improvement Project No. 1990 -07) has
been completed by Inland Utility Construction Co. The City Council accepted the
proposal per Resolution No. 90 -225 and a contract was subsequently executed in the
amount of $ 32,240.00. Due to an overestimation of quantities, the actual value of
work performed is $ 30,561.70, or $ 1,678.30 less than the original contract amount.
Accordingly, staff recommends acceptance of the work performed and authorization to
make final payment.
City Council Action Required
Adopt the attached resolution.
c.J
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1990 -J,
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -07, CENTRAL PARK IRRIGATION
SYSTEM
WHEREAS, pursuant to written contract signed with the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Inland Utility Construction Co., Inc. has
satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said
contract:
CENTRAL PARK IRRIGATION SYSTEM
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -07
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 $ 32,240.00 $ 30,561.70
2. The value of work performed is $ 1,678.30 less than the original
contract value, as a result of an minor overestimation of
quantities.
3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract,
taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be
paid for said improvement under said contract shall be
$30,561.70.
4. Project No. 1990 -07 is final and is accepted and approved
according to the following schedules:
Project Costs Per Low Bid As Final
Contract $ 32,240.00 $ 30,561.70
Water Reel Irrigator 6,382.00 6,382.00
Contingency 1,931.00 - - --
Engineering (10 %) 4,055.00 3,694.37
Administration (1 %) 406.00 36944
Legal (1 %) 406.00 369.
Total Estimated Project Cost $ 45,420.00 $ 419376.95
RESOLUTION NO.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 12/18/9
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATING TO
CONSTRUCTION OF WELL NO. 10, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -02
********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
SY KNAPP, DIR G R OF PIJ13Lic WORKS
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached y _ )
• On January 8, 1990 the City Council established Improvement Project No. 1990 -02,
Construction of Well No. 10, and approved execution of an agreement for engineering
services relating to this project with Black and Veatch, consulting engineers. That
agreement provided for the work to be done in four phases, with compensation for
those services as follows:
Phase Description Fees
1 Well site selection study "Cost plus" basis, with
a maximum of $9,400
2 Design, construction drawings Fixed fee = $83,000
and specifications and pre -award
services
3 Services relating to modifications "Cost plus" basis with limits
of the SCADA system (i.e. - the to be defined in a subsequent
City's central control system for amendment to the agreement
operation of the water supply
system)
4 Supplemental services, including "Cost plus" basis, with limits
project administration during to be defined in a subsequent
construction amendment to the agreement
Phases 1 and 2 have been completed. The actual fees for Phase 1 totaled $7,375.42.
. Regarding Phase 3, it is now my opinion that this work should be assigned to another
firm with specific expertise relating to our SCADA system needs. We will solicit
proposals from other consultants and submit our recommendations to the Council at a
future date.
Regarding Phase 4, one amendment covering these services as needed in conjunction
with Contract No. 1 (i.e. - construction of the well) was previously approved, with
a maximum fee of $7,300. Black and Veatch has submitted proposed Amendment No. 2
(copy attached) to provide services needed in conjunction with Contract No. 2
(i.e. - construction of the wellhouse) with a maximum fee of $43,000 (maximum total
costs for both phases would be $50,300).
In January I advised the Council that the estimated total fees for Phase 4 (based on
5% of the estimated construction costs) was $25,000.
In current discussions with Black and Veatch, they have emphasized that their
current estimate recognizes that there are many components in the wellhouse which
need to be reviewed to assure compliance with the plans and specifications. In
fact, more than 65% of their estimated fees are for review of shop drawings which
the contractor submits to them, to assure compliance with the plans and
specifications. Accordingly, I now recognize that my estimate of these fees was
low. While I still believe that Black and Veatch's maximum is unrealistically high,
they continue to regard it as being realistic - in the event numerous shop drawings
need major revisions, resubmittals, etc.
• Because the wellhouse contract has been awarded, the need for these services is
immediate. And, because these Phase 4 services must be provided by an organization
which has expertise in the various components of a wellhouse (structural,
mechanical, electrical, chemical, control systems, etc.), and because an intimate
knowledge of the plans and specifications is required to assure proper follow -up in
this phase, there is no practical alternative to acceptance of Black and Veatch's
proposal.
Accordingly, I recommend acceptance of Black and Veatch's proposal. If it is
approved, we will do everything possible to assure that the actual costs stay well
below the maximum.
City Council Action Required
A resolution is provided for consideration by the Council.
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING
SERVICES RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION OF WELL NO. 10, IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 1990 -02
WHEREAS, an agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center and Black
and Veatch, consulting engineers (the consultant), provides that the
consultant will provide supplemental services, including project
administration during construction on a "cost plus" basis, with limits to be
defined in a subsequent amendment to the agreement; and
WHEREAS, the consultant has prepared proposed "Amendment No. 2"
to provide the needed services on a cost plus basis with a maximum of $43,000
and the Director of Public Works has recommended acceptance of that proposal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The proposal submitted by the consultant is hereby accepted.
2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to
execute Amendment No. 2, to the agreement with Black and Veatch,
providing a maximum fee of $43,000.
3. All costs relating to this project shall be charged to the Public
Utility Fund.
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.
AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO
- AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2, between Cit of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
(hereinafter referred to as Owner and Black & Veatch, (hereinafter
referred to as Engineer), shall modify the AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING
SERVICES dated January 12, 1990 (Original Agreement).
WITNESSETH:
The Owner employed the Engineer to perform engineering services relating
to the design of a new water supply well (No. 10) and now requires
certain supplemental engineering services to be performed during the
construction phase of Contract No. 2 - Well House and Sitework. In
response to this request for these supplemental services, certain
revisions must be made to the Contract. In compliance, therefore, the
terms and conditions of the Original Agreement are modified as
specifically set out below. All other parts of the Original Agreement
remain unchanged.
ATTACHMENT A - DESCRIPTION OF
SCOPE OF SERVICES
UNDER PHASE 4 - SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES, supplemental services requested
by the Owner relating to the construction of Well No. 10 will be
provided. The supplemental services consists of providing Project
Administration During Construction for Contract No. 2 - Well House and
Sitework as follows:
The Engineer will perform project administration services during the
construction phase of the project. By performing these services, the
Engineer shall not have authority or responsibility to supervise,
direct, or control the Contractor's work or the Contractor's means,
methods, techniques, sequences or procedures of construction. The
Engineer shall not have authority or responsibility for safety
precautions and programs incident to the Contractor's work or for any
failure of the Contractor to comply with laws, regulations, rules,
ordinances, codes or orders applicable to the Contractor furnishing and
performing the work. Specific services to be performed by the Engineer
are as follows:
W3JAC111690 1
I. Review the Contractor's insurance certificates and forward
the certificates to the Owner for acceptance by the Owner's
legal counsel. The Engineer's review of the insurance
certificates is only for the purpose of determining if the
Contractor maintains the general types and amounts of
insurance required by the specifications, and is not a legal
review to determine if the Contractor's insurance coverage
complies with all applicable requirements.
2. Attend preconstruction conference meeting, provide an agenda
for the meeting, and distribute minutes of the meeting.
3. Review and comment on the Contractor's initial and updated
construction schedule and advise the Owner as to
acceptability.
4. Make a one day visit to the construction site to observe
progress of the work and consult with the Owner and
Contractor concerning problems and /or progress of the work.
5. Review drawings and other data submitted by the Contractor as
required by the construction contract documents. The
Engineer's review shall be for general conformity to the
construction contract drawings and specifications for the
project and shall not relieve the Contractor of any of his
contractual responsibilities. Such reviews shall not extend
to means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures of
construction or to safety precautions and programs incident
thereto.
6. Receive and review guarantees, bonds, and certificates of
inspection, tests, and approvals which are to be assembled by
the Contractor(s) in accordance with the construction
contract documents, and transmit them to the Owner.
7. Interpret construction contract drawings when requested by
the Owner or Contractor. If authorized by the Owner and the
Contractor, the Engineer may interpret construction contract
drawings and specifications upon request by subcontractors
and suppliers.
8. Provide documentation and administer the processing of change
orders, including applications for extensions of construction
time. Evaluate the cost and scheduling aspects of all change
orders and, where necessary, negotiate with the Contractor to
obtain a fair price for the work. Said negotiation shall be
subject to the approval of the Owner.
9. Upon completion of the project, revise the construction
contract drawings to conform to the construction records.
Submit one set of mylar copies to the Owner.
W3JAC111690 2
10. Act as initial arbiter on all claims of the Owner and the
Contractor relating to the acceptability of the work or the
interpretation of the requirements of the construction
contract documents pertaining to the execution and progress
of the work.
11. Analyze data from performance testing of equipment by the
Contractor or supplier when the construction contract
documents require the equipment to be tested after
installation. Submit conclusions to the Owner.
12. Upon substantial completion, inspect the construction work
and prepare a listing of those items to be completed or
corrected before final completion of the project. Submit
results of the inspection to the Owner and Contractor.
13. Upon completion or correction of the items of work on the
punch list, conduct final inspection to determine if the work
is completed. Provide written recommendations concerning
final payment to the Owner, including a list of items, if
any, to be completed prior to the making of such payment.
Other supplemental service items listed in the Original Agreement for
project administration will be performed by Owner or are not applicable
to this Amendment.
ATTACHMENT
ACHMENT B COMPENSATION
Under Subparagraph D, the following establishes the compensation for the
additional work. For supplemental services Phase 4, as identified above
for Project Administration During Construction for Contract
No. 2 - Well House and Sitework, the Owner agrees to pay the Engineer an
amount equal to Engineer's salary costs times 2.75 plus reimbursable
expenses at cost and plus subcontract billings times 1.05. The maximum
billed for these supplemental services shall not exceed $43,000 without
further authorization.
Under Subparagraph J, it is understood and agreed that the maximum
billing for supplemental services under Amendment No. 2 are based on a
construction period through June 15, 1991, as defined in the contract
documents for Contract No. 2 - Well House and Sitework.
W3JAC111690 3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment No. 2 on
this day of 1990.
BLACK & VEATCH
By
Title
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
By
Title
W3JAC111690 4
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
WELL NO. 10
TASK AND MA NDA Y ES TIMA TE
PHASE 4, CONTRACT NO. 2
PROJECT NO. 16831.300
NOVEMBER 16, 1990
PROJECT PROJECT GRAPHICS SHOP MECH. ELEC.
TASK DESCRIPTION MANAGER E NGINEER TECH NICIAN STENO DRAWINGS ENGINEER ENGINEER TOTAL
PHASE 4 - Supplemental Services,
Project Administration During
Construction
CONTRACT NO. 2 - Well House and
Sitework
Project Administration
Review Insurance 0.5 0.50
Attend Preconstruction Conference 1.5 0.5 2.00
Review Schedule 1.0 1.00
Visit Project (1 trip) 1.5 1.50
Review Shop Drawings 2.0 12.0 48.5 1.5 2.0 66.00
Review Guarantees, Bonds 1.0 1.00
Interpret Contract Drawings 6.0 1.0 0.5 7.50
Process Change Orders 2.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 4.00
Prepare Record Drawings 1.0 2.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 5.00
Initial Arbiter 1.0 1.00
Analyze Performance Testing 0.5 0.50
Punch List 2.0 0.5 2.50
Final Inspection 1.5 1.50
Project Management 2.0 1.0 2.0 5.00
(General Coordination,
Supervision, Billings, etc.)
TOTAL MANDAYS 2.0 21.0 3.0 17.0 50.0 2.0 4.0 99.0
SALARY
EXPENSES $14,290 ,600
FEE = (2.75 x SAL) + EXP $ $3$3 ,898
CONTRACT NO.2 - Well House and
Site work - Project Administration Cost $43,000
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 12/ P 0
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF ULTIMAP WORKSTATION NO. 2
********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
l'
SY KNAPP, DIRE ,o OF PL48LIC WORKS
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:,
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes )
The Engineering Division requests approval to purchase a second UltiMap
workstation, to be used as a digitizing workstation. This workstation would be
networked with the existing workstation, and would be able to use its data,
disk and tape drives, and plotter. LOGIS' recommendation, which has been approved
by the City's Data Processing Advisory Committee, is the purchase of a Hewlett
Packard Apollo 400T workstation at an estimated cost of $6,990.
The Engineering Division had intended to request this workstation sometime in
1991. This request is being made at this time because the UltiMap Corporation
will, starting January 1, 1991, charge a software licensing fee of $9,500 for
each workstation purchased after that date. The UltiMap Corporation has
provided the City with a guarantee in writing (attached) that any workstation which
we have ordered through December 28, 1990 would not be charged that additional fee.
Background
The Engineering Division in December, 1988 purchased an Apollo DN3500 computer
to use as an UltiMap GIS (Geographic Information System) workstation. Major
projects completed using the workstation have been:
• Updating the City's base maps;
• Updating the zoning map;
• Creating 72 eighth- section address maps for use by the Engineering,
Planning, and Assessing Departments and available to general public;
• Creating a City -owned property map;
• Preparing construction plans for the Freeway Boulevard project;
• Creating a property values map for the City Assessor;
0 Updating the City's easement maps (one -half complete).
Staff are now beginning the process of adding utility "layers" of data to the base
map data base. There is a great amount of utility and other information to
digitize, or electronically map. With a single workstation, it will be years before
this data is mapped, and years before it is possible to use UltiMap as a management
tool. Major projects contemplated in the next few years include:
o Digitizing water, sanitary, and storm sewer systems, connections, and
private line as- builts. This data would be used:
- to update system maps;
- to analyze the water distribution system;
- in the preparation of the proposed local storm water management plan;
- to fine -tune maintenance plans;
- planning future Public Works projects.
• Digitizing contours, floodway or flood fringe boundaries onto existing
zoning map, for the purpose of better defining protected waters and /or
wetlands.
• An accident map, perhaps with sight distance data included. We can now
geographically plot accident data collected by the state. In early 1990
the Police Department started collecting information on the location of
minor property damage accidents. These two data bases can be combined to
pinpoint problem areas.
•
• We can now map the locations of diseased trees removed through the Diseased
Tree Program. The proposed tree inventory data base can be designed so
that tree removals can be compared to existing trees and mapped, which
would assist in targeting reforestation resources.
With a second workstation, one operator can work on the continuing task of
digitizing data, while another operator can use UltiMap to digitize or to work
on other higher level tasks, such as construction plans or specialized maps.
Currently, one Engineering Technician has received in -depth UltiMap training, and
serves as the "lead" operator. The other three technicians will be trained to
digitize, and will all have UltiMap responsibilities.
The HP Apollo 400T workstation is one of a new series of workstations designed since
the merger of Hewlett Packard and Apollo Corporation. It is currently state -of -the-
art, and should be current and serviceable for several years. It is upgradable,
with the addition of memory and a hard disk, so it is a flexible unit. The
recommended configuration is a basic unit with 8MB of memory, a 19" high resolution
black and white graphics monitor, and no hard disk.
Council Action Required
A resolution authorizing purchase of the workstation is provided for council
consideration. Please note that the workstation must be ordered by December
28, 1990 to avoid the additional $9,500 charge, which should be taken into
account should the council wish to defer action on this item.
•
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF ULTIMAP WORKSTATION NO. 2
WHEREAS, the Engineering Division has determined that a second UltiMap
workstation is necessary to complete in a timely manner the task of entering
public utilities and other data into the City's geographic data base; and
WHEREAS, the City's Data Processing Advisory Committee has recommended
that the Engineering Division be authorized to purchase a second UltiMap
workstation at an estimated cost of $6,990; and
WHEREAS, staff have secured a written guarantee from the UltiMap
Corporation that if this workstation is purchased prior to January 1, 1991 no
additional licensing fee will be charged; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager recommends that this workstation be financed
from the Public Utilities Fund.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The City Manager is authorized and directed to proceed with this
purchase.
2. All costs shall be charged to the Public Utilities Fund.
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.
UL TI MA
C ORPO RA T IO N
December 7, 1990
Ms. Diane Spector
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Dear Ms. Spector:
This letter is to confirm to you that ULTIMAP will extend to the City of Brooklyn
Center an additional ULTIMAP license at no charge, provided the City purchases
the computer workstation from ULTIMAP Corporation. This offer is valid till
December 28, 1990. The Data Capture license has a retail value of 89,500.00.
This date is based on ULTIMAP successfully completing the source code buyout of
the UltiMap software from Hennepin County. We are currently in the final stages of
negotiations with Hennepin County and fully expect to meet our deadline of
December 18, 1990. After this agreement is finalized, all cities within Hennepin
County will be required to purchase any additional UltiMap licenses.
If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
Chuck Haberman
Central Regional Manager
C t
UltiMap Corporation • 2901 Metro Drive • Suite 314 • Minneapolis, MN 55425 • 612/854 -2382 • 800/541 -1591
! t
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION
FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF REYNOLD JOHNSON
WHEREAS, Reynold Johnson served on the Brooklyn Center
Housing Commission from March 28, 1988, to October 31, 1990; and
WHEREAS, his public service and civic effort for the
betterment of the community merit the gratitude of the citizens
of Brooklyn Center; and
WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that his service to
the community should be recognized and expressed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Brooklyn Center that the dedicated public service of
Reynold Johnson is hereby recognized and appreciated by the City
of Brooklyn Center.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member , and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 12118/90
g t
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
1,991 PROPOSED COMPENSATION PLAN
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Signature - title
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _)
HISTORY:
In the month of December of each year, the City Council has traditionally reviewed the compensation
plan for the following year. This plan is attached and as in past years includes salary and benefit
• plan for all City employees who are nonorganized. Portions of the compensation plan include
references to salaries and fringe benefits for organized groups of employees, but they are reflections
of their contract provisions.
ANALYSIS:
The attached 1990 proposed compensation plan recommends a general salary increase of 4 %. Attached
is a table indicating the history of the Consumer Price Index as compared to general salary increases
given by the City of Brooklyn Center for nonorganized employees. We have contacted significant
number of suburban municipalities regarding their proposals for salary increases. It appears that our
recommendation of 4% is consistent with what other communities are doing. Some of the communities
are higher than 4% and some are a bit lower, most communities surveyed are at 4 %. Brooklyn Center
has traditionally given increases which on the average lag slightly behind the inflation rate. There
are times in previous years when increases have been a bit higher than the inflation rate and other
times when it's been lower. This year the proposed 4% increase should end up lower than projected
inflation rates. Council should recall that in 1990 we settled both police and public works' bargaining
units for two -year contracts for 1990 and 1991. The settlements were 4.1% for police and 4% for
public works. It has been Brooklyn Center's consistent practice, because the City as an organization
competes with other public and private sector employees in the metropolitan area for competent
personnel, to keep our wages in line with prevailing market conditions and also consider the Pay
Equity Act requirements as per our Pay Equity Plan. We have used the DCA Stanton Group Survey
(Professional Survey of Public and Private Sector Jobs in the Metro Area) to evaluate and compare
our salaries with public and private employers. We believe the 4% proposed increase will keep us in
line with general market trends in the metro area and in comp worth compliance.
In 1990 our labor agreements and with our nonorganized employees increased the employee share of
health premium costs $25 per month for a total of $240 per month per employee. In 1991 we are
proposing a $20 per month increase for a total of $260 per month per employee. As in previous
years, our insurance plans have available to our Brooklyn Center employees, Physicians of Minnesota
(PHP), Group Health, Inc. and Med Center Plans. These plans have experienced increases in costs of
slightly over $30 per month to just over $40 per month. At the time of writing this memorandum,
the two organized employee groups (police and public works) are considering whether or not to
accept $20 per month offer on insurance. As you recall, we have a two -year contract agreement
with these two groups. However, both groups have left open for negotiations the insurance benefit
for 1991. 1 should have by the time Council considers this proposal on Tuesday evening an
indication whether or not they will accept a settlement in this amount. The proposed 1991 employee
contribution represents a continuing of the practice of the employee and the employer sharing cost
increases on insurance premiums. I believe this is a good practice as it is in the best interest to
both the employer and employee to jointly contribute to the cost so as to give both employer and
employees incentive to insist on controlling these costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
We recommend your favorable consideration of this proposed resolution adopting the 1991 pay plan.
We believe it recognizes employee market conditions in the Twin City area and will keep the City's
pay and benefit plan at a level which will attract and retain competent, capable employees.
•
(ALMEMO)
,�yYY
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Department of Finance
DATE: December 14, 1990
SUBJECT: 1991 CITY PAY PLAN
The following changes were made to the 1990 Pay Plan to create the 1991 Pay Plan:
1. Added two Police Officers per 1991 Budget.
2. Added Social Services Coordinator and deleted Administrative Assistant in the
Police Department per 1991 Budget.
3. Added Administrative Police Coordinator and deleted Administrative Services
Manager in the Police Department per 1991 Budget.
4. Added Administrative Analyst in the Police Department per 1991 Budget.
5. Added Maintenance II position in Parks Maintenance Division per 1991 Budget.
6. Increased Range II Performance Midpoint on Executive Positions Annual Salary
Schedule by 4 %. (The rest of the schedule is then automatically updated by
approximately 4%.)
7. Increased Grade SlA Progression Step by 4% on Professional Positions Monthly
Salary Schedule. (The rest of the schedule is then automatically updated by
approximately 4 %.)
9. Increased Part -time Fire Department positions by approximately 4 %. (rounded
to the nearest $5).
10. Deleted Part -time Volunteer Fire Department Secretary.
11. Increased Grade T1A Progression Step by 4% on Technical and Secretarial
Positions Hourly Schedule. (The rest of the schedule is then automatically
updated by approximately 4%.)
12. Updated Police Officers Plan per 1991 Contract. (Approximate 4% increase.)
13. Updated Local No. 49 Public Works Plan per 1991 Contract. (Approximate 4%
increase.)
14. Increased Part -time Liquor Stores Hourly Rate Schedule for steps C and higher
by approximately 4% (rounded to nearest five cents).
15. Increased monthly City contribution for group insurance -for all employees by
$20 (to $260 per month).
16. Increased City Manager's salary by 4 %.
Qc� W
Paul W. Holmlund, Director
(AAPC7RSW)
Member introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION SETTING WAGES AND SALARIES FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1991
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, Section 2.07 of the City Charter for the City of Brooklyn
Center states that the City Council is to fix the salary or wages of all officers
and employees of the City; and
WHEREAS, the 1984 Minnesota Pay Equity Act requires every political
subdivision to establish "equitable compensation relationships" between its
employees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the 1991 Employee Position and
Classification Plan; and
WHEREAS, the 1991 Employee Position and Classification Plan meets the
requirements of establishing "equitable compensation relationships ". and
WHEREAS, the 1991 Employee Position and Classification Plan establishes
that pay increases will be awarded on a pay for performance basis; and
WHEREAS, the structure of the 1991 Employee Position and Classification
Plan provides for pay increases awarded for improvements in job performances; and
WHEREAS, an individual employee's movement through his or her respective
pay schedule reflects a progression in corresponding levels or improved job
performance:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby sets wages
and salaries for the calendar year 1991 by adoption of the attached Position and
Classification Plan (Schedules A through K) for the calendar year 1991 which sets
ranges and maximums which the City Manager shall be authorized to pay in
classified positions; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager may move an individual
employee to pay grades in the attached Position and Classification Plan (Schedules
A through K), but he is limited to authorizing increases due to Pay Equity Act
compliance. the Annual Budget constraints adopted by the City Council; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 1991 City Employee Position and
Classification Plan is approved and adopted because it is generally an equitable
pay plan for City employees, however parts of the Plan were approved and adopted
solely for the purpose of compliance with the mandate of Minnesota statutes,
Sections 471.999; that adoption of said Plan shall create no vested rights, terms
or conditions of employment or entitlement to any given level of compensation
for any employee or group of employees; that said Plan shall be subject to
continuing review and reconsideration and may be amended from time to time by the
City Council; and
RESOLUTION NO.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager be authorized to employ
such temporary part -time and temporary full -time employees as may be necessary,
and to establish competitive rates of pay for such help consistent with the 1990
budget appropriations; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager be authorized to make
interim appointments to fill vacant positions whenever a position is vacant
because the regular employee is on leave of abscence, vacation leave, sick leave,
or is absent for any other reason and to establish rates of pay for such appoint-
ments consistent with the 1991 budget appropriations; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that authorized wage adjustments, not to exceed
the maximums contained herein, shall become effective January 1, 1991; and
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconde
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the foll
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
r
(AAPC7CP)
0 D
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
1991
EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1991
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adopted:
Resolution No. 90-
Amended:
(AAPC7TC) D U
CITY.OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1990 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
--------------- --
Contents Schedule Page
---------------------------------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - - --
Positions Authorized A 1 -3
Executive Pay Plan B 4
Executive Pay Plan Conversion Schedule B -1 5
Executive Positions Salary Maximums B -2 6
Supervisory - Professional Pay Plan C 7
Supervisory - Professional Monthly Salary Schedule C -1 8
Supervisory - Professional Conversion Schedule C -2 9
Technical - Secretarial Pay Plan D 10
Technical - Secretarial Hourly Wage Schedule D -1 11
Technical- Secretarial Conversion Schedule D -2 12
Police Officers Pay Plan E 13
Local No. 49 Pay Plan F 14
Liquor Stores Part -Time Employee Pay Plan G 15
Employee Insurance Benefits H 16
City Manager Compensation Agreement I 17 -18
Personnel Expense Reimbursement Policy J 19 -20
Employee Training Policy K 21
0 D Q
(YYPC7A) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1991 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE A
PERMANENT FULL -TIME AND SALARIED PART -TIME POSITIONS AUTHORIZED POSITIONS AUTHORIZED
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POSITIONS EXEMPT
ORGANIZATIONAL AUTHOR- ORGAN- FROM SALARY
UNIT POSITION IZED IZED OVERTIME SCHEDULE
-------- - - - - -- ------------------------------ - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE:
City Manager 1 No Yes -Exc B
E.D.A Coordinator 1 No Yes -Adm C
Personnel Coordinator 1 No Yes -Adm C
City Clerk 1 No Yes -Adm C
E.D.A. Assistant Coordinator 1 No Yes -Adm C
Administrative Aide 1 No Yes -Adm C
Administration /Licenses Secretary 1 No No D
Administration /Elections Secretary 1 No No D
Switchboard Operator /Receptionist 1 No No D
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSESSING DEPARTMENT:
Assessor 1 No Yes -Exc B
Appraiser II 1 No Yes -Adm C
Assessment Technician 2 No No D
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINANCE DEPARTMENT:
Director of Finance /City Treasurer 1 No Yes -Exc B
Assistant Director of Finance 1 No Yes -Adm C
Management Information Systems Coordinator 1 No Yes -Adm C
Staff Accountant 1 No Yes -Adm C
Payroll /Personnel Technician 1 No No D
Utilities Technician 1 No No D
Accounting Technician 1 No No D
Finance Secretary 1 No No D
Data Entry Operator 1 No No D
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS DIVISION:
Maintenance Supervisor 1 No Yes -Adm C
Maintenance Custodian 1 No No D
Lead Custodian 1 No No D
Custodian 1 No No D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRE DEPARTMENT:
Fire Chief 1 No Yes -Exc B
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLICE DEPARTMENT:
Police Chief /Civil Defense Coordinator 1 No Yes -Exc B
Police Captain 3 No Yes -Adm C
Police Sergeant 5 L #82 No E
Police Officer 31 L #82 No E
Social Services Coordinator 1 No Yes -Adm C
Administrative Police Coordinator 1 No Yes -Adm C
Administrative Analyst 1 No Yes -Adm C
Code Enforcement Officer 1 No No D
Property Room Supervisor 1 No No D
Public Safety Dispatcher 6 No No D
Police Secretary 2 No No D
Police Classification Operator 1 No No D
Police Receptionist -1- 1 No No D
0 0
1991 Positions Authorize Sch o nue M.
PLANNING AND INSPECTION DEPARTMENT:
Director of Planning and Inspection 1 No Yes -Exc B
Inspector /Building Official 1 No Yes -Adm C
Inspector 1 No Yes -Adm C
Planner 1 No Yes -Adm C
Housing Inspector 1 No Yes -Adm C
Planning and Inspection Secretary 1 No No D
Planning and Inspection Receptionist 1 No No D
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENGINEERING DIVISION:
Director of Public Works 1 No Yes -Exc B
City Engineer 1 No Yes -Adm C
Public Works Coordinator 1 No Yes -Adm C
Engineering Technician IV 1 No No D
Engineering Technician III 3 No No D
Engineering Secretary 2 No No D
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STREETS DIVISION:
Public Works Superintendent 1 No Yes -Adm C
Supervisor of Streets and Parks Maintenance 1 No No C
Maintenance II 11 L #49 No G
Mechanic 3 L #49 No G
Night Service Person 1 L #49 No G
Public Works Dispatcher 1 No No D
------------------ - - - - --
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT:
Director of Recreation 1 No Yes -Exc B
Program Supervisor 3 No Yes -Adm C
Supervisor of Streets and Parks Maintenance 1 No No C
Aquatics Supervisor 1 No Yes -Adm C
Maintenance II 8 L #49 No G
Parks and Recreation Secretary 1 No No D
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE:
Golf Course Manager 1 No Yes -Adm C
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION:
Supervisor of Public Utilities 1 No No C
Maintenance II 7 L #49 No G
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIQUOR STORES DEPARTMENT:
Liquor Stores Manager 1 No Yes -Exc B
Supervisor, Retail 2 No Yes -Adm C
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL PERMANENT FULL -TIME POSITIONS AUTHORIZED: 143
-2-
nn , n
U v
1991 Positions Authorized, Sch ule Continued:
--------- ---------- ---------- ------------
-------
SCHEDULED PART -TIME POSITIONS AUTHORIZED:
----------------------------------------
FIRE DEPARTMENT:
Assistant Fire Chief 1 No Yes -Vol C
Senior Fire Training Officer 1 No Yes -Vol C
Fire Training Officer I No Yes -Vol C
Fire Inspector, Days 1 No Yes -Vol C
Fire Inspector 4 No Yes -Vol C
Fire Education Officer 1 No Yes -Vol C
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIQUOR STORES DEPARTMENT:
Clerk /Stocker As Needed No No H
Cashier As Needed No No H
Cashier /Office Assistant 1 No No H
-3-
D
(YYPC7B)
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1991 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE B
EXECUTIVE POSITIONS ANNUAL SALARY SCHEDULE EXECUTIVE PLAN
------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RANGE I RANGE II RANGE III
GROWTH PERFORMANCE MERIT
---------- - - - - -- ------------------- - - - - -- ---------------
POSITION MINIMUM MAXIMUM MINIMUM MIDPOINT MAXIMUM MINIMUM MAXIMUM
---------------------
------- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --
City Manager $65,542 $73,253 $74,024 $77,108 $80,963 $81,734 $88,674
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Director of Public Works $53,707 $60,026 $60,658 $63,185 $66,344 $66,976 $72,663
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Director of Finance/ City
Treasurer $49,938 $55,813 $56,400 $58,750 $61,688 $62,275 $67,563
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief of Police $48,641 $54,364 $54,936 $57,225 $60,086 $60,659 $65,809
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Director of Recreation $43,844 $49,002 $49,518 $51,581 $54,160 $54,676 $59,318
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Director of Planning and
Inspection $43,374 $48,477 $48,987 $51,028 $53,579 $54,090 $58,682
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire Chief $42,397 $47,385 $47,884 $49,879 $52,373 $52,872 $57,361
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City Assessor $41,569 $46,460 $46,949 $48,905 $51,350 $51,839 $56,241
----------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquor Stores Manager $37,076 $41,438 $41,874 $43,619 $45,800 $46,236 $50,162
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERVALS: Each range has a spread of approximately 35% from minimum to maximum. The
minimum is approximately 85% and the maximum is approximately 115% of the
midpoint.
SALARY RANGES:
I: GROWTH RANGE. The lower range (approximately 85% to 95% of the midpoint)
should normally include relatively inexperienced employees, as well as those
whose performance remains below fully satisfactory levels.
II. PERFORMANCE RANGE: The middle range (approximately 96% to 105% of the
midpoint) should include the normally experienced, fully satisfactory
employees and represent the established "going- rates ".
III. MERIT RANGE. The top range (approximately 106% to 115% of the midpoint)
should include only those employees who have demonstrated superior
performance over a significant period on the job or at comparable levels of
responsibility.
SALARY SETTING AUTHORITY: The City Council must approve individual salary adjustments
within Merit Range III. Salaries within Growth Range I and Performance Range II
may be established by the City Manager. The City Manager is authorized to set
salaries below the minimum range when performance or qualifications are less then
required for the position. The City Manager's salary is established by the City
Council.
OVERTIME: These positions are exempt from overtime.
-4-
D D
0 AAPC7B1)
ITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1991 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE B -1
EXECUTIVE POSITIONS ANNUAL SALARY CONVERSION SCHEDULE EXECUTIVE PLAN
-------------------------------------------- - - - - -- CONVERSION
TABLE
----------------------------------------------------------------
RANGE I RANGE II RANGE III
GROWTH PERFORMANCE MERIT
---------- - - - - -- ------------------- - - - - -- ---------------
POSITION MINIMUM MAXIMUM MINIMUM MIDPOINT MAXIMUM MINIMUM MAXIMUM
--------------- - - - - -- _ _ _ _ _
City Manager Annual: $65,542 $73,253 $74,024 $77,108 $80,963 $81,734 $88,674
Monthly: $5,462 $6,104 $6,169 $6,426 $6,747 $6,811 $7,390
----------- - - - - -- Hourly: $31.390 $35.083 $35.452 $36.929 $38.776 $39.145 $42.468
-------------------------------------------
Director of Annual: $53,707 $60,026 $60,658 $63,185 $66,344 $66,976 $72,663
Public Works Monthly: $4,476 $5,002 $5,055 $5,265 $5,529 $5,581 $6,055
Hourly: $25.722 $28.748 $29.051 $30.261 $31.774 $32.077. $34.800
Director of Annual: $49,938 $55,813 $56,400 $58,750 $61,688 $62,275 $67,563
Finance /City Monthly: $4,161 $4,651 $4,700 $4,896 $5,141 $5,190 $5,630
Treasurer Hourly: $23.916 $26.730 $27.011 $28.137 $29.544 $29.825 $32.358
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief of Police Annual: $48,641 $54,364 $54,936 $57,225 $60,086 $60,659 $65,809
Monthly: $4,053 $4,530 $4,578 $4,769 $5,007 $5,055 $5,484
Hourly: $23.296 $26.036 $26.310 $27.407 $28.777 $29.051 $31.518
--------------------------- - - - - - --
----------------------- - - - - - --
Wr
----- --- Annual: $43,844 $49,002 $49,518 $51,581 $54,160 -- $54,676 -- $59,318
Recreation Monthly: $3,654 $4,083 $4,126 $4,298 $4,513 $4,556 $4,943
Hourly: $20.998 $23.468 $23.715 $24.704 $25.939 $26.186 $28.409
Director of Annual: $43,374 $48,477 $48,987 $51,028 $53,579 $54,090 $58,682
Planning and Monthly: $3,614 $4,040 $4,082 $4,252 $4,465 $4,507 $4,890
Inspection Hourly: $20.773 $23.217 $23.461 $24.439 $25.661 $25.905 $28.105
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire Chief Annual: $42,397 $47,385 $47,884 $49,879 $52,373 $52,872 $57,361
Monthly: $3,533 $3,949 $3,990 $4,157 $4,364 $4,406 $4,780
Hourly: $20.305 $22.694 $22.933 $23.888 $25.083 $25.322 $27.472
---------------------------------------------------------------
City Assessor Annual: $41,569 $46,460 $46,949 $48,905 $51,350 $51,839 $56,241
Monthly: $3,464 $3,872 $3,912 $4,075 $4,279 $4,320 $4,687
Hourly: $19.909 $22.251 $22.485 $23.422 $24.593 $24.827 $26.935
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquor Stores Annual: $37,076 $41,438 $41,874 $43,619 $45,800 $46,236 $50,162
Manager Monthly: $3,090 $3,453 $3,490 $3,635 $3,817 $3,853 $4,180
----------- - - - - -- Hourly: $17.757 $19.846 $20.055 $20.890 $21.935 $22.144 $24.024
---- - - - - -- _ _
NOTE: The Executive positions are classified as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and are compensated at an annual salary. This schedule converts the annual salary
to a monthly salary by dividing the annual salary by twelve months. The schedule converts
the annual salary to an hourly equivalent by dividing the annual salary by the normal work
40 ours in the current year. The number of normal work hours is determined by subtracting
aturdays and Sundays from the total number of days in the year and multiplying that number
y eight hours. There are 2,088 normal work hours in 1991. This conversion schedule is
for informational purposes only and is not an official wage schedule.
-5-
(AAPC7B2) LEI
ITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1991 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE B -2
EXECUTIVE POSITIONS 1991 MAXIMUM ANNUAL SALARIES ESTABLISHED EXECUTIVE POSITIONS
------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- 1991 ANNUAL SALARY
MAXIMUMS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN ADDITION TO THE SALARY SETTING AUTHORITY GRANTED THE CITY MANAGER IN EXECUTIVE PLAN
SCHEDULE B TO SET SALARIES IN GROWTH RANGE I AND PERFORMANCE RANGE II, THE CITY MANAGER IS
HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO SET INDIVIDUAL SALARIES WITHIN MERIT RANGE III DURING THE CALENDAR
YEAR 1991 TO THE MAXIMUM SALARIES SHOWN IN THIS SCHEDULE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONVERSION TABLE
---------------------
MAXIMUM MONTHLY HOURLY
POSITION ANNUAL SALARY EQUIVALENT EQUIVALENT
---------------------------
------------- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - --
Director of Public Works $67,673 $5,639 $32.410
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
irector of Finance/ City Treasurer -------------- - - - - -- $64,154 - - - - -- $5,346 $30.725
--------------------------------- ------ - - - - --
Chief of Police $62,490 $5,208 $29.928
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: The Executive positions are classified as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and are compensated at an annual salary. This schedule also converts the annual
salary to monthly and hourly. The conversions are for informational purposes only and are
not a part of the official wage schedule.
-6-
(CCCPC7C) TMMPM
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1991 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE C
SUPERVISORY AND PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS GRADE RANGE AND MONTHLY SALARY SUPERVISORY -
--------------------------------------------------------------------- PROFESSIONAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRADE RANGE MONTHLY SALARY RANGE
FROM SCHEDULE C -1 FROM SCHEDULE C -1
------------------- - - - - -- ------------------- - - - - -- EXEMPT
GOING GOING FROM
POSITION MINIMUM RATE MAXIMUM MINIMUM RATE MAXIMUM OVERTIME
--------------------- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - -- - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --
City Engineer S34A S36C S38C $3,756 $4,351 $4,571 Yes
Police Captain S32A S34C S36C $3,575 $4,142 $4,351 Yes
E.D.A. Coordinator S32A S34C S36C $3,575 $4,142 $4,351 Yes
Public Works Superintendent S31A S33C S35C $3,488 $4,040 $4,245 Yes
Assistant Director of Finance S31A S33C S35C $3,488 $4,040 $4,245 Yes
Personnel Coordinator S29A S31C S33C $3,320 $3,846 $4,040 Yes
Management Information Systems
Coordinator S26A S28C S30C $3,083 $3,571 $3,752 Yes
Planner S23A S25C S27C $2,863 $3,316 $3,484 Yes
Social Service Coordinator S23A S25C S27C $2,863 $3,316 $3,484 Yes
Public Works Coordinator S23A S25C S27C $2,863 $3,316 $3,484 Yes
Inspector /Building Official S22A S24C S26C $2,793 $3,235 $3,399 Yes
Staff Accountant S22A S24C S26C $2,793 $3,235 $3,399 Yes
City Clerk S21A S23C S25C $2,725 $3,156 $3,316 Yes
Appraiser II S21A S23C S25C $2,725 $3,156 $3,316 Yes
E.D.A. Assistant Coordinator S21A S23C S25C $2,725 $3,156 $3,316 Yes
Supervisor of Streets
and Parks S20A S22C S24C $2,659 $3,079 $3,235 No
Supervisor of Public Utilities S20A S22C S24C $2,659 $3,079 $3,235 No
Golf Course Manager S20A S22C S24C $2,659 $3,079 $3,235 Yes
Program Supervisor, Recreation S20A S22C S24C $2,659 $3,079 $3,235 Yes
Admin. Police Coordinator S20A S22C S24C $2,659 $3,079 $3,235 No
Inspector, Planning and
Inspection S18A S20C S22C $2,530 $2,931 $3,079 Yes
Police Administrative Analyst S18A S20C S22C $2,530 $2,931 $3,079 Yes
Maintenance Supervisor S16A S18C S20C $2,409 $2,790 $2,931 Yes
Housing Inspector S12A S14C S16C $2,182 $2,527 $2,655 Yes
Supervisor, Liquor Retail S8A S10C S12C $1,977 $2,290 $2,406 Yes
Aquatics Supervisor S8A S10C S12C $1,977 $2,290 $2,406 Yes
Administrative Aide,
City Manager's Office S8A S10C S12C $1,977 $2,290 $2,406 Yes
Part -time Positions:
Assistant Fire Chief $475 Yes
Fire Education Officer $170 Yes
Senior Fire Training Officer $315 Yes
Fire Training Officer $250 Yes
Fire Inspector, Days $430 Yes
Fire Inspector $250 Yes
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-7-
7
M0 D . U
(AAPC7C1) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1991 EMPLOYEE POSITION /CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE C -1
SUPERVISORY - PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS MONTHLY SALARY SCHEDULE
PROGRESSION STEPS MERIT STEPS
GRADES A B C D E
S1 $1,663 $1,746 $1,833 $1,925 $2,021
S2 $1,705 $1,790 $1,879 $1,973 $2,072
S3 $1,747 $1,835 $1,926 $2,023 $2,124
S4 $1,791 $1,880 $1,974 $2,073 $2,177
S5 $1,836 $1,927 $2,024 $2,125 $2,231
S6 $1,882 $1,976 $2,074 $2,178 $2,287
S7 $1,929 $2,025 $2,126 $2,233 $2,344
S8 $1,977 $2,076 $2,179 $2,288 $2,403
S9 $2,026 $2,128 $2,234 $2,346 $2,463
S10 $2,077 $2,181 $2,290 $2,404 $2,524
S11 $2,129 $2,235 $2,347 $2,464 $2,588
S12 $2,182 $2,291 $2,406 $2,526 $2,652
S13 $2,237 $2,348 $2,466 $2,589 $2,719
S14 $2,292 $2,407 $2,527 $2,654 $2,787
S15 $2,350 $2,467 $2,591 $2,720 $2,856
S16 $2,409 $2,529 $2,655 $2,788 $2,928
S17 $2,469 $2,592 $2,722 $2,858 $3,001
S18 $2,530 $2,657 $2,790 $2,929 $3,076
S19 $2,594 $2,723 $2,860 $3,003 $3,153
S20 $2,659 $2,791 $2,931 $3,078 $3,231
S21 $2,725 $2,861 $3,004 $3,155 $3,312
S22 $2,793 $2,933 $3,079 $3,233 $3,395
S23 $2,863 $3,006 $3,156 $3,314 $3,480
S24 $2,935 $3,081 $3,235 $3,397 $3,567
S25 $3,008 $3,158 $3,316 $3,482 $3,656
S26 $3,083 $3,237 $3,399 $3,569 $3,748
S27 $3,160 $3,318 $3,484 $3,658 $3,841
S28 $3,239 $3,401 $3,571 $3,750 $3,937
S29 $3,320 $3,486 $3,660 $3,844 $4,036
S30 $3,403 $3,573 $3,752 $3,940 $4,137
S31 $3,488 $3,663 $3,846 $4,038 $4,240
S32 $3,575 $3,754 $3,942 $4,139 $4,346
S33 $3,665 $3,848 $4,040 $4,243 $4,455
S34 $3,756 $3,944 $4,142 $4,349 $4,566
S35 $3,850 $4,043 $4,245 $4,457 $4,680
S36 $3,947 $4,144 $4,351 $4,569 $4,797
S37 $4,045 $4,248 $4,460 $4,683 $4,917
S38 $4,146 $4,354 $4,571 $4,800 $5,040
S39 $4,250 $4,463 $4,686 $4,920 $5,166
S40 $4,356 $4,574 $4,803 $5,043 $5,295
NORMAL PROGRESSION: A is starting wage. Advance to Step B after six months
probationary period. Advance to Step C after eighteen months employment.
Additional grade advances in Step C, within the City Council authorized limits
shall be at the discretion of the City Manager.
CITY MANAGER'S DISCRETION: Starting grade and grade /step advances, within the
City Council authorized limits set for each position, shall be at the discretion
of the City Manager. The City Manager is authorized to set salaries below the
minimum grade range when performance or qualifications are less then required for
the position.
INTERVALS: Grades 1 through 40 represent 2 112% advances. Steps A through E
represent approximately 5% advances.
MERIT STEPS: Merit steps shall only be'awarded with express approval of the
City Council. -8-
1
(AAPC7C2)
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1991 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE C -2
SUPERVISORY - PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS MONTHLY SALARY CONVERSION SCHEDULE MONTHLY RATE
CONVERSION TABLE
-------------------------------------------------------------
MONTHLY ANNUAL HOURLY MONTHLY ANNUAL HOURLY MONTHLY ANNUAL HOURLY
- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - - - - - --
$1,663 $19,956 $9.557 $1,746 $20,954 $10.035 $1,833 $22,001 $10.537
$1,705 $20,455 $9.796 $1,790 $21,478 $10.286 $1,879 $22,552 $10.801
$1,747 $20,966 $10.041 $1,835 $22,015 $10.543 $1,926 $23,115 $11.071
$1,791 $21,490 $10.292 $1,880 $22,565 $10.807 $1,974 $23,693 $11.347
$1,836 $22,028 $10.550 $1,927 $23,129 $11.077 $2,024 $24,286 $11.631
$1,882 $22,578 $10.813 $1,976 $23,707 $11.354 $2,074 $24,893 $11.922
$1,929 $23,143 $11.084 $2,025 $24,300 $11.638 $2,126 $25,515 $12.220
$1,977 $23,721 $11.361 $2,076 $24,907 $11.929 $2,179 $26,153 $12.525
$2,026 $24,314 $11.645 $2,128 $25,530 $12.227 $2,234 $26,807 $12.838
$2,077 $24,922 $11.936 $2,181 $26,168 $12.533 $2,290 $27,477 $13.159
$2,129 $25,545 $12.234 $2,235 $26,823 $12.846 $2,347 $28,164 $13.488
$2,182 $26,184 $12.540 $2,291 $27,493 $13.167 $2,406 $28,868 $13.826
$2,237 $26,839 $12.854 $2,348 $28,181 $13.496 $2,466 $29,590 $14.171
$2,292 $27,510 $13.175 $2,407 $28,885 $13.834 $2,527 $30,329 $14.526
$2,350 $28,197 $13.504 $2,467 $29,607 $14.180 $2,591 $31,088 $14.889
$2,409 $28,902 $13.842 $2,529 $30,347 $14.534 $2,655 $31,865 $15.261
$2,469 $29,625 $14.188 $2,592 $31,106 $14.898 $2,722 $32,661 $15.642
$2,530 $30,365 $14.543 $2,657 $31,884 $15.270 $2,790 $33,478 $16.033
$2,594 $31,125 $14.906 $2,723 $32,681 $15.652 $2,860 $34,315 $16.434
$2,659 $31,903 $15.279 $2,791 $33,498 $16.043 $2,931 $35,173 $16.845
$2,725 $32,700 $15.661 $2,861 $34,335 $16.444 $3,004 $36,052 $17.266
$2,793 $33,518 $16.053 $2,933 $35,194 $16.855 $3,079 $36,953 $17.698
$2,863 $34,356 $16.454 $3,006 $36,073 $17.277 $3,156 $37,877 $18.140
$2,935 $35,215 $16.865 $3,081 $36,975 $17.708 $3,235 $38,824 $18.594
$3,008 $36,095 $17.287 $3,158 $37,900 $18.151 $3,316 $39,795 $19.059
$3,083 $36,997 $17.719 $3,237 $38,847 $18.605 $3,399 $40,790 $19.535
$3,160 $37,922 $18.162 $3,318 $39,818 $19.070 $3,484 $41,809 $20.024
$3,239 $38,870 $18.616 $3,401 $40,814 $19.547 $3,571 $42,855 $20.524
$3,320 $39,842 $19.081 $3,486 $41,834 $20.036 $3,660 $43,926 $21.037
$3,403 $40,838 $19.558 $3,573 $42,880 $20.536 $3,752 $45,024 $21.563
$3,488 $41,859 $20.047 $3,663 $43,952 $21.050 $3,846 $46,150 $22.102
$3,575 $42,906 $20.549 $3,754 $45,051 $21.576 $3,942 $47,303 $22.655
$3,665 $43,978 $21.062 $3,848 $46,177 $22.115 $4,040 $48,486 $23.221
$3,756 $45,078 $21.589 $3,944 $47,332 $22.668 $4,142 $49,698 $23.802
$3,850 $46,205 $22.129 $4,043 $48,515 $23.235 $4,245 $50,941 $24.397
$3,947 $47,360 $22.682 $4,144 $49,728 $23.816 $4,351 $52,214 $25.007
$4,045 $48,544 $23.249 $4,248 $50,971 $24.411 $4,460 $53,519 $25.632
$4,146 $49,757 $23.830 $4,354 $52,245 $25.022 $4,571 $54,857 $26.273
$4,250 $51,001 $24.426 $4,463 $53,551 $25.647 $4,686 $56,229 $26.930
- -- $4,356 $52,276 $25.037 $4,574 $54,890 $26.288 $4,803 $57,635 $27.603
----------------------------------------------------
NOTE: The Supervisory - Professional positions are classified as exempt under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and are compensated at a monthly salary. This schedule converts
the monthly salary to an annual equivalent by multiplying the monthly rate by twelve months.
The schedule converts the annual salary to an hourly equivalent rate by dividing the annual
* ate by the number of normal work hours in the current year. The number of normal work
ours is determined by subtracting Saturdays and Sundays from the total number of days in
the year and multiplying that number by eight hours. There are 2,088 normal work hours in
1991. This conversion schedule is for informational purposes only and is not an official
wage schedule. -9-
(AAPC7D)
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1991 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE D
TECHNICAL AND SECRETARIAL POSITIONS GRADE RANGE AND HOURLY RATES TECHNICAL - SECRETARIAL
GRADE RANGE HOURLY WAGE RANGE
FROM SCHEDULE D -1 FROM SCHEDULE D -1
GOING GOING
POSITION MINIMUM RATE MAXIMUM MINIMUM RATE MAXIMUM
Engineering Technician IV T37A T39C T41C $16.83 $19.50 $20.49
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering Technician III T27A T29C T31C $13.15 $15.23 $16.00
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance Custodian T24A T26C T28C $12.21 $14.14 $14.86
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Custodian T20A T22C T24C $11.06 $12.81 $13.46
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payroll /Personnel Technician T20A T22C T24C $11.06 $12.81 $13.46
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Safety Dispatcher T20A T22C T24C $11.06 $12.81 $13.46
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Works Dispatcher T19A T21C T23C $10.79 $12.50 $13.13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Technician T17A T19C T21C $10.27 $11.90 $12.50
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utilities Technician T17A T19C T21C $10.27 $11.90 $12.50
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accounting Technician T17A T19C T21C $10.27 $11.90 $12.50
-
----- ------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code Enforcement Officer T14A T16C T18C $9.54 $11.05 $11.61
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Property Room Supervisor T14A T16C T18C $9.54 $11.05 $11.61
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning & Inspection Secretary T14A T16C T18C $9.54 $11.05 $11.61
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Police Classification Operator T14A T16C T18C $9.54 $11.05 $11.61
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering Secretary T14A T16C T18C $9.54 $11.05 $11.61
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finance Secretary T13A T15C T17C $9.31 $10.78 $11.33
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Police Secretary T13A T15C T17C $9.31 $10.78 $11.33
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data Entry Operator T13A T15C T17C $9.31 $10.78 $11.33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administration /Licenses Secretary T13A T15C T17C $9.31 $10.78 $11.33
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parks and Recreation Secretary T13A T15C T17C $9.31 $10.78 $11.33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning & Inspection Receptionist T13A T15C T17C $9.31 $10.78 $11.33
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administration /Elections Secretary T9A T11C T13C $8.43 $9.77 $10.26
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Switchboard Operator /Receptionist 178A T10C T12C $8.23 $9.53 $10.01
----- -------- ---------
- -
Police Receptionist T8A TlOC T12C $8.23 $9.53 $10.01
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Custodian T6A T8C T10C $7.83 $9.07 $9.53
-10-
(AAPC7D1) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1991 EMPLOYEE POSITION /CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE D -1
TECHNICAL AND SECRETARIAL POSITIONS HOURLY WAGE SCHEDULE
PROGRESSION STEPS MERIT STEPS
GRADES A B C D E
T1 $6.92 $7.27 $7.63 $8.01 $8.41
T2 $7.09 $7.45 $7.82 $8.21 $8.62
T3 $7.27 $7.63 $8.02 $8.42 $8.84
T4 $7.45 $7.82 $8.22 $8.63 $9.06
T5 $7.64 $8.02 $8.42 $8.84 $9.28
T6 $7.83 $8.22 $8.63 $9.06 $9.52
T7 $8.03 $8.43 $8.85 $9.29 $9.75
T8 $8.23 $8.64 $9.07 $9.52 $10.00
T9 $8.43 $8.85 $9.30 $9.76 $10.25
T10 $8.64 $9.07 $9.53 $10.00 $10.50
T11 $8.86 $9.30 $9.77 $10.25 $10.77
T12 $9.08 $9.53 $10.01 $10.51 $11.04
T13 $9.31 $9.77 $10.26 $10.77 $11.31
T14 $9.54 $10.02 $10.52 $11.04 $11.60
T15 $9.78 $10.27 $10.78 $11.32 $11.88
T16 $10.02 $10.52 $11.05 $11.60 $12.18
T17 $10.27 $10.79 $11.33 $11.89 $12.49
T18 $10.53 $11.06 $11.61 $12.19 $12.80
T19 $10.79 $11.33 $11.90 $12.49 $13.12
T20 $11.06 $11.62 $12.20 $12.81 $13.45
T21 $11.34 $11.91 $12.50 $13.13 $13.78
T22 $11.62 $12.20 $12.81 $13.45 $14.13
T23 $11.91 $12.51 $13.13 $13.79 $14.48
T24 $12.21 $12.82 $13.46 $14.14 $14.84
T25 $12.52 $13.14 $13.80 $14.49 $15.21
T26 $12.83 $13.47 $14.14 $14.85 $15.59
T27 $13.15 $13.81 $14.50 $15.22 $15.98
T28 $13.48 $14.15 $14.86 $15.60 $16.38
T29 $13.82 $14.51 $15.23 $15.99 $16.79
T30 $14.16 $14.87 $15.61 $16.39 $17.21
T31 $14.52 $15.24 $16.00 $16.80 $17.64
T32 $14.88 $15.62 $16.40 $17.22 $18.08
T33 $15.25 $16.01 $16.81 $17.65 $18.54
T34 $15.63 $16.41 $17.23 $18.10 $19.00
T35 $16.02 $16.82 $17.66 $18.55 $19.47
T36 $16.42 $17.24 $18.11 $19.01 $19.96
T37 $16.83 $17.67 $18.56 $19.49 $20.46
T38 $17.25 $18.12 $19.02 $19.97 $20.97
T39 $17.69 $18.57 $19.50 $20.47 $21.50
T40 $18.13 $19.03 $19.99 $20.98 $22.03
T41 $18.58 $19.51 $20.49 $21.51 $22.58
NORMAL PROGRESSION: A is starting wage. Advance to Step B after six months
probationary period. Advance to Step C after eighteen months employment.
Additional grade advances in Step C, within the City Council authorized
limits, shall be at the discretion of the City Manager.
CITY MANAGER'S DISCRETION: Starting grade and grade /step advances, within the
City Council authorized limits set for each position, shall be at the discretion of the
City Manager. The City Manager is authorized to set salaries below the minimum grade
range when performance or qualifications are less then required for the position.
INTERVALS: Grades 1 through 40 represent 2 112% advances. Steps A through E
represent approximately 5% advances.
MERIT STEPS: Merit steps shall only be with express approval of the
City Council. -11-
D r n
U D V
P
L �..
0
(AAPC7D2) CITY OF BROOKLYN C ER 1991 EMPLOYEE POSITION /CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE D -2
TECHNICAL AND SECRETARIAL POSITIONS HOURLY RATE CONVERSION SCHEDULE HOURLY RATE
CONVERSION TABLE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOURLY ANNUAL MONTHLY HOURLY ANNUAL MONTHLY HOURLY ANNUAL MONTHLY
-- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - --
$6.92 $14,449 $1,204 $7.27 $15,171 $1,264 $7.63 $15,930 $1,327
$7.09 $14,810 $1,234 $7.45 $15,551 $1,296 $7.82 $16,328 $1,361
$7.27 $15,180 $1,265 $7.63 $15,939 $1,328 $8.02 $16,736 $1,395
$7.45 $15,560 $1,297 $7.82 $16,338 $1,361 $8.22 $17,155 $1,430
$7.64 $15,949 $1,329 $8.02 $16,746 $1,396 $8.42 $17,584 $1,465
$7.83 $16,348 $1,362 $8.22 $17,165 $1,430 $8.63 $18,023 $1,502
$8.03 $16,756 $1,396 $8.43 $17,594 $1,466 $8.85 $18,474 $1,539
$8.23 $17,175 $1,431 $8.64 $18,034 $1,503 $9.07 $18,936 $1,578
$8.43 $17,605 $1,467 $8.85 $18,485 $1,540 $9.30 $19,409 $1,617
$8.64 $18,045 $1,504 $9.07 $18,947 $1,579 $9.53 $19,894 $1,658
$8.86 $18,496 $1,541 $9.30 $19,421 $1,618 $9.77 $20,392 $1,699
$9.08 $18,958 $1,580 $9.53 $19,906 $1,659 $10.01 $20,902 $1,742
$9.31 $19,432 $1,619 $9.77 $20,404 $1,700 $10.26 $21,424 $1,785
$9.54 $19,918 $1,660 $10.02 $20,914 $1,743 $10.52 $21,960 $1,830
$9.78 $20,416 $1,701 $10.27 $21,437 $1,786 $10.78 $22,509 $1,876
$10.02 $20,926 $1,744 $10.52 $21,973 $1,831 $11.05 $23,071 $1,923
$10.27 $21,450 $1,787 $10.79 $22,522 $1,877 $11.33 $23,648 $1,971
$10.53 $21,986 $1,832 $11.06 $23,085 $1,924 $11.61 $24,239 $2,020
$10.79 $22,535 $1,878 $11.33 $23,662 $1,972 $11.90 $24,845 $2,070
$11.06 $23,099 $1,925 $11.62 $24,254 $2,021 $12.20 $25,466 $2,122
$11.34 $23,676 $1,973 $11.91 $24,860 $2,072 $12.50 $26,103 $2,175
$11.62 $24,268 $2,022 $12.20 $25,482 $2,123 $12.81 $26,756 $2,230
$11.91 $24,875 $2,073 $12.51 $26,119 $2,177 $13.13 $27,425 $2,285
$12.21 $25,497 $2,125 $12.82 $26,772 $2,231 $13.46 $28,110 $2,343
$12.52 $26,134 $2,178 $13.14 $27,441 $2,287 $13.80 $28,813 $2,401
$12.83 $26,788 $2,232 $13.47 $28,127 $2,344 $14.14 $29,533 $2,461
$13.15 $27,457 $2,288 $13.81 $28,830 $2,403 $14.50 $30,272 $2,523
$13.48 $28,144 $2,345 $14.15 $29,551 $2,463 $14.86 $31,028 $2,586
$13.82 $28,847 $2,404 $14.51 $30,290 $2,524 $15.23 $31,804 $2,650
$14.16 $29,568 $2,464 $14.87 $31,047 $2,587 $15.61 $32,599 $2,717
$14.52 $30,308 $2,526 $15.24 $31,823 $2,652 $16.00 $33,414 $2,785
$14.88 $31,065 $2,589 $15.62 $32,619 $2,718 $16.40 $34,250 $2,854
$15.25 $31,842 $2,653 $16.01 $33,434 $2,786 $16.81 $35,106 $2,925
$15.63 $32,638 $2,720 $16.41 $34,270 $2,856 $17.23 $35,983 $2,999
$16.02 $33,454 $2,788 $16.82 $35,127 $2,927 $17.66 $36,883 $3,074
$16.42 $34,290 $2,858 $17.24 $36,005 $3,000 $18.11 $37,805 $3,150
$16.83 $35,148 $2,929 $17.67 $36,905 $3,075 $18.56 $38,750 $3,229
$17.25 $36,026 $3,002 $18.12 $37,828 $3,152 $19.02 $39,719 $3,310
$17.69 $36,927 $3,077 $18.57 $38,773 $3,231 $19.50 $40,712 $3,393
$18.13 $37,850 $3,154 $19.03 $39,743 $3,312 $19.99 $41,730 $3,477
$18.58 $38,796 $3,233 $19.51 $40,736 $3,395 $20.49 $42,773 $3,564
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: The Technical and Clerical positions are classified as non - exempt under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and are compensated at an hourly wage rate. This schedule
converts the hourly rate to an annual rate by multiplying the hourly rate by the number of
normal work hours in the current year. The number of normal work hours is determined by
s ubtracting Saturdays and Sundays from the total number of days in the year and multiplying
hat number by eight hours. There are 2,088 normal work hours in 1991. The monthly wage
is determined by dividing the annual wage by twelve months. This conversion schedule is
for informational purposes only and is not an official wage schedule.
-12-
D D D
ij
k+'
(AAPC7E)
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1991 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE E
POLICE OFFICER POSITIONS HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE, L.E.L.S., LOCAL NO. 82 POLICE OFFICERS
-------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- PLAN
HOURLY RATE PROGRESSION STEPS
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5
POSITION (72 %) (79 %) (86 %) (93 %) (100 %)
----------------- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --
Police Officer $12.931 $14.188 $15.445 $16.702 $17.960
CONVERSION TABLE
Monthly $2,241 $2,459 $2,677 $2,895 $3,113
Annual $26,896 $29,511 $32,126 $34,741 $37,356
NORMAL PROGRESSION: Step PI is the starting wage. Advance to Step P2 after six months
of employment. Advance to Step P3 after one year of employment. Advance to Step
P4 after two years of employment. Advance to Step P5 after three years of
employment.
CITY MANAGER'S DISCRETION: Starting step and step advances, within the City Council
authorized limits, shall be at the discretion of the City Manager.
INTERVALS: P5 is top police officer salary. P1 is 72% of P5; P2 is 79% of P5;
P3 is 86% of P5; P4 is 93% of P5.
CONVERSION TABLE
HOURLY MONTHLY ANNUAL
Sergeant (P5 monthly salary plus $310) $19.748 $3,423 $41,076
LONGEVITY AND EDUCATIONAL INCENTIVE:
Percent of Base Pay based on longevity or educational credits to be paid as
supplementary pay:
EDUCATIONAL
LONGEVITY COLLEGE QUARTER CREDITS PERCENT
------------ - - - - -- ----------------- - - - - -- - - - - - --
4-8 years 45 -89 3%
8 -12 years 90 -134 5%
12 -16 years 135 -179 7%
16 years and over 180 or more 9%
SPECIAL JOB CLASSIFICATION:
1. Employees classified or assigned by the City of Brooklyn Center to the
following job classifications or positions will receive $145 per month
or $145 prorated for less than a full month in addition to their regular
wage rate:
CONVERSION TABLE
HOURLY MONTHLY ANNUAL
A. Investigator $0.837 $145 $1,740
B. School Liaison Officer $0.837 $145 $1,740
B. Juvenile Officer $0.837 $145 $1,740
C. Dog Handler $0.837 $145 $1,740
2. Employees classified or assigned by the City of Brooklyn Center to the
following job classifications or positions will receive $50 per month
or $50 prorated for less than a full month in addition to their regular
wage rate: CONVERSION TABLE
HOURLY MONTHLY ANNUAL
A. Corporal $0.288 $50 $600
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: The Police Officer positions are classified as non - exempt under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and are compensated at an hourly rate. This schedule also converts
the hourly wage rate to monthly and annual. The conversion tables are for informational
purposes only and are not a part of the official wage schedule.
-13-
p
D D D
(AAPC7F)
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1990 EMPLOYEE POSITION /CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE F
UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL NO. 49 POSITIONS HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE LOCAL NO. 49
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: The following Wage Schedule will be in effect from the first payroll period in
1991 through the last payroll period in 1991:
CONVERSION TABLE
HOURLY --------------------------
POSITION RATE MONTHLY ANNUAL
----------------------------
Maintenance III $14.00 $2,436 $29,232
Maintenance II $13.48 $2,346 $28,146
Mechanic $14.04 $2,443 $29,316
Night Service Person $13.26 $2,307 $27,687
Maintenance I Beginning $9.73 $1,693 $20,316
Maintenance I Step 1 $10.67 $1,857 $22,279
Maintenance I Step 2 $11.61 $2,020 $24,242
Maintenance I Step 3 $12.54 $2,182 $26,184
Welding $13.77 $2,396 $28,752
Crew Leader $14.17 When assigned in writing by the
department head to assist a super-
visor as crew leader while perform-
ing such duties.
WORKING OUT OF CLASSIFICATION PAY: Employees required by the employer to operate certain
items of heavy equipment will be paid the Maintenance III rate of pay for those hours
assigned to the unit. Employees hired after February 7, 1984, in the Maintenance I class -
ification who are required by the employer to operate certain items of light equipment will
be paid the Maintenance II rate of pay for those hours assigned to the unit.
STANDBY PAY: Public Utility employees who are designated by their supervisor to serve
in a "standby" status on behalf of the City on a weekend will receive as compensation for
such service five (5) hours of overtime pay for the period beginning the end of the work
day on Friday and ending the start of the work day on Monday when serving in such status.
Public Utility employees who are designated by their supervisors to serve in a "standby"
status on behalf of the City on a holiday will receive as compensation for such service two
(2) hours of overtime pay for each holiday served in such status. Such standby pay shall
be in addition to other compensation which the employee is entitled to under this agreement.
NOTE: The above positions are classified as non - exempt under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and are compensated at an hourly rate. This schedule also converts the hourly
wage rate to monthly and annual equivalents. The schedule converts the hourly rate to an
annual rate by multiplying the hourly rate by the number of normal work hours in the
current year. The number of normal work hours is determined by subtracting Saturdays and
Sundays from the total number of days in the year and multiplying that number by eight
hours. There are 2,088 normal work hours in 1991. The schedule converts the annual rate
to the monthly rate by dividing the annual rate by twelve months. The conversions are for
informational purposes only and are not a part of the official wage schedule.
-14-
D D D
(AAPC7G)
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1991 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE G
LIQUOR STORES PART -TIME HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE LIQUOR STORES
------------- ------- --- --- ------ ------ - - - - -- PART -TIME EMPLOYEES
PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STEPS
---------------------------------------------
POSITION A B C D SENIOR
---------------- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --
Clerk /Stocker $4.95 $5.55 $6.65 $6.90 $7.45
Cashier $4.95 $5.55 $6.65 $6.90 $7.45
Cashier /Office Assistant $7.10 $8.25 $8.70 N/A N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NORMAL PROGRESSION: A is starting hourly rate. Advance to Step B after six months
employment. Advance to Step C after eighteen months employment.
Advance to Step D after thirty -six months employment.
Advancement to the Senior Step is at the discretion of the City
Manager upon the recommendation of the Liquor Stores' Manager.
No more than six employees may be designated as Senior at any time.
CITY MANAGER'S DISCRETION: Starting grade and step advances, within the City Council
authorized limits, shall be at the discretion of the City
Manager.
-15-
N
CITY C OF ) BROOKLYN CENTER 1991 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE H
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE BENEFITS EMPLOYEE
--------- ----- ------- - - - - -- INSURANCE BENEFITS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L.E.L.S., LOCAL NO. 82, POLICE OFFICERS:
---------------------------------------
The City will contribute up to a maximum of $260 per month per employee toward
health, life, long -term disability insurance, and dental insurance. (Dental
insurance not to exceed $20.) In addition, the City will provide a $10,000 Group
Term Life Insurance policy.
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL NO. 49, AFL -CIO:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The City will contribute, effective with insurance premiums due January 1, 1990,
payment of an amount not to exceed $260 per month toward the cost of coverage
under the Brooklyn Center Group Hospital - Medical Insurance Plans and Group Dental
Insurance as fringe benefit compensation for full -time employees and eligible
dependents. Dental Insurance not to exceed $20 per month. In addition, the City
will provide a $10,000 Group Term Life Insurance policy.
NON- ORGANIZED CITY EMPLOYEES:
---------------------- - - - - --
The City will contribute, effective with insurance premiums due January 1, 1990,
payment of an amount not to exceed $260 per month toward the cost of coverage
under the Brooklyn Center Group Hospital- Medical Insurance Plans and Group Dental
Insurance as fringe benefit compensation for full -time employees and eligible
dependents. Dental Insurance not to exceed $20 per month. In addition, the City
will provide a $10,000 Group Term Life Insurance policy.
CITY MANAGER:
As provided in the City Manager's Personal Service Contract.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-16-
0 o D
AAPC7I)
TTY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1990 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE I
991 CITY MANAGER'S COMPENSATION AGREEMENT CITY MANAGER'S
------------------- --------- -------- - - - - -- COMPENSATION AGREEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT:
----------------------------------
1. The City Charter, adopted by the voters of the City of Brooklyn Center on November 8,
1966, created the position of City Manager.
2. Gerald G. Splinter was appointed City Manager effective October 17, 1977 (Resolution
No. 77 -168) and is currently serving in that position.
3. The position of City Manager is not covered by the provisions of Chapter 17 of the
City Ordinances.
4. Other conditions of employment are hereby explicitly stated:
a. Mr. Splinter shall perform the duties and meet the obligations for the position of
City Manager as set forth in the City Charter and Chapter 6 of the City Ordinances.
b. Mr. Splinter's salary for 1991 shall be $78,197 per annum and adjustment to the
City Manager's salary shall be reviewed annually in conjunction with the
establishment of salaries for City employees.
c. The City Manager shall be granted sick leave and holiday benefits granted to other
employees and commencing January 1, 1983 he will earn four weeks vacation per year.
d. The City Manager shall reside within Brooklyn Center within twelve months following
the effective date of appointment.
e. The full premium cost for individual and family coverage under the Brooklyn Center
Group Health and Dental Plan and /or Insurance Plan and the full premium cost for
two times his annual salary of term life insurance under the Brooklyn Center Group
Life Insurance Plan shall be paid by the City on the City Manager's behalf. It may
be necessary, in order to maintain IRS nontax status of all employee insurance
benefits, to modify this section of the City Manager's compensation package. If the
Finance Director recommends modification in the payment of the City Manager's insur-
ance benefits as the simplest and most effective method for assuring "qualification"
of Brooklyn Center's employee group insurance plans under IRS regulations, then the
City Manager's salary is to be adjusted an equivalent amount to compensate for any
reduction in insurance benefits.
f. The City Manager shall receive $250 per month if the City does not provide a car
for the City Manager's twenty -four hour business use.
-17-
n
D D 0 L
991 City Manager's Compensation Agreement, Schedule I, Continued:
---------------------------------------------------------------
g. In the event of resignation, notice thereof shall be submitted in writing to the
City Council at least 30 days prior to the effective date.
h. In the event of dismissal by the City Council, the City Manager shall be notified
at least 30 days in advance of the effective date of dismissal and shall be
furnished a written statement of the reasons therefor, and further, shall be
granted a hearing thereon, if requested.
i. In the event of voluntary resignation or death, the City Manager shall receive
severance pay based on 100% of his unused vacation leave and one -third of his
unused sick leave.
j. In the event of involuntary resignation or dismissal, severance pay based on 100%
of his unused vacation leave and one -third of his unused sick leave plus eight
months pay (to include health, dental, and life insurance premiums) shall be paid
to the City Manager. However, in the event that the City Manager is terminated
because of his conviction of any illegal act involving personal gain to him, the
City shall have no obligation to pay the eight months severance sum designated in
this paragraph.
k. Minnesota State Law provides City Managers with a choice of pension plans: PERA
or a deferred compensation fund. The City of Brooklyn Center will contribute to
the qualified fund of the City Manager's choice a dollar amount equivalent to the
required PERA contribution.
1. The City will, at a minimum, provide the cost for the City Manager to attend the
state or national ICMA conferences or job - related courses, seminars, or training
of equivalent cost.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-18-
D D D
(AAPC7J)
O ITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1991 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE J
ERSONNEL EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT POLICY PERSONNEL EXPENSE
---------------------- -------------- -- REIMBURSEMENT POLICY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is necessary that there be a uniform policy of reimbursement for travel, lodging,
meals, and mileage expenses incurred by City employees and officials while performing
their duties as representatives of the City of Brooklyn Center.
It is also necessary that existing reimbursement policies be reviewed annually, and
be adjusted when necessary, to reflect the current costs of travel, lodging, meals, and
the use of personal automobiles for business use.
Therefore, all existing reimbursement policies are hereby ammended to be as follows
for costs incurred on January 1, 1990 and thereafter:
1. Reimbursements of travel expenses are intended to refund actual costs incurred by
City employees and officials while traveling as authorized representatives of the
City of Brooklyn Center.
2. In order to qualify for travel reimbursement, trips to a destination exceeding
100 miles from Brooklyn Center must have the prior approval of the City Manager.
3. Requests for travel advances intended to defray costs incurred while on a trip
and prior to susbmission of an expense report shall be submitted to the City
Manager for approval at least seven days in advance of the trip.
4. Travel advances shall be limited to 90% of the estimated expenses for lodging,
meals, and other related travel expenses. Costs of transportation and
registration shall be advanced in full.
5. A properly verified, itemized expense claim shall be submitted to the City
Manager for approval within ten days following the date of return from an
authorized trip. Expense claims shall be accompanied by receipts for:
a. Transportation costs to and from the destination via coach, tourist, or
economy class transportation.
b. Lodging costs not to exceed a reasonable single occupancy rate as determined
by the City Manager.
c. Conference or meeting registration fees.
d. Any unusual items for which advance approval has been obtained from the City
Manager.
6. The mode of transportation must be approved by the City Manager prior to any
authorized trip. Personal automobile use for authorized trips will be reimbursed
at a rate of 25.5 cents per mile, or an amount equal to air travel tourist class,
whichever is the lesser.
-19-
D D D
U
ED
1990 Personnel Expense Reimbursement Policy, Schedule J, Continued
----------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
7. Reimbursement for meals while on authorized travel will be for actual expenditures
with a maximum of $31 per day allowable, including tips. There shall be no per
diem for meals or any other expenses. The maximum meal reimbursement for any
fraction of a full day shall be as follows:
a. Breakfast - $7.00
b. Lunch - $9.00
c. Dinner - $15.00
The full cost shall be reimbursed for meals which are a scheduled activity of a
conference or meeting and the cost of such meals is not included in the
registration fee.
8. Employees and officials of the City shall be reimbursed for luncheon and dinner
costs as authorized by the City Manager in accordance with the following
provisions:
a. The actual cost of the meal not to exceed $12.00 will be allowed for meals
associated with attendance at training sessions when meals are an integral
part of the program or when there are training sessions before and after the
meal, or, for attendance at regular luncheon meetings of professional or
related associations.
b. The entire cost of related meals shall be reimbursed to those employees or
officials designated to represent the City at meetings or other City
business functions that the Council or City Manager deems necessary.
9. Employees or officials of the City who, in the conduct of official City business,
are authorized or required to use their personal automobiles for transportation
shall be reimbursed at the rate of 25.5 cents per mile for mileage incurred in the
conduct of such business. An itemized mileage expense claim must be submitted
to the City Manager for approval.
10. Certain employees of the City are required to drive a City vehicle to their home
and keep it there while off -duty. They must do so to be able to respond to
emergency situations. These emergency situations include fire and police
protection, civil defense and restoring City services such as water, sewer, and
streets. It may also be necessary to keep a City vehicle at home for security
purposes or other City business purposes. These vehicles must be used for City
business use only and cannot be used for the personal use of any employee. The
employees who are authorized to keep a City vehicle at their home on a regular
basis while off -duty are as follows:
The Director of Emergency Preparedness
The Chief of Police
The Fire Chief
The Supervisor of Street Maintenance
The Supervisor of Parks Maintenance
The Supervisor of Public Utilities
The Liquor Stores' Manager
-20-
(AAPC7K)
CITY
EMPLO BROOKL NG CENTER 1991 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE K
EMPLOYEE
TRAINING
POLICY
--------------------------------------------------------------
In 1964, the City Council established a policy pertaining to employee
training. The purpose of the policy is to promote and encourage employees of
the City of Brooklyn Center to pursue further education and training to increase
awareness and proficiency in their positions.
In support of this policy, it is hereby amended to be as follows for costs
incurred on January 1, 1991 and thereafter:
I. VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION TRAINING.
--------------------------------
The City of Brooklyn Center will reimburse to City employees attending job
related courses who have been employed by the City of Brooklyn Center,
on a full -time basis of a period of at least 18 months, 60% of the cost
incurred by the employee for the payment of tuition and fees and purchases
of textbooks required for such courses, provided the conditions listed below
are met. Employees who have been employed by the City of Brooklyn Center on a
full -time basis with at least five complete years of employment will receive
75% of the cost incurred for tuition, fees, and textbooks, provided the
following conditions have been met:
a. The course has been approved by the City Manager prior to registration
for, or participation in, the course.
b. The employee attains a grade of "C" or better in the course, or in those
cases where grades are not assigned, the employee must show proof of
satisfactory completion of the course.
c. The employee has submitted, on forms to be provided by the City Manager's
office, a written critique of the course, stated the value of the training
to his or her position, and made such suggestions as may be pertinent for
the conduct of future training sessions.
d. The attendance of the employee at course sessions has been satisfactory.
e. Individuals who are receiving compensation or reimbursement for
education costs from the federal or state government shall not be
eligible for additional reimbursement from the City.
2. REQUIRED PARTICIPANT TRAINING.
-----------------------------
In those instances where
the City Manager deems it necessary or advisable
that an employee attend training sessions, the City shall pay all costs for
fees, tuition, and textbooks. The employee shall attend such courses or
training sessions on his or her regular work time, or if such courses are
only after regular work hours, compensatory time shall be granted to the
employee. Upon completion of the training, the employee shall submit a
critique of the course as required in paragraph lc above.
-21-
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX AND
GENERAL SALARY INCREASES BY YEAR
(nonorganized employees)
July /July
Mpls. /St. Paul General Salary
CPI Increase
1978 10.7% 6.8%
1979 12.4% 7.0%
1980 11.2% 8.0%
1981 11.4% 10.0%
1982 9.8% 9.0%
1983 2.6% 6.0%
1984 5.5% 5.0%
1985 1.0% 5.0%
1986 1.2%
4.0%
1987 1.4% 3.5%
1988 5.6% 4.0%
1989 3.7% 4.0%
1990 4.1% 4.1%
PERCENT INCREASE IN SALARIES FROM 1990 TO 1991
PW/PR POL NON-
Ci•y UNION YIN UNION YIN UNION YIN
ANOYA 3.50 y 3.50 y 3.50 N
--- _ - - - - -- -"- Y -
---------------------------------- -------
1 PPLE VALLEY 4.00 Y 4.00 N 4.00 N
------------- --. - -- ---- - - - - - -- ---- N - - - -- -"
--------------------------------------
BLAINE - 4.50 N 4.50 N 4.50 Y
---------------------------------------------------------- -------
ELOOMING'I'ON - - 4.00 y 4.00 y
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(7F-N'TF.'R 4.00 y 4.00 y 4.00 N
----------------- ---------------------------------- 7 ---------------
BPOOKLYN PART{ 4.00 y 4.00 N/A 4.00 y
-----------------------3.90 -------- --------3.90 N ----------------------------
A I
Eup'"sViL lIz - 4.00 y
--------------------------------------------------------------------
COON F 3.00 N/M 3.00 NIM 3.00 N
--------- _--- -y.._- - - - -__ -- - -- -
CRYSTAL 4.00 N 4.00 N 4.00 N
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FAGAN *2 - 3.50 N 4.00 N/A 7 N
--------------------------------------------------------------------
DEN PRAIRIE 3.50 Y 3 - 7 y
--_--------- _-------- ---- N ----- ---------
EDINA 4.00 4.00 y 4.00 N
------- ----
FRIDLEY ----------------- 4.00----N ------- 4.00 ---- N
--------------------------------------------------------------------
GOLDEN VALLEY 4.00 N 4.00 N 5.00 N
----------- -
--------------------------------------------------------
HOPKINS 4.00 N 4.00 N N
-------------------------------------------------------------------
INVER GROVE HEIGHTS - 4.10 N 4.00 N
--------------------------------------------------------------------
KAPLE (�ROVE 4.00 N 4.00 N 4.00 N
------ --
--------------------------------- --
------------------
F.APLr_WOOD + *1 •
4.00 N - 3.50 N 4.00 N
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MINNETONKA -- 3.50 N - ? N/A 3.50 N
----------------------------------------------------------- --------
NEW BRIGHTON *2 3.75 Y 3.70 N 4.00 y
----------`'----- __ -. - - -- 4 .00 --------------------- -----------------------
NEW HOPE N 4.00 N 4.00 N
--------------------------------------------------------------------
P A I Y M 0 I.-T "l x * 1 . 4.00 X/M 4.00 NIM 4.00 N
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIOR LAKE 4.50 4.50 y 4.00 N
SALARIES
PW/PR POL NON-
CITY UNION Y/N UNION YIN UNION YIN
RICHFIELD 2.00 N 4.00 Y 4.00 Y
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBBINSOALE 4.00 Y 3.70 Y 4.50 Y
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ro IS Ev I i " LIE 4.00 N 4.00 N 4.00 N
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ST. ANTHO *a 4.00 N 4.00 Y 4.00 Y
--------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODBCRY 4.00 Y 4.00 N 4.00 N
--------------------------------------------------------------------
+ Maplewood will offer their maintenance workers a lump sum payment
rather than an increase in base salary
KIM means no settlement and in mediation
NIA means no settlement and in arbitration
Unless indicated, PW union is Local 49, POL union is LELS
-W Union
*1 AFSCME
*2 AFL-CIO
Police Union
*a. AFSCME
Y = YES APPROVED FOR 1991
N = NO PROPOSED FOR 1991
9K
(AAPC7RSW)
Member introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
i
' RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION SETTING WAGES AND SALARIES FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1991
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, Section 2.07 of the City Charter for the City of Brooklyn
Center states that the City Council is to fix the salary or wages of all officers
and employees of the City; and
WHEREAS, the 1984 Minnesota Pay Equity Act requires every political
subdivision to establish "equitable compensation relationships" between its
employees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the 1991 Employee Position and
Classification Plan; and
WHEREAS, the 1991 Employee Position and Classification Plan meets the
requirements of establishing "equitable compensation relationships ". and
WHEREAS, the 1991 Employee Position and Classification Plan establishes
that pay increases will be awarded on a pay for performance basis; and
WHEREAS, the structure of the 1991 Employee Position and Classification
Plan provides for pay increases awarded for improvements in job performances; and
WHEREAS, an individual employee's movement through his or her respective
pay schedule reflects a progression in corresponding levels or improved job
performance:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby sets wages
and salaries for the calendar year 1991 by adoption of the attached Position and
Classification Plan (Schedules A through K) for the calendar year 1991 which sets
ranges and maximums which the City Manager shall be authorized to pay in
classified positions; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager may move an individual
employee to pay grades in the attached Position and Classification Plan (Schedules
A through K), but he is limited to authorizing increases due to Pay Equity Act
compliance by the Annual Budget constraints adopted by the City Council; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 1991 City Employee Position and
Classification Plan is approved and adopted because it is generally an equitable
pay plan for City employees, however parts of the Plan were approved and adopted
solely for the purpose of compliance with the mandate of Minnesota statutes,
Sections 471.999; that adoption of said Plan shall create no vested rights, terms
or conditions of employment or entitlement to any given level of compensation
for any employee or group of employees; that said Plan shall be subject to
continuing review and reconsideration and may be amended from time to time by the
City Council; and
RESOLUTION NO.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager be authorized to employ
such temporary part -time and temporary full -time employees as may be necessary,
and to establish competitive rates of pay for such help consistent with the 1990
budget appropriations; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager be authorized to make
interim appointments to fill vacant positions whenever a position is vacant
because the regular employee is on leave of abscence, vacation leave, sick leave,
or is absent for any other reason and to establish rates of pay for such appoint-
ments consistent with the 1991 budget appropriations; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that authorized wage adjustments, not to exceed
the maximums contained herein, shall become effective January 1, 1991; and
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconde
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the foll
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 12 -18 -90
Agenda Item Number /00,
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Planning Commission Application No. 90026 - Edina Realty /Blumentals
Architecture, Inc.
DEPARTMENT APP L:
Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspection
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X
a The applicant requests a rezoning of the ro ert at 7100 Brooklyn
P P Y n Y
Boulevard and the vacant parcel to the east from R5 to C1. The
matter was considered by the Planning Commission at its October 18,
1990 meeting, tabled and referred to the Northwest Neighborhood
Advisory Group for review and comment. That group has met and
issued its recommendations to the Commission. The application was
brought back before the Planning Commission for consideration at
its December 6, 1990 regular meeting. Planning Commission minutes,
Information Sheet, Planning Commission Resolution No. 90 -3,
ordinance sections, Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group minutes
and maps are attached for the Council's review.
Recommendation
Approval of the application and Planning Commission Resolution No.
90 -3 was recommended by the Planning Commission at its December 6,
1990 meeting.
V �
a
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
DECEMBER 6, 1990
REGULAR SESSION
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in regular session and called to order
by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:34 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace
Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also present
were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner
Gary Shallcross.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 18 1990
Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to
approve the minutes of the October 18, 1990 Planning Commission
meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Commissioners Sander,
Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. Not voting:
Chairperson Malecki and Commissioner Bernards. The motion passed.
Commissioner Bertil Johnson arrived at 7:35 p.m.
APPLICATION NO. 90026 (Edina Realty /Blumentals Ar-hitecture Inc.)
Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced
the first item of business, a request for rezoning approval to
rezone from R5 to C1 the land at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard and the
vacant parcel to the east. The Secretary reviewed the contents of
the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for
Application No. 90026, attached). The Secretary added that Edina
Realty could have off -site accessory parking on the vacant site to
the east or on the church site to the north. The Secretary also
reviewed the draft resolution regarding the rezoning, noting the
guidelines for rezoning and the recommended conditions of the
rezoning.
Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether he had anything to
add. Mr. Janis Blumentals stated that the negotiations with the
church to acquire land for parking or parking rights were not going
well. He recommended that the rezoning go through and that the
bank not be allowed to go into the building until more parking is
provided. He asked the Commission to remove the condition
regarding the provision of additional parking and to allow the
rezoning with the understanding that the bank cannot move in until
more parking is provided.
PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 90026)
12 -6 -90 1
� r
t
Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing
and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the
application. No one spoke. Chairperson Malecki then called for a
motion to close the public hearing.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Ainas to
close the public hearing on Application No. 90026. The motion
passed unanimously.
Commissioner Holmes noted that the two exceptions in the draft
resolution relate to the bank occupancy. He asked whether those
conditions were needed. The Secretary stated that the resolution
could be modified. He explained the background of the proposal and
that it was the proposed bank occupancy which had instigated the
rezoning in the first place. He stated that staff simply want to
make sure that the parking issue is resolved before the bank
occupies the building. He explained that property could be added
to the site or an off -site parking arrangement could be approved as
well, but that these have to be accomplished before the bank can go
into the building. Mr. Blumentals stated that he was fully aware
that the bank could not occupy the building until the parking issue
was resolved. The Planner pointed out that the City Council could
approve the rezoning in concept and simply withhold the second
reading of the ordinance amendment describing the rezoning until
the parking issue was resolved and that there should, therefore, be
no delay. Mr. Blumentals also pointed out that the bank would have
to have a sign on the property for it to operate and that this
could be withheld by the City until the parking issue was resolved.
The Planner stated that he had no objection to modifying the
rezoning approval and noted that the applicant was certainly on
record as understanding that the bank occupancy was related to
resolving the parking issue.
Commissioner Sander asked what would happen if the bank did occupy
the building before parking was provided. The Secretary stated
that the matter would have to be prosecuted as a zoning violation.
In response to another question from Commissioner Sander the
Secretary stated with respect to a Special Use Permit for off -site
accessory parking, that Edina Realty must not only lease additional
parking, but must actually legally encumber the parking area. They
would then have the exclusive right to use the parking.
Chairperson Malecki asked the Commission for their comments.
Commissioner Ainas recommended that the rezoning be approved
subject to the applicant complying with the Zoning Ordinance.
Chairperson Malecki asked what would be required if the applicant
were to add property to the site. The Secretary stated that the
property would have to be replatted and that the rezoning would
have to extend to the additional land acquired. He stated that, if
the applicant cannot acquire additional land, he will have to meet
12 -6 -90 2
the parking requirement in some other way such as with a Special
Use Permit for off -site accessory parking.
Commissioner Johnson asked whether the Commission should rezone the
church property as well. The Secretary stated that the church
property should only be rezoned if it is to be sold to the
applicant and combined with their property. With respect to the
condition recommended in the proposed resolution, the Secretary
pointed out that rezoning is legally done by the City Council and
that the City Council could drop the condition regarding parking as
long as everyone understands that the bank cannot occupy the
building without additional parking being provided.
RESOLUTION 90 -3
Member Lowell Ainas introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO.
90026 SUBMITTED BY EDINA REALTY
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member Ella Sander, and the motion passed unanimously.
APPLICATION NOS. 90028 AND 90029 (Twin View Development Inc.)
The Secretary then introduced the next two items of business, a
request to rezone from I -1 to PUD /Ri and Open Space the vacant Soo
Line Property north of the Murphy Warehouse and west of France
Avenue North (The PUD submitted also includes site and building
plans for single - family residential development.) and a request for
preliminary plat approval to subdivide the 17.8 acre Soo Line
property into 29 single - family lots and two open space outlots.
The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports (see
Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application No. 90028
and 90029 attached) . During his presentation, the Secretary
pointed out that the applicant originally wanted to seek a rezoning
of the property to R2 to allow smaller single - family lots. He
stated that staff were concerned that the R2 zone would also allow
for two - family dwellings which were not desired in the area. The
Secretary also explained that there is no buffer by an industrial
use when it is adjacent to 0 -2 zoned property as proposed by the
applicant.
Commissioner Johnson noted that, at the end of East Twin Boulevard,
there is a dirt road which provides access for a couple of homes
along the south end of Upper Twin Lake. He asked what would happen
to the access for those homes along the north side of that access
easement. The Secretary stated that nothing would happen and that
no improvement was proposed by either the applicant or the City at
this time. Commissioner Mann asked where the 100 year flood plain
line was on the westerly lots of the proposed single - family
subdivision. Mr. John Johnson, an engineer with Merila and
Associates representing the applicant, then showed the 100 year
12 -6 -90 3
flood plain line on a transparency. Commissioner Holmes asked
whether these westerly two lots were unbuildable. The Secretary
stated that, while much of the property within those lots is within
the 100 year flood plain, there is a possibility to regrade land
within the flood plain and create buildable areas, provided that
compensating storage area is also provided within the flood plain.
Commissioner Holmes asked whether an industrial use would also be
unbuildable in the area described as Outlot A on the plat. The
Secretary stated that the same principle would apply to an
industrial use, and that compensating storage would have to be
provided within the flood plain area. In response to another
question from Commissioner Holmes, the Secretary showed the
location of the present zoning line and explained that a 100'
buffer would be required of any new industrial use where it would
abut with R1 zoned property at a property line. He stated that the
proposed rezoning and development would move that buffer issue to
the south. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the buffer
requirement would start at the property line or at the spur track.
The Secretary stated that the buffer requirement is measured from
the property line. He explained that all industrial activity,
including parking and outside storage, would have to be at least
100' south of the north property line of the Murphy Warehouse
property and that a screening device would have to be provided.
Commissioner Bernards asked, if the concept were accepted and the
current 51st Avenue North right -of -away were vacated, would there
be any expense to the abutting property owners. The Secretary
stated that he was not aware of any expense to be incurred. He
stated that there was no intent at this time to put a roadway
through the existing 51st Avenue North right -of -way. He explained
that the City does not have fee title to the land and cannot sell
it. Therefore, he doubted that there would be any need to replat
the property. He noted that the land for 51st Avenue North had
come from the plat to the north and that it was, therefore, assumed
that the land would revert to that subdivision. He then showed the
Commission and those present a proposed cross - section of the land
including the proposed residential uses from Oak Street to the
Murphy Warehouse on an overhead transparency.
Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had
anything to add. Mr. John Johnson, the Project Engineer, then
addressed the Commission briefly. He stated that the effort with
the proposal had been to make the best compromise between competing
concerns. There is a concern, he pointed out, for a buffer from
the Murphy Warehouse, also for tree preservation and wetland
preservation, etc. He stated that the proposed design had
addressed these concerns and tried to come out with the best
compromise that would still allow for reasonable development of the
land. He stated that the applicant does intend to have the plat
considered with the PUD and is willing to have the matter tabled to
a date certain. He stated that that willingness has not been put
in writing because the applicant does not know when the PUD
12 -6 -90 4
application will be back before the Planning Commission. He went
on to explain that the applicant wishes to have the homes built and
open for the September, 1991 Parade of Homes. He concluded again
by saying that it would be impossible to do everything that would
be desirable and still develop the property. He stated that it was
necessary to make some compromises and that the proposed design is
their best effort at that to date.
PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos 90028 and 90029)
Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing on
both the rezoning and the preliminary plat applications. She asked
whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the applications.
Ms. Diane Lerbs, of 5107 East Twin Lake Boulevard, addressed the
Commission at some length. She stated that the land that is the
subject of the proposal does not look very large when you drive by
it and she did not feel that it could support the amount of
development proposed by the applicant. She stated that she
presently lived on a dead -end street which is quiet and expressed
concern that linking East Twin Lake Boulevard to France Avenue
North would bring more traffic by her house. She also expressed
concern regarding the ecosystem of the lake. She added that it was
sad that there were only two areas in the City for single - family
development. She stated that she did not want to live in North
Minneapolis and that the proposed development just brings her
property closer to North Minneapolis. She also stated that she
supported the bike trail system which was proposed around Twin
Lake. She stated that she had seen many pheasants and foxes and
other wildlife on the Soo Line property. She added that federal
regulations now require that if a wetland is drained, it must be
replaced. She stated that affecting the wetland will also affect
Twin Lake.
She stated that the proposed development would affect her property
value negatively. She recommended that the developer provide much
larger lots. She also stated that she would be scared for her
children because of the linkup of the streets. She reiterated her
support for the bike trail system in the area. She stated that if
she thought that the development would add to her property value,
she would support it, but that she did not believe it would. She
pointed out that the trains in the area make a lot of noise, but
that she has accepted this inconvenience as the price to pay to
live in an otherwise quiet area. She concluded by stating that she
will ask the City to buy her property if the development is
approved.
Mr. Howard Meyer, of 5036 France Avenue North, then addressed the
Commission. He stated that he had tried to block the Murphy
Warehouse many years ago, but was unsuccessful. He stated that the
Murphy Warehouse was supposed to have a 50' wide buffer and that
the residents along France Avenue were promised a fence, green area
and trees. What the residents have, he stated, is a parking lot
12 -6 -90 5
and truck traffic. He noted that a cyclone fence had recently been
put up to stop the snowmobile traffic through the area. Mr. Meyer
stated that his only objection to the project is with the width of
the lots and the possibility of additional traffic being generated
and possible problems with on- street parking. He also asked that
the applicant provide drawings which would show how the buildings
sit on the other side of France Avenue and where the street will
connect relative to the driveways on the east side of France. He
stated he did not want traffic coming down the new 51st Avenue
North toward his driveway. Mr. Meyer acknowledged that the 29
homes proposed would add to the tax base. He stated that he had
lived in the area since 1962 and was glad that something was being
done with the land, but that he did not want 60 vehicles a day
pulling toward his driveway.
Mrs. Jeanette Meyer, of 5036 France Avenue North, pointed out that
there is a high incidence of cancer along France Avenue. She noted
that the southwest wind blows from the Joslyn property and that the
contamination of the land there may have affected the health of
residents along France. She stated that she felt the soil of the
Soo Line property should be tested and found clean before children
are brought into the area.
Mr. Dan Middlestedt, of 5120 East Twin Lake Boulevard, stated that
he was concerned regarding the houses backing up to the warehouse.
He suggested adding coniferous trees to screen the area. He also
stated that he felt the developer was trying to get too much out of
the land. Mr. Middlestedt recommended that the houses be spaced
out and that a higher quality of house be built. He pointed out
that houses in the neighborhood have not been selling and he
expressed concern that these houses would also have a hard time
selling.
Mr. Duke Dalrymple, of 5142 France Avenue North, stated that the
house size proposed by the applicant spoke for itself. He asked
what price range the houses would be sold at. Mr. Rick Hartmann,
the developer, stated that the price range would be between $84,900
and $115,000. Mr. Dalrymple asked whether the homes would be owned
or rented. Mr. Hartmann stated that they would be owned. Mr.
Dalrymple asked Mr. Hartmann where he has built houses in the past.
Mr. Hartmann then reviewed a number of projects in the Twin Cities
that he had built and stated that he had a great deal of experience
in building homes. Mr. Dalrymple stated that he felt there were
too many homes and that they were too crowded together. He
predicted that there would be a lot of low income people moving
into the homes. He also expressed concern about the water main
going through the Soo Line property. The Planner stated that, as
far as he knew, it had been there for some time. Mr. Dalrymple
stated that a soil test was needed and concluded by stating that he
was opposed to the development.
12 -6 -90 6 0
Mr. Roger Reger, of 5024 France Avenue North, stated that his
biggest objection is with the width of the lots and the number of
lots. He stated that he felt that fewer homes should be built.
Ms. Jill Sherritt, of 5237 Drew Avenue North, stated that there
were too many homes in the proposed development. She stated that
the developer is making money out of too small an area. She stated
that she did not want to lose the bike trail around Twin Lake. She
stated that when she looked at the small lots, she was concerned
regarding resale of the property. She wondered whether the area
would become low income. She asked who would buy the homes and who
would rent them.
Mrs. Danae Morrison, of 5104 E. Twin Lake Boulevard, simply pointed
out that there had been a house on the street for sale for five
years and had not sold. She expressed skepticism that the houses
proposed would sell in this area,
Mrs. Dorothy Thompson, of 3807 Oak Street, stated that she wanted
to see the wildlife and the trees remain. She expressed concern
with the number of homes proposed and the amount of traffic that
would be generated. She also expressed concern that the homes
would be occupied by low income people and that they would become
rental. Mrs. Diane Lerbs stated that she lived on the lake and
didn't pay as much as $100,000 for her house. She doubted that the
builder could charge the prices that were being quoted by the
developer. Mrs. Dorothy Thompson asked what the price of the homes
would be. Mr. Hartmann again stated that it would be from $84,900
and up.
Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant how he had arrived at 29
homes for this development. Mr. John Johnson stated that the
selection of homes being built in this development was based on
what was selling in this part of the Metro area. He stated that
they were generally split entry homes and that the squares on the
drawings show the area within which the home and the garage would
be built. He stated that not as much area as was shown in these
squares would actually be occupied.
Mr. Harlan Lewandowski, of 4000 51st Avenue North, pointed out that
there were foxes that live in the area north of the Murphy
Warehouse. He stated that the community cares about this piece of
land and that, although it does not own it, it does use it. He
asked about the possibility of a cul -de -sac being built instead of
connecting with East Twin Lake Boulevard. The Secretary stated
that he thought the street was longer than allowed for a cul -de-
sac, but that that possibility could be looked at.
Mr. Randy Windsperger, of 3847 Oak Street, expressed concern
regarding the size of the lots. He stated that he appreciated the
trees in the area and noted that many of them are red oaks. He
noted that those trees are susceptible to construction and that the
12 -6 -90 7
oaks would probably die from the construction. He also stated that
the lot size was very tight.
Mr. Thomas Kuusisto, of 4020 51st Avenue North, stated that one of
the concerns of people is that there are fewer lots along Oak
Street than along the proposed 51st Avenue North. He stated that
he wanted to see the City's standard kept and not varied from. Mr.
Kuusisto stated that, with the proximity of the development to the
lake and the wetland, would an Environmental Impact Study be
required? The Planner answered that he was not certain, but that
he did not think there were enough lots in the subdivision to
require an environmental assessment. He did point out that the
development would be reviewed by the Watershed District. Mr. John
Johnson stated that the threshold established by State statute
would require that there be 200 or more homes before an
environmental assessment is required. He stated that the number of
lots proposed is so few that it almost falls into the exempt
category.
An unidentified person asked whether the extra space from the old
51st Avenue North right -of -way would go to the owners of property
along Oak Street. The Secretary stated that he thought so, but
that he would try to have the City Attorney's comments on that
question for the next meeting.
Mr. Jerry Bisek, of 5101 East Twin Lake Boulevard, stated that he
would like a study of the wetland and the impact this development
would have on that wetland. He stated that affecting the wetland
would also have an impact on the ecology of the lake.
Mr. Rick Hartmann, the developer of the proposed project, then
tried to answer some of the concerns of the neighbors. Regarding
the foxes and wildlife in the area, he pointed out that concern for
the wildlife was one of the reasons that a substantial part of the
subdivision was being dedicated to open space. An unidentified
gentleman pointed out that the wetland could not be developed
anyway and nothing was really being given away. Mr. Hartmann went
on to state that he had the soil tested and that he was having it
checked for any contamination. He also pointed out that the 962 to
1,200 sq. ft. floor area range for the new homes is the main level
area. He stated that more area within the home could be finished
off so that it would be as large as the homes in the area. He
concluded by stating that the development would certainly not
deplete the value of other properties in the area. Mrs. Diane
Lerbs stated that she felt that Brooklyn Center has enough rental
property right now and doesn't need more.
Chairperson Malecki stated that there would be a meeting of the
Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group to consider the application.
Mr. Ron Oland, of 3829 Oak Street, stated that he did not believe
it was possible to put 29 homes on the property. Commissioner Mann
stated that she had a real problem with the square footage on the
12 -6 -90 8
homes. She stated that she had recently reviewed the Housing Study
that was done last year and cited a passage which stated there was
a lack of housing variety in Brooklyn Center. She stated that she
would not want to see anything less than 1,500 to 2,000 sq. ft.
houses. The study also stated that the Southwest Neighborhood has
the most amenities in the City, including the lakes and Northport
Park. She stated that she felt the area should be developed with
large homes and that if not, the area should be left open.
Commissioner Sander stated that she was familiar with the area.
She stated that she felt the lots proposed were small. She added
that the builder is a good builder, but that she would like to see
larger lots. She also stated that she had a problem with the
proposed buffer and added that resale of homes in the area would be
tough with small lots.
There followed a discussion of the impact of the proposed
development on the ground water table in the area and the concern
with contamination seeping into the water table. Mr. John Johnson,
representing the applicant, stated that the ground water is at
elevation 847 to 849, just under the elevation of the wetland. Mr.
Johnson stated that there would be a change in the grade of 4' to
5' from France Avenue to the center of the development.
Chairperson Malecki asked if the warehouse would have to provide a
100' buffer if it were burned down. The Secretary answered that
that would only be the case if the lots to the north were zoned R1.
He stated that, if a 40' wide open space buffer were inserted along
the south sides of these lots, then no 100' buffer would be
required. He noted that a public open space walkway would have
alleviated the warehouse of the requirement for the buffer as well.
The Secretary pointed out that the applicant approached the owner
of the warehouse about conveying the buffer land to them, but that
the warehouse was not interested, considering it a maintenance
burden. He stated that through the PUD application, the City could
waive the buffer requirement and could add the open space buffer as
proposed or that it could bring the R1 zone down to the warehouse
property and make the building on that property nonconforming,
similar to the Howe Fertilizer property. The Secretary reminded
the Commission that the first question to deal with is one of land
use and whether single - family and open space is acceptable in this
area, or whether the industrial zoning should remain.
Chairperson Malecki stated that people in the area aren't concerned
about residential use, but that this use may be a problem. She
stated that she was not really comfortable with the 40' buffer,
adding that she felt the open space designation was a matter of
playing with numbers. The same land was involved either way. She
asked about a bike trail through this area. The Secretary reviewed
the proposal for bike trails in the area and stated that he did not
feel the applicant's proposal is in conflict with those plans.
12 -6 -90
9
The Planner brought up the fact that a PUD is supposed to be
contained in a redevelopment area as designated in the City's
Comprehensive Plan. He stated that it would be necessary to bring
a Comprehensive Plan amendment back for the Planning Commission to
consider at its next consideration of this matter. He asked the
Commission to give some direction as to the area that should be
designated as a redevelopment area. Commissioner Ainas suggested
that the whole I -2 area be considered a redevelopment area.
Commissioner Bernards agreed.
The Planner also noted that engineering staff are not satisfied
with the drainage proposal in France Avenue North. He stated that
instead of drainage running over land two blocks north to 52nd
staff have considered the possibility of sending it southward by a
storm sewer to 50th Avenue North.
ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NOS. 90028 AND 90029 (Twin View
Development, Inc.)
Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Johnson to
table Application Nos. 90028 and 90029 and refer the matter to the
Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. He
noted that the motion was also to acknowledge the consent of the
applicant to table the plat application until action on the Planned
Unit Development. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki,
Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Mann and Holmes.
Voting against: none. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
a) 1991 Meeting Schedule
The Secretary then reviewed with the Commission a draft meeting
schedule for 1991. He pointed that there would be two meetings a
month except for December of next year and that a second meeting
could always be added if needed for that month. He also pointed
out that meetings might be canceled if there was no business to
deal with.
Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to
adopt the meeting schedule as drafted by staff. Voting in favor:
Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas,
Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion
passed.
b) Reappointments
The Secretary informed Commissioners Bernards, Ainas and Mann that
they were up for reappointment and asked whether they wished to be
reappointed. Commissioner Bernards stated that he was thinking the
matter over. Commissioner Mann stated that she definitely wanted
to be reappointed.
c) Housing Study of Southeast Neighborhood
12 -6 -90 10
Commissioner Bernards informed the Commission that the Southeast
Neighborhood Advisory Group had met with the Housing Commission on
September 25 and at a later meeting and that they identified
housing concerns in the Southeast Neighborhood. He stated that a
plan was developed and forwarded to the Housing Commission and that
they will forward the plan to the City Council. He stated that
there were homes in the neighborhood that needed maintenance, some
to be removed and others with code violations. He stated that the
group recommended using the rental licensing ordinance to keep
properties up in the neighborhood. He stated that the objective of
the plan was to develop a sense of community pride and upkeep of
property.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning
Commission. The motion was unanimously seconded and approved. The
Planning Commission adjourned at 10:56 p.m.
Chairperson
12 -6 -90
11
Member Lowell Ainas introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90 -3
RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF
APPLICATION NO. 90026 SUBMITTED BY EDINA REALTY
WHEREAS, Application No. 90026 submitted by Edina Realty
proposes rezoning from R5 (Multiple Family) to Cl (Service /Office)
the land at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called
public hearing on October 18, 1990 when a staff report and
testimony regarding the rezoning request were taken; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission expanded the area under
consideration to include the vacant parcel to the east of the Edina
Realty site and tabled the matter, referring it to the Northwest
Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment; and
WHEREAS, the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group met to
consider the matter on November 15, 1990 at Willow Lane School and
recommended approval of the rezoning proposal, including the vacant
parcel east of the Edina Realty site, and with the understanding
that all required parking would be provided and properly screened;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission resumed consideration of
the matter on December 6, 1990, received a staff report and further
testimony during a continued public hearing in which it was evident
that the parking issue was not yet resolved; and
WHEREAS, the Commission considered the rezoning request
in light of all testimony received, the Guidelines for Evaluating
Rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning
Ordinance, and in light of the recommendations of the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Brooklyn Center
Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that
Application No. 90026, submitted by Edina Realty, be conditionally
approved in consideration of the following:
1. The Comprehensive Plan recommends service /office
land use on the land in question as noted on the
Land Use Revisions Map (Table 14 and Figure 15 of
the Plan).
2. The proposed Cl zoning of the Edina Realty property
at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard and the vacant parcel to
the east is consistent and compatible with
surrounding land use classifications.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90 -3
3. All permitted uses in the C1 zone may be
contemplated for development or redevelopment of
the subject property.
4. The subject property will bear fully the ordinance
development restrictions for the C1 zoning
district.
5. The property in question is unsuited for multiple
family development which is presently allowed by
the R5 zoning.
6. In light of the above, it is believed that the
proposal is consistent with the Guidelines for
Evaluating Rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of
the Zoning Ordinance and is, therefore, in the best
interests of the community.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning
Advisory Commission that it is recommended that the rezoning to Cl
of the land in question be subject to the applicant complying with
all requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
Date Chairperson
ATTEST:
Secretary
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member Ella Sander and upon vote being taken thereon,
the following voted in favor thereof: Molly Malecki, Wallace
Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann, Ella Sander, Mark Holmes and
Bertil Johnson; and the following voted against the same: none,
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
a
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 90026
Applicant: Edina Realty c/o Blumentals Architecture, Inc.
Location: 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard
Request: Rezoning
This application is a request to rezone from R5 to C1 the parcel of
land at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Commission considered the
application at its October 18, 1990 meeting and extended the
rezoning consideration to include the vacant parcel to the east.
The purpose of the rezoning is to allow a bank use to occupy a
small portion of the Edina Realty office building situated on the
parcel. Financial institutions are a permitted use in the C1
district, but are not one of the service /office uses allowed by
special use permit in the R5 zoning district.
Staff have recommended and the Commission concurred that the vacant
parcel immediately east of the Edina Realty site be rezoned
concurrently to Cl. It is felt that leaving a residential zoning
on this property is inappropriate inasmuchas it could allow a
multi - family development which would gain access through a
commercial parcel.
The Commission opened the public hearing on Application No. 90026
at its October 18 meeting and tabled the matter, referring it to
the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment.
The advisory group in the persons of Louis Terzich and Barbara
Sorenson met to consider the proposal on Thursday November 15, 1990
at Willow Lane School. Planning Commissioner Mark Holmes and the
applicant's representative Mr. Janis Blumentals were also present
as were two residents from the neighborhood north of the property
in question. The Director of Planning and Inspection and the
Planner were also present. A copy of the minutes of that meeting
are attached for the Commission's review.
The neighborhood advisory group endorsed the concept of the
rezoning, but expressed concern that the required additional
parking be provided and that parking areas be properly screened
and, where appropriate, fenced. The Commission may recall that 9
additional parking stalls are required by the bank use. Mr.
Blumentals showed those present a site plan showing additional
parking to be provided on a vacant area presently part of the
property containing the off -site parking lot for the Brooklyn
United Methodist Church. The new parking area would be separated
from the main parking lot to prevent cut - through traffic. However,
we have since been informed by Mr. Blumentals that Edina Realty and
the church have been unable to come to terms on the sale of this
land. They are instead pursuing an off -site accessory parking
arrangement where the office building would legally encumber 20
stalls on the church's off -site lot. There would be no connection
between the two properties except a pedestrian walkway that
12 -6 -90 1
Application No. 90026 continued
presently exists. Again, no link is advised that would allow for
cut - through traffic. The church's recent expansion approval
required that a substantial gate be placed across the Brooklyn
Boulevard access to the off -site lot. The gate must be closed
except on Sunday. The people who would use this lot during the
week would most likely be office building employees who would enter
the lot off Noble Avenue North.
The above scenario is, at present, only speculation since no
agreement has yet been concluded with the church. We are reluctant
to recommend favorable action on the rezoning while the parking
issue remains unsolved. The neighborhood group felt that parking
was a present concern and were led to believe the problems would be
solved. At the same time, we do not recommend denial of the
rezoning since it generally seems to meet the guidelines for
evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35 -208. We would
recommend exploring the parking issue with the applicant.
Favorable action could be taken with the understanding that the
rezoning would not take effect until additional parking was
provided in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
A draft resolution of approval is attached for the Commission's
consideration.
Submitted by,
Gary Shallcross
Planner
Approved by,
e0000 0 ( a.
Ronald A. Warren
Director of Planning and Inspection
12 -6 -90 2
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 90028
Applicant: Twin View Development, Inc.
Location: 51st and France Avenues North
Request: Rezoning /Site and Building Plan - PUD /R1 and Open Space
The applicant seeks approval of rezoning and site and building
plans for a PUD /R1 and open space single- family development on the
Soo Line property on the west side of France Avenue North, just
north of the Murphy Warehouse. The property is presently I -2
(General Industry) and is bounded by 51st Avenue North and
unimproved 51st Avenue North right -of -way on the north (and by
homes abutting Oak Street further north) , by France Avenue North on
the east, by the Murphy Warehouse and the Soo Line tracks on the
south and southwest, and by vacant R1 property on the extreme west.
The applicant proposes to create 29 single - family lots abutting a
new 51st Avenue North which would establish a link between the
southern end of East Twin Boulevard and France Avenue North. The
lots would be somewhat narrower and in some cases smaller in area
than required in the R1 zone. However, the applicant also proposes
to dedicate a substantial area on the west end of the property for
public open space and, therefore, the overall average density is
actually less than the total land area could support in the R1
zone. It should be noted that the land area to be dedicated for
public open space is located within the 100 year flood plain and
is, therefore, unbuildable for the most part. The details of the
subdivision plan will be reviewed in the second half of this
report. The first part of the report will deal with the basic land
use issues presented by the proposal and will be analyzed in light
of the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained
in Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached) and in light
of the objectives of the Planned Unit Development section of the
Zoning Ordinance (Section 35 -355, also attached).
Rezoning Proposal
The applicant's representative (Merila and Associates in the person
of John Johnson) has submitted a written review of some of the
background on the property, a brief description of the proposal,
and arguments addressing the guidelines for evaluating rezonings.
The background description includes the following points:
" 1. The existing Soo Line Railroad and spur track effectively
severs the property from land to the south.
2. The existing industrial zoning brings special buffer
requirements which severely limit development of the
land.
12 -6 -90 1
3. The western portion of the site contains 6.3 acres of
flood plain area below elevation 856.0. (the 100 year
flood elevation)
4. The 6.3 acre flood plain is located within a 5 to 7 acre
wetland regulated by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
5. 51st Avenue between East Twin Lake Boulevard and France
Avenue exists as a 30 foot wide right -of -way and has
never been improved.
6. It is questionable whether 51st Avenue could be opened
due to a large depression located approximately 100 to
200 feet west of France Avenue. The bottom is at
elevation 850.5' (Twin Lake OHW = 853.5 and is 9.5 to
10 feet lower than France Avenue.
7. Development of 51st Avenue would create 10 double
frontage lots which currently front on Oak Street.
8. Development of 51st street would destroy over 75 percent
of the existing trees and vegetation located along the
northern edge of the site."
These points are all valid and staff have no serious argument with
any of them. It should be pointed out that the existing I -2 zoning
of the property is probably more by default than by design or plan.
The property has been zoned industrial for many "years pre- dating
the City's original Comprehensive Plan. That plan, adopted in 1966
noted on page 51 that the Soo Line property has been zoned
industrial since 1957. However, it cautions that: "industrial use
of the tract will have a detrimental effect on adjacent residences"
and cites appearance, noise, odor and truck traffic as potential
problems. Although the 1966 Plan recommends industrial use of the
property, it recommends uses compatible with the adjacent
residential areas and recommends a buffer of 100
In the early 1970 a proposal for multi - family development in
this area was studied and rejected by the City Council. The
current Comprehensive Plan refers to this property along with other
industrially -zoned land in the area on page 74 as a major planning
issue facing the City ( #13). The Plan points to this parcel and
states: "Various locations of undeveloped land throughout the City
should be analyzed in light of changing conditions to determine
whether their current zoning classification is the most desirable
one available in the City's interests."
In approximately 1983, the City Council considered and rejected a
staff proposal to use Community Development Block Grant funds to
study the area including this property. In the past five years,
staff have met with a couple prospective developers of the property
12 -6 -90 2 0
who were interested in townhouse and /or elderly high -rise
development on the property. Some potential industrial users have
also inquired about the property. However, no one has been able to
conclude a purchase agreement with the present owner of the
property and, thus, no formal proposal has been submitted until
now.
The applicant addresses the guidelines for evaluating rezonings in
the latter portion of his letter. A recitation of the applicant's
arguments addressing the guidelines and staff response follows:
a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit?
Applicant: "The land currently is undeveloped . Time has shown
that development as an industrial site will not occur due to the
numerous topographic and zoning code buffer constraints.
Therefore, it is concluded that the rezoning will allow development
of the site to the benefit of the neighbors. (They will not have
to worry about street and vegetation removal in their backyards and
uncertain industrial uses) and the City will benefit by
preservation of open space and the growth in tax base."
Staff: The applicant argues that the proposal provides benefits by
eliminating some potential negatives. We agree that there is some
benefit in these respects and there is also a general benefit of
providing new single- family housing in the community. However, it
should be realized that the addition of this single- family
subdivision will result in the Murphy Warehouse property abutting
single - family homes. Thus, one of the unspoken costs of this
development will be to shift the challenge of buffering an
industrial use from single- family development further south. There
is not sufficient land to provide the 100' buffer required where I-
1 or I -2 development abuts R1, R2, or R3 zoned property at a
property line. As will be discussed in further detail later, the
applicant proposes to provide a reduced buffer strip zoned 0 -2
which would alleviate the Murphy Warehouse property of the
requirement to provide the normal 100' landscaped buffer. The
Commission must weigh whether this is an acceptable solution,
whether the proposal meets basic zoning objectives while at the
same time allowing for a practical and appropriate utilization of
the vacant Soo Line property.
b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with
surrounding land use classifications?
Applicant: "The proposed lots will be very similar in size to the
existing lots to the north and east. The average lot will be
10,500 square feet with the smallest lot being 8,050 square feet
and the largest lot being 26,350 square feet. The PUD zone
classification will allow a subdivision design which will allow
preservation of significant amounts of vegetation and development
12 -6 -90 3
of desired buffer and screening adjacent to the industrial use.
(See the grading plan for buffer detail.)"
Staff: The proposed single - family development is consistent with
the existing single - family development to the north and east. It
is also certainly compatible with the open space use proposed for
the land to the west. The applicant notes that the "PUD zone
classification will allow . . . the desired buffer and screening
adjacent to the industrial use." It will not and cannot provide
for the 100' landscaped buffer normally required by the Zoning
Ordinance. Section 35 -355 of the Zoning Ordinance (governing PUD
districts) states in subdivision 2:
"b. Regulations governing uses and structures in PUD's shall
be the same as those governing the underlying zoning
district subject to the following:
1. Regulations may be modified expressly by conditions
imposed by the Council at the time of rezoning to
PUD.
2. Regulations are modified by implication only to the
extent necessary to comply with the development
plan of the PUD.
. . .'
In subdivision 3c of Section 35 -355, the ordinance states:
"c. Setbacks, buffers and greenstrips within a PUD shall be
consistent with Section 35 -400 to 35 -414 and Section 35-
700 of this ordinance unless the developer can
demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser
standard should be permitted with the addition of a
screening treatment or other mitigative measures."
It should be pointed out that Section 35 -413 of the Zoning
Ordinance already requires a screening treatment of an 8' high
opaque fence of wall. In this case, the developer proposes a
combination of berm and fence equaling 8 As we read the PUD
ordinance, one of the Commission's responsibilities in evaluating
the PUD proposal and its compatibility with surrounding land uses
is to comment on the adequacy of the proposed buffer and screening
treatment. At the writing of this report, it is staff's impression
that the buffer has been minimized to achieve other goals,
including preserving trees on the north side of the development and
winding the road in a manner that minimizes disturbance of existing
grades. These are also worthwhile goals. The Commission should
express its collective judgment as to how these goals relate to the
need for a buffer and screening treatment adjacent to the
industrial property to the south.
12 -6 -90 4
c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be
contemplated for development of the subject property?
Applicant: "The PUD /R1 zone is requested to insure that only
single - family houses are built but allow flexibility in subdivision
design."
Staff: Obviously, the single - family homes will be possible in the
R1 section of the PUD. In the open space sections, only limited
use will be possible. The private open space north of the Murphy
Warehouse will not be adequate to support an open space use such as
a golf course. Its chief function will be to serve as a buffer
between residentially zoned land and industrial use.
d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification
changes in the area since the subject property was zoned?
Applicant: "Not to our knowledge."
Staff: Since the industrial zoning of this property is not at all
recent, some of the single - family development to the north and east
may have occurred since the original industrial zoning, though the
residential development is also fairly mature. More recently, the
Joslyn pole yards across the Soo Line tracks to the south has
discontinued operation and a program has begun to remedy soil and
ground water contamination. The City has given some consideration
to using the Joslyn property for park and open space uses. The
open space to be dedicated as part of the proposed development
would fit in well with these plans.
e) In the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals, is there a
broad public purpose evident?
Applicant: "Not applicable."
Staff: This guideline is not applicable, but we would point out at
this juncture that we have, for some time, considered a low- density
residential use of this property to be more appropriate. We do not
believe an industrial use, which would likely bring truck traffic
up France Avenue North and would be hampered by buffers and the
possible construction of 51st Avenue North in its present location,
would be appropriate in this location. The present proposal,
combining moderate -sized single - family lots and the dedication of
considerable open space is, overall, as good a prospect as we have
seen for this property.
f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development
restrictions for the proposed zoning districts?
Applicant: "Yes."
12 -6 -90 5
8
Staff: Only if the proposed PUD or some variant is accepted by the
City. The PUD proposal involves narrower and smaller than normal
lots and a reduced buffer between R1 and I -2 uses. It should be
noted that, under Section 35 -413 of the Zoning Ordinance, the
burden of providing the 100' buffer falls on the industrial use.
In this case, Murphy Warehouse has always abutted vacant I -2 zoned
land and no buffer was required. The buffer only becomes a
requirement after the change of zones. The applicant proposes to
get around the buffer requirement by inserting an open space
district between the residential and industrial zones which could
not be used for either industrial or residential purposes. Staff
have considered the possibility of creating a public walkway in
this area and have rejected the idea in favor of placing a walkway
within the public street right -of -way. This is probably a more
appropriate location for pedestrian traffic than in an area between
residents' back yards and an industrial site with a spur track
immediately adjacent to the walkway. We have concluded that the
open space buffer, if it is accepted, should be privately owned and
maintained. The issues are over size, screening, and to whom the
buffer should most appropriately belong. (We will be prepared to
discuss this further at Thursday's meeting.)
g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted
in the present zoning district, with respect to size,
configuration, topography or location?
Applicant: "Since the site has not developed as an industrial use,
one can only conclude that the market has deemed it unsuited for
that use. Analysis of the site further concludes that the flood
plain, wetland, street right -of -way and industrial setback
requirements would leave only 5 1/2 acres or about 30 percent of
the site for industrial development."
Staff: The property's size is probably large enough for industrial
use, though, as the applicant points out, land utilization would be
low. The topography of the land and the location of this parcel
make it less than desirable, from a community standpoint, for this
parcel to be developed industrially. We would again recall the
concerns raised in the 1966 Plan regarding noise, odor, visual
appearance, and truck traffic as undesirable and potential impacts
on the surrounding residential area.
h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning
district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the
lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or
3) the best interests of the community?
Applicant: "Brooklyn Center currently lacks any land for
development of single - family homes. This parcel lends itself, due
to its location, to residential development. Residential
development is less intense and more sensitive to the existing site
12 -6 -90 6
p
environment. The proposal does meet the best interests of the City
for the reasons stated above."
Staff: This is not the only possible area for single - family
development in the City. (There is also an area bounded by 68th
Avenue North on the south, by Aldrich Court on the west, by 69th
Avenue North on the north, and by Highway 252 on the east which
could accommodate 20 -25 lots if appropriately subdivided.) It may
be that the Comprehensive Plan has not called for the Soo Line
property to be zoned for single - family residential, but it has
certainly raised questions about the appropriateness of the
industrial zoning of the property. Commercial use is not
appropriate in this location either. Residential development is
the most appropriate use for the property even if it is in some
conflict with the warehouse use to the south. We regard the
residential neighborhood to the north and east to be more permanent
than the industrial uses in this area, most of which have outlived
their usefulness and are in need of redevelopment. Multiple- family
has been proposed for this area in the past and been rejected. We
would not recommend multiple - family development now. A townhouse
development might serve as something of a transitional use and
could perhaps allow for a greater buffer treatment. However, a
100' wide buffer would still be required and the City has
witnessed a great deal of townhouse development over the past 15
years and very little single- family development. It, therefore,
seems appropriate to consider single- family development along with
a considerable dedication of open space as perhaps the best option
for this parcel.
There is a lack of vacant land in almost all zoning districts in
the City. It, therefore, seems to be no relative harm to move this
parcel from the inventory of (undesirable) industrial sites to the
meager inventory of land available for single - family development.
As to the best interests of the community, the Commission should
consider not only the benefit of new single - family homes, but also
the addition of public open space and the impact this proposed use
will have on the long -term prospects for the Murphy Warehouse. For
many years, the parcel in question has served unintentionally as a
buffer between the warehouses and the single - family neighborhood to
the north. That buffer will now be greatly compressed and a
certain amount of "momentum" will have been established to
ultimately bring about uses compatible with the residential
neighborhood. If the PUD /R1 -Open Space proposal is approved, the
owner of the Murphy property must realize that any redevelopment of
that property will be evaluated in light of its compatibility with
these uses, not as an isolated industrial site. In other words,
approval of this proposal will have implications for neighboring
properties which probably cannot be confined to this parcel alone.
i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an
owner or owners of an individual parcel?
12 -6 -90 7
Applicant: "Several elements of the proposal will directly benefit
the interests of others.
1. Preservation of significant tree areas along the north
edge will benefit existing homeowners to the north.
2. The existing homeowners will not need to worry about an
unknown industrial use developing in their back yard.
3. The PUD zoning will allow development of a transition
buffer and screening device adjacent to the existing
industrial land use and remove the burden of the buffer
zone from the industrial landowner.
4. Use of a private open space zone will further benefit the
adjacent industrial owner.
5. Preservation of the flood plain and wetland as open space
will further benefit all residents in the area and the
City."
Staff: We agree with points 1, 2 and 5. Points 3 and 4 regarding
the benefits of the private open space zone to the industrial
landowner beg the question of whether this "solution" is equitable
to the future single - family homeowners who will have to devote and
maintain a substantial portion of their property as an open space
zone and which will excuse the industrial neighbor from any
buffering responsibilities. The applicant proposes to zone the
south 40' of the residential lots along the south side of the new
51st Avenue North to open space. Since no buffer is required from
open space, the industrial use could remain as a conforming use in
its present location. The burden of providing and maintaining the
open space buffer falls on the developers and future occupants of
the Soo Line property. Approval of the PUD would be an acceptance
of a 40' buffer residentially- owned, rather than a 100' buffer
industrially owned. The industrial use would continue to be
conforming. An alternative might be to bring the residential
zoning down to the industrial property and leave it as a
nonconforming use. In such a case, if the building were destroyed
by more than 50 %, it could only be rebuilt on the south side of the
site with the installation of a 100' wide landscaped buffer. This
would reduce the economic potential of the site. The landowner
would likely either make a legal claim of taking of property
without compensation or would seek a variance from the buffer
requirement. Of course, if the building were destroyed, the owner
would also certainly assess whether the best use of the property
was still industrial and the City would have to consider whether
industrial was still the best land use from a public perspective.
It could be that an alternate use, more compatible with the
residential neighborhood would be pursued. That, however, is a
decision for another time.
12 -6 -90 8
One of the main land use issues that must be addressed with this
application is whether a private, residentially owned open space
buffer is an acceptable arrangement where single - family land use
abuts industrial land use. The PUD ordinance gives the City the
flexibility to accept such an arrangement without granting a
variance. The question the Commission should ask itself is whether
this is a real solution or whether it may be avoiding the issue of
a longer -term land use conflict. We support the proposed single -
family development and the dedication of lowland for public open
space. However, we are not sure the private open space buffer is
the wisest long -term solution to the buffering issue.
SITE AND BUILDING PLANS
Although Section 35 -230 of the Zoning Ordinance does not require
site and building plan approval for developments in the R1 and R2
2oning districts, Section 35 -355 (the PUD Ordinance) does require
site and building plan approval. A set of plans has, therefore,
been submitted and a review of these plans follows:
Location /Use
The applicant proposes a subdivision of 29 single - family homes to
have access off 51st Avenue North running between France Avenue
North on the east and East Twin Lake Boulevard on the west. Also
a part of this subdivision would be dedication of approximately 8
acres of land on the west side of the Soo Line property for public
open space. The applicants also propose a private open space strip
approximately 40' in width along the south sides of the residential
lots. There is to be a berm and fence within this private open
space area. The northerly portion will, for all practical
purposes, be back yard area for the residential lots. The
southerly portion (south of the fence) will abut the Murphy
Warehouse property and is proposed to be landscaped with prairie
grass.
Access /Parking
All lots within the single- family subdivision will gain access off
the new 51st Avenue North. We should clarify that the new 51st
Avenue North is not to be in the location of the present,
unimproved 51st Avenue North right -of -way which runs along the
south side of lots which gain access primarily off Oak Street to
the north. If this development proposal is approved, and the new
location for 51st Avenue North is dedicated for right -of -way, the
City will vacate the old 51st Avenue North right -of -way and leave
it as a utility easement. The building plans for the homes in this
subdivision call for two -car attached garages and double driveways.
One important aspect of the PUD proposal is that there will be
varying setbacks on either side of the street. On the north side
of 51st, where no sidewalk or trail is proposed and tree
preservation is a key concern, the minimum front yard setback would
be 25 Along with a 10' boulevard, this should allow for two cars
to be parked in tandem in the driveway. On the south side of 51st,
12 -6 -90 9
A
where a trail is a definite possibility, the minimum setback will
be the standard 35 This will allow two cars to be parked in
tandem without blocking the trail.
Landscaping
The landscape plan calls for at least one shade tree per lot,
utilizing American Linden and Green Ash to a great extent.
Additional shade trees have been added at the corners of street
intersections (the sight triangle applies to vegetation between 2
1/2' and 10' above the centerline grade of the street). Along the
south side of the development, a berm and fence with a combined
height of 8' is proposed within the private open space area that is
intended to buffer the industrial use to the south from the
residences. Along the north side of the fence, the plan proposes
small clusters of Amur Maple and Welch Juniper trees. More
vegetative screening in this area would be desirable. The plan
also calls for preserving as many existing trees as possible,
especially along the north side of the development, adjacent to the
old 51st Avenue North right -of -way. There is also a significant
stand of trees in the open space area west of the Murphy Warehouse
and south of the spur track which are to be retained. Two other
smaller areas are shown as areas for tree preservation.
The landscape point system does not apply to single- family
development and it is difficult to assess the total point value of
all plantings including existing plantings. We recommend that
additional plantings be provided in a package to prospective
homeowners. We also recommend that the development agreement
between the developer and the City require sod in all yards
abutting a public street. Finally, we would recommend some
additional shade trees along the south side of the development to
provide more effective screening of the warehouses to the south.
Grading, Drainage and Utilities
The subdivision plan calls for a curving street that bends north,
then south as it travels west of France Avenue North, finally
curving north to intersect with East Twin Lake Boulevard. The high
point of the street and of the subdivision generally is at the
point where the street reaches its northernmost point, where the
lots are shallowest on the north and deepest on the south. East of
this point, runoff will flow toward France Avenue North and
eventually enter the storm sewer there. West of the high point
runoff will drain to two catch basins on either side of the street
where 51st meets East Twin Lake Boulevard. From there it will
drain by storm sewer to an outflow approximately 150' west of the
street. The runoff will ultimately drain into the open space
(flood plain and wetland) area to the west of the development.
The sanitary sewer is proposed as an 8 diameter PVC pipe at a .4%
grade. The sanitary sewer flow also breaks east and west, but at
a point in the street further west than the storm drainage break.
12 -6 -90 10
West of the break, the sanitary sewer will connect ultimately to an
existing manhole in East Twin Lake Boulevard. The easterly section
will connect to a new manhole in France Avenue. A 6 diameter
water main will be placed between a 10 main in France Avenue and
an 8 existing main which extends southward from East Twin Lake
Boulevard past the west end of the Murphy Warehouse property and
under the Soo Line tracks and through the Joslyn property to the
south.
The grading plan calls for installation of a 2' to 6' berm along
the south side of the development in the proposed private open
space zone. It would crest in the center of the development. Some
grading modifications are also proposed for the three easterly lots
on the north side of the street. A depressed area in the backs of
these lots will be somewhat abbreviated to allow for the building
pads. The project engineer has computed the proposed drainage
capacity of this depression and has told us it will actually exceed
the present storage capacity. Therefore, there should be no
adverse effect on nearby garages belong to properties to the north.
Those drainage calculations will be submitted to the City Engineer
for review. Finally, some grading modifications are also proposed
for the four lots on the west end of the development to place
building foundations at least one foot above the 100 year flood
elevation of 856 It will be necessary, if these lots are
actually developed, to provide compensating storage volume in the
flood plain. Some of that compensating flood storage area would
probably be provided in the public open space area. It should be
noted at this point that staff recommend treat the Planning
Commission and City Council consider public acquisition of perhaps
two or three of these lots to best preserve the natural landscape
in the public open space area. It should also be noted that the
grading plan for this development will have to be reviewed and
approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior
to the issuance of any permits.
The applicant intends to use surmountable curb with 18 of gutter.
The Director of Public Works has accepted this to allow flexibility
of driveway locations. Curbing along France Avenue may be deferred
in lieu of a deposit of a cash escrow to cover the eventual
improvement when curb and gutter are installed north of 50th.
Buildings
At this point, the developer has submitted at least 11 sets of
house plans. All of the plans are for split entry homes with
attached double garages. The house plans vary in dwelling ground
coverage from approximately 962 sq. ft. to 1,200 sq. ft. Some
homes have an optional fourth level. Some of the homes will have
full basements and some close to lowland will be walkouts. The
lowest floor elevation of any dwelling will be 857.0' or higher in
accordance with the City's flood plain ordinance. All of the plans
have 6 wide lap board siding on the front elevation. Casement
12 -6 -90 11
windows are generally used. Most of the designs have bay windows
on either the front or rear elevations. Most plans also call for
face brick on the bottom 4' to 5' of the front elevation.
Procedure
The PUD /R1 and Open Space proposal is a rezoning with a specific
development plan. As such, it must go through the normal process
of a rezoning. This means that the rezoning proposal and the site
and building plans must be referred to the appropriate neighborhood
advisory group for review and comment. In this case, it will be
the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group. Staff will schedule a
meeting of that group probably for sometime after the holidays.
Property owners within 350' of the site will be notified of the
meeting and invited to attend. Comments may be made not only on
the proposed land use, but also on the proposed site and building
plans. We would expect to bring the matter back to the Planning
Commission for reconsideration and action in late January or early
February. The Commission is encouraged to make comments on the
proposal now so that if necessary, revised plans can be prepared
during this process. We recommend that the Commission open the
public hearing at this meeting and table the matter, referring it
to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and
comment.
We should also point out that the present Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Revisions Map is silent on this property and that the PUD
ordinance requires that PUD's be located in areas designated for
redevelopment in the City's Comprehensive Plan. It will, 0
therefore, be necessary to consider a Comprehensive Plan amendment
designating an area including this property for redevelopment and
an amendment to the Land Use Revisions Map designating a
recommended land use for this property. The Commission may wish to
give direction on the scope and content of such a Comprehensive
Plan amendment at Thursday's meeting.
Submitted by,
Gary Shallcross
Planner
A roved by,
L.•t . Ij 96
Ronald A. Warren
Director of Planning and Inspection
12 -6 -90 12
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 90029
Applicant: Twin View Development, Inc.
Location: France Avenue North and 51st Avenue North
Request: Preliminary Plat
The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to subdivide the
Soo Line property at France and 51st Avenues North into 29 single -
family lots and two outlots to be dedicated for public open space.
The land in question is the subject of the Planned Unit
Developmentrezoning Application No. 90028 and is bounded on the
north by 51st Avenue North (both improved private street and
unimproved right -of -way), on the east by France Avenue North, on
the south by the Murphy Warehouse property and the Soo Line tracks,
and on the extreme west by the channel between Upper and Middle
Twin Lakes. The rezoning application is for PUD /R1 and Open Space
designations. Therefore, the applicant is seeking a modification
of some of the normal subdivision and zoning standards. The name
of the plat is to be Twin View Meadows.
The total area of the plat is approximately 17.5 acres. Seven (7)
acres would be dedicated for public open space in two outlets.
Outlot A, north of the spur track leading to the Murphy Warehouse
property, would be approximately 5.2 acres. Outlot B, south of the
spur track and west of the Murphy property, would be approximately
1.8 acres. The 29 single- family lots would be divided into two
blocks north and south of a newly proposed 51st Avenue North which
would run between France Avenue North and the south end of East
Twin Lake Boulevard. Thirteen (13) lots are proposed north of
51st, varying in size from 8,050 sq. ft. for Lot 6 to 12,325 sq.
ft. for Lot 13. Lot widths in Block 1 (the north side of 51st) are
generally 70 with an 85' width for Lot 1 at the corner of France
and 51st and 95' for Lot 13 next to East Twin Lake Boulevard. Lot
depths vary from 115' where the road curves north to 145' on each
end of the block.
The lots in Block 2 on the south side of 51st tend to be narrower
and deeper and larger. Average width is 68' width with lots on the
ends (Lot 1 is 85' wide at the corner and Lot 16 is 100' wide at
the street line on the west end of the street). Lot depth varies
from 140' on the west end to 185' where the road curves north. Lot
size ranges from 10,540 sq. ft. for Lots 12 and 13 to 16,800 sq.
ft. for Lot 16. The PUD rezoning proposal would make the south 40'
of Lots 1 through 14 of Block 2 a private open space (0 -2)
district. The land would still be included in these lots, but the
zoning of the lots would be split. No buildings could be built in
this area. It would have to be maintained as an open space
district, buffering the residential district from the I -2 zoned
warehouse property to the south.
12 -6 -90 1
The proposed street right -of -way for this subdivision, a new 51st
Avenue North, would be 60' in width as is standard for residential
streets in the City. However, the 30' wide street would not be
centered in the right -of -way, but would be offset 5' to the north
so that the boulevard on the north side of the street would be only
10' whereas, on the south side of the street, it would be 20
This is to allow for the possible construction of a 10' wide
pedestrian and bike trail within the right -of -way on the south side
of the street. As noted in the information sheet for Application
No. 90028, there would be different setbacks applied to the north
and south sides of the street to allow each side to accommodate
tandem parking of two cars without blocking the sidewalk. It
should be noted that there is presently, to the north of this
proposed subdivision, a 30' wide unimproved right -of -way for 51st
Avenue North. This half- street right -of -way was dedicated with the
subdivision of the lots to the north which abut Oak Street. If
this right -of -way were improved, the residents along the south side
of Oak Street would have street frontage both to the front and to
the rear. We are not sure why this right -of -way was dedicated, but
staff recommend that, if this development is approved and goes
forth, that the old 51st Avenue North right between France and East
Twin Lake Boulevard be vacated, leaving in place only a utility
easement. We believe at this time that the land contained in the
old 51st Avenue North right -of -way would revert to the original
subdivision and, thus, to the landowners to the north. (This will
have to be verified by the City Attorney.) It is, therefore, not
available to the proposed development.
There is an existing 33' wide sanitary sewer easement along the
southwest side of the outlots, adjacent to the Soo Line tracks.
There is also a 30' wide street and utility easement roughly along
the north side of Outlot A, except for an approximate 430' length
west of East Twin Lake Boulevard and a 100' long area that is
excluded from the property (see plans) . There is also an 8 water
line which runs from the south end of East Twin Lake Boulevard
southward through the property just west of the Murphy Warehouse
property. The City holds a 15' wide easement over this line, but
the preliminary plat does not show it. It should be revised to
show this easement. That revision should be completed by
Thursday's meeting.
Procedure
Normally, preliminary plats must be acted on within 30 days.
However, inasmuchas this plat is tied so closely with the rezoning
and development plans which will not be before the Commission again
until at least late January, we have asked the applicant to consent
to an extension of consideration until action is taken on the PUD
proposal. If we have not received this consent in writing by
Thursday's meeting, we would recommend that the Commission ask the
applicant for the record whether he consents to the extension. If
he does not, there is little choice but to recommend denial of the
12 -6 -90 2
preliminary plat and forward it on to the City Council for final
action to live within the ordinance - prescribed time limit.
Submitted by,
Gary Sha�llcross
Planner
A proved by,
Ronald A. Warren
Director of Planning and Inspection
12 -6 -90 3
g
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
DECEMBER 6, 1990
REGULAR SESSION
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in regular session and called to order
by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:34 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace
Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also present
were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner
Gary Shallcross.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 18 1990
Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to
approve the minutes of the October 18, 1990 Planning Commission
meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Commissioners Sander,
Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. Not voting:
Chairperson Malecki and Commissioner Bernards. The motion passed.
Commissioner Bertil Johnson arrived at 7:35 p.m.
APPLICATION NO. 90026 (Edina Realty /Blumentals Architecture Inc.)
Y Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced
the first item of business, a request for rezoning approval to
rezone from R5 to C1 the land at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard and the
vacant parcel to the east. The Secretary reviewed the contents of
the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for
Application No. 90026, attached). The Secretary added that Edina
Realty could have off -site accessory parking on the vacant site to
the east or on the church site to the north. The Secretary also
reviewed the draft resolution regarding the rezoning, noting the
guidelines for rezoning and the recommended conditions of the
rezoning.
Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether he had anything to
add. Mr. Janis Blumentals stated that the negotiations with the
church to acquire land for parking or parking rights were not going
well. He recommended that the rezoning go through and that the
bank not be allowed to go into the building until more parking is
provided. He asked the Commission to remove the condition
regarding the provision of additional parking and to allow the
rezoning with the understanding that the bank cannot move in until
more parking is provided.
PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 90026)
12 -6 -90 1
Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing
and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the
application. No one spoke. Chairperson Malecki then called for a
motion to close the public hearing.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Ainas to
close the public hearing on Application No. 90026. The motion
passed unanimously.
Commissioner Holmes noted that the two exceptions in the draft
resolution relate to the bank occupancy. He asked whether those
conditions were needed. The Secretary stated that the resolution
could be modified. He explained the background of the proposal and
that it was the proposed bank occupancy which had instigated the
rezoning in the first place. He stated that staff simply want to
make sure that the parking issue is resolved before the bank
occupies the building. He explained that property could be added
to the site or an off -site parking arrangement could be approved as
well, but that these have to be accomplished before the bank can go
into the building. Mr. Blumentals stated that he was fully aware
that the bank could not occupy the building until the parking issue
was resolved. The Planner pointed out that the City Council could
approve the rezoning in concept and simply withhold the second
reading of the ordinance amendment describing the rezoning until
the parking issue was resolved and that there should, therefore, be
no delay. Mr. Blumentals also pointed out that the bank would have
to have a sign on the property for it to operate and that this
could be withheld by the City until the parking issue was resolved.
The Planner stated that he had no objection to modifying the
rezoning approval and noted that the applicant was certainly on
record as understanding that the bank occupancy was related to
resolving the parking issue.
Commissioner Sander asked what would happen if the bank did occupy
the building before parking was provided. The Secretary stated
that the matter would have to be prosecuted as a zoning violation.
In response to another question from Commissioner Sander the
Secretary stated with respect to a Special Use Permit for off -site
accessory parking, that Edina Realty must not only lease additional
parking, but must actually legally encumber the parking area. They
would then have the exclusive right to use the parking.
Chairperson Malecki asked the Commission for their comments.
Commissioner Ainas recommended that the rezoning be approved
subject to the applicant complying with the Zoning Ordinance.
Chairperson Malecki asked what would be required if the applicant
were to add property to the site. The Secretary stated that the
property would have to be replatted and that the rezoning would
have to extend to the additional land acquired. He stated that, if
the applicant cannot acquire additional land, he will have to meet
12 -6 -90 2
the parking requirement in some other way such as with a Special
Use Permit for off -site accessory parking.
Commissioner Johnson asked whether the Commission should rezone the
church property as well. The Secretary stated that the church
property should only be rezoned if it is to be sold to the
applicant and combined with their property. With respect to the
condition recommended in the proposed resolution, the Secretary
pointed out that rezoning is legally done by the City Council and
that the City Council could drop the condition regarding parking as
long as everyone understands that the bank cannot occupy the
building without additional parking being provided.
RESOLUTION 90 -3
Member Lowell Ainas introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO.
90026 SUBMITTED BY EDINA REALTY
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member Ella Sander, and the motion passed unanimously.
12 -6 -90 3
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 90026
Applicant: Edina Realty c/o Blumentals Architecture, Inc.
Location: 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard
Request: Rezoning
This application is a request to rezone from R5 to C1 the parcel of
land at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Commission considered the
application at its October 18, 1990 meeting and extended the
rezoning consideration to include the vacant parcel to the east.
The purpose of the rezoning is to allow a bank use to occupy a
small portion of the Edina Realty office building situated on the
parcel. Financial institutions are a permitted use in the C1
district, but are not one of the service /office uses allowed by
special use permit in the R5 zoning district.
Staff have recommended and the Commission concurred that the vacant
parcel immediately east of the Edina Realty site be rezoned
concurrently to C1. It is felt that leaving a residential zoning
on this property is inappropriate inasmuchas it could allow a
multi - family development which would gain access through a
commercial parcel.
The Commission opened the public hearing on Application No. 90026
at its October 18 meeting and tabled the matter, referring it to
the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment.
The advisory group in the persons of Louis Terzich and Barbara
Sorenson met to consider the proposal on Thursday November 15, 1990
at Willow Lane School. Planning Commissioner Mark Holmes and the
applicant's representative Mr. Janis Blumentals were also present
as were two residents from the neighborhood north of the property
in question. The Director of Planning and Inspection and the
Planner were also present. A copy of the minutes of that meeting
are attached for the Commission's review.
The neighborhood advisory group endorsed the concept of the
rezoning, but expressed concern that the required additional
parking be provided and that parking areas be properly screened
and, where appropriate, fenced. The Commission may recall that 9
additional parking stalls are required by the bank use. Mr.
Blumentals showed those present a site plan showing additional
parking to be provided on a vacant area presently part of the
property containing the off -site parking lot for the Brooklyn
United Methodist Church. The new parking area would be separated
from the main parking lot to prevent cut - through traffic. However,
we have since been informed by Mr. Blumentals that Edina Realty and
the church have been unable to come to terms on the sale of this
land. They are instead pursuing an off -site accessory parking
arrangement where the office building would legally encumber 20
stalls on the church's off -site lot. There would be no connection
o between the two properties except a pedestrian walkway that
12 -6 -90 1
Application No. 90026 continued
presently exists. Again, no link is advised that would allow for
cut - through traffic. The church's recent expansion approval
required that a substantial gate be placed across the Brooklyn
Boulevard access to the off -site lot. The gate must be closed
except on Sunday. The people who would use this lot during the
week would most likely be office building employees who would enter
the lot off Noble Avenue North.
The above scenario is, at present, only speculation since no
agreement has yet been concluded with the church. We are reluctant
to recommend favorable action on the rezoning while the parking
issue remains unsolved. The neighborhood group felt that parking
was a present concern and were led to believe the problems would be
solved. At the same time, we do not recommend denial of the
rezoning since it generally seems to meet the guidelines for
evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35 -208. We would
recommend exploring the parking issue with the applicant.
Favorable action could be taken with the understanding that the
rezoning would not take effect until additional parking was
provided in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
A draft resolution of approval is attached for the Commission's
consideration.
Submitted by,
Gary Shal
Planner
Approved by,
Ronald A. Warren
Director of Planning and Inspection
12 -6 -90 2
0 Member Lowell Ainas introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90 -3
RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF
APPLICATION NO. 90026 SUBMITTED BY EDINA REALTY
WHEREAS, Application No. 90026 submitted by Edina Realty
proposes rezoning from R5 (Multiple Family) to Cl (Service /Office)
the land at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called
public hearing on October 18, 1990 when a staff report and
testimony regarding the rezoning request were taken; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission expanded the area under
consideration to include the vacant parcel to the east of the Edina
Realty site and tabled the matter, referring it to the Northwest
Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment; and
WHEREAS, the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group met to
consider the matter on November 15, 1990 at Willow Lane School and
recommended approval of the rezoning proposal, including the vacant
parcel east of the Edina Realty site, and with the understanding
that all required parking would be provided and properly screened;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission resumed consideration of
the matter on December 6, 1990, received a staff report and further
testimony during a continued public hearing in which it was evident
that the parking issue was not yet resolved; and
WHEREAS, the Commission considered the rezoning request
in light of all testimony received, the Guidelines for Evaluating
Rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning
Ordinance, and in light of the recommendations of the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Brooklyn Center
Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that
Application No. 90026, submitted by Edina Realty, be conditionally
approved in consideration of the following:
1. The Comprehensive Plan recommends service /office
land use on the land in question as noted on the
Land Use Revisions Map (Table 14 and Figure 15 of
the Plan).'
2. The proposed Cl zoning of the Edina Realty property
at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard and the vacant parcel to
the east is consistent and compatible with
surrounding land use classifications.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90 -3
3. All permitted uses in the C1 zone may be
contemplated for development or redevelopment of
the subject property.
4. The subject property will bear fully the ordinance
development restrictions for the C1 zoning
district.
5. The property in question is unsuited for multiple
family development which is presently allowed by
the R5 zoning.
6. In light of the above, it is believed that the
.proposal is consistent with the Guidelines for
Evaluating Rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of
the Zoning Ordinance and is, therefore, in the best
interests of the community.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning
Advisory Commission that it is recommended that the rezoning to C1
of the land in question be subject to the applicant complying with
all requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
Date Chairperson
ATTEST:
Secretary
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member Ella Sander and upon vote being taken thereon,
the following voted in favor thereof: Molly Malecki, Wallace
Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann, Ella Sander, Mark Holmes and
Bertil Johnson; and the following voted against the same: none,
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
MEMORANDUM
TO: NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP
Louis Terzich 561 -8639
James Carlson 561 -1065
Greg McGeary 560 -3019
Barbara Sorenson 561 -4524
Jolene Heath 561 -8938
Planning Commissioners
Lowell Ainas 560 -7805
Mark Holmes 560 -3036
FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspectio -h Gv,
DATE: November 5, 1990
SUBJECT: Review of Planning Commission Application No. 90026
The Planning Commission considered the above matter at a public
hearing on October 18, 1990 and has referred this rezoning request
to the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and
comment. The application has been submitted by Janis Blumentals on
behalf of Edina Realty located at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard who
request that their property be rezoned from R5 (Multiple Family) to
C1 (Service /Office). The property in question is located on the
east side of Brooklyn Boulevard between the Boulevard Plaza office
condominium development and the off -site parking lot for the
Brooklyn United Methodist Church. There are also some single -
family homes north of this site and St. Alphonsus Church lies
further east.
The purpose of the rezoning is to allow a small bank tenant in the
Edina Realty office building. The existing office building, which
is a permitted use in the Cl zoning district, was approved with a
special use permit in the R5 zone in 1985. The R5 zoning district
allows most service /office uses by special use permit. However,
financial institutions, which are considered to be one of the more
intense Cl uses, are not allowed at all in the R5 zoning district.
If the property is rezoned to C1, both the existing service /office
use and the proposed bank would be permitted uses. Lot area and
buffer requirements are met for a C1 designation. However, the
bank use will require the addition of nine parking stalls.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends service /office use for this
parcel and the vacant parcel to the east on the Land Use Revisions
Map (see area #41 on Figure 15 and Table 14, attached). When this
property (the old City Hall site) was sold in the early 1980's, the
City held public meetings with people from the neighborhood and it
was the sentiment of those present that an office use on the
property was preferable to a multi - family use. Since an office use
9
Memo
Page 2
November 5, 1990
was allowable by special use permit, no rezoning was pursued at
that time. The old City Hall site included the existing Edina
Realty site and the vacant parcel to the east which was subdivided
off in 1985 and also approved for an office use. It is staff's
recommendation that this vacant parcel be zoned the same as the
Edina Realty parcel. The owner of the vacant parcel has orally
consented to rezoning the vacant parcel to Cl in a meeting with
staff. Edina Realty has approached the Brooklyn United Methodist
Church about acquiring land from their off -site parking lot for
additional parking. If land is purchased and attached to the Edina
Realty site, the property would have to be replatted and the new
lot would have to be rezoned.
The applicant's representative, Mr. Janis Blumentals, has submitted
a written statement (attached) addressing the Guidelines for
Evaluating Rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the Zoning
Ordinance. The Neighborhood Advisory Group is reminded that all
rezonings must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the
Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines and this should be
the major consideration when reviewing the proposed rezoning.
The following information is enclosed for review:
1. The Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application
No. 90026 and minutes of the October 18, 1990 Planning
Commission meeting pertaining to Application No. 90026.
2. Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance which is
the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines.
3. A map of the area showing the location of the property to
be rezoned in relation to other lots, roads, etc.
4. A copy of Section 35 -314 and 35 -320 regarding uses
allowed in the R5 and C1 zoning districts.
5. Figure 15 and Table 14 from the Brooklyn Center
Comprehensive Plan which contains recommended land use
revisions (see area #41).
6. Correspondence from Janis Blumentals addressing the
Rezoning Evaluation Guidelines.
The Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting has been
scheduled for Thursday, November 15, 1990 and will be held in the
Media Center room at Willow Lane School at 71st and Perry Avenues
North. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m.
Memo
Page 3
November 5, 1990
The Planning Commission would appreciate your written comments
and /or recommendation by December 1, 1990. If you have any
questions or comments regarding the above, please do not hesitate
to contact either Planner Gary Shallcross or myself. If for any
reason you cannot attend the meeting, please contact us as soon as
possible at 569 -3300. It is important that we have enough members
present to conduct business and there will likely be people from
the neighborhood present. Thank you for your participation.
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
OCTOBER 18, 1990
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to
order by Chairman Pro tem Lowell Ainas at 7:31 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chairman Pro tem Lowell Ainas, Commissioners Ella Sander, Kristen
Mann, and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and
Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. It was noted
that Chairperson Molly Malecki and Commissioners Wallace Bernards
and Bertil Johnson were excused.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 27 1990
Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Sander to
approve the minutes of the September 27, 1990 Planning Commission
meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Lowell
Ainas, Commissioners Sander, Mann and Holmes. Voting against:
none. The motion passed.
/ APPLICATION NO. 90026 (Edina Realty / Blumentals Architecture
V Following the Chairman Pro tem's explanation, the Secretary
introduced the first item of business, a request to rezone from R5
to C1 a 1.1 acre parcel of land at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard which is
presently the site of the Edina Realty building. The Secretary
reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission
Information Sheet for Application No. 90026 attached) . The
Secretary explained during his presentation that the application is
technically only for the developed parcel, but that staff would
recommend expanding the rezoning to include the vacant parcel zoned
R5 to the east. He stated that the owner of that parcel, though
not present, has indicated to staff that he concurs with the
rezoning to C1. He explained that if it were not rezoned to C1, a
multiple family development could be built on the vacant parcel.
The Secretary also explained that the site in question was formerly
occupied by the old City Hall years ago and, therefore, has an
office use as a preceding use on the property. He stated that
there had been public meetings in the past in which the neighbors
and the City itself expressed a preference for office use on the
property even though it was zoned R5.
Commissioner Sander asked what was the size of the vacant parcel to
the east. Mr. Janis Blumentals, representing the applicant, stated
that it was approximately 25,000 sq. ft. In answer to another
question from Commissioner Sander, the Secretary noted that the
vacant parcel to the east is landlocked, but that a covenant exists
10 -18 -90 1
which allows access to that parcel across the developed parcel at
7100 Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that another office building
was approved for the vacant parcel, but has not been pursued to
this point.
Commissioner Sander asked why the property was not rezoned to C1
when the office development was proposed. The Secretary answered
that it was not necessary to rezone the property, but that a
special use permit was pursued instead. The Planner explained that
the property was probably zoned R5 in 1968 when apartment
development was popular. He stated that, as apartment development
declined and office development increased during the 1970's, an
ordinance amendment was passed to allow office uses by special use
permit in the R5 zone. He stated that it was then easier for
developers to seek a special use permit for an office development
than to go through the rezoning process. The Secretary added that
the old RB zone which existed in the Zoning Ordinance prior to 1968
also allowed both multiple family development and limited
commercial development.
Commissioner Holmes asked if the reason for the rezoning was really
for a bank. The Secretary answered that the firm that wishes to go
into the building calls itself a bank. He stated that a finance
office would be allowed in the R5 zone, but not a bank. He also
noted that a bank use requires parking based on the retail parking
formula. He added that the proposed bank tenant would have
tellers. Mr. Janis Blumentals explained that Edina Realty is owned
by Metropolitan Federal Bank and that it is a corporate policy to
move a small branch bank facility into the real estate offices of
Edina Realty to provide one stop shopping. He stated that there
was no intent for a driveup facility and pointed out that
Metropolitan Federal is presently located in K Mart. The Planner
asked Mr. Blumentals to clarify whether Metropolitan Federal would
be open to the public. Mr. Blumentals responded in the
affirmative. The Secretary commented that if the bank were not
open to the public, it could be considered to be an accessory use
to the real estate office and would not require rezoning. He
stated that the rezoning opens up the property to a broader range
of service /office uses.
Chairman Pro tem Ainas asked how many square feet the office
building was. Mr. Blumentals responded that it was approximately
10,000 sq. ft. (the Planner noted that the gross floor area is
closer to 14,000 sq. ft.). Chairman Pro tem Ainas asked for the
size of the bank facility. Mr. Blumentals responded that it would
only be about 400 sq. ft. There followed a brief discussion
regarding signery for the bank. The Secretary explained that wall
signery is limited to building identification signery and does not
allow for tenant identification signery.
Commissioner Sander stated that the applicant would still need a
site plan approval for the additional parking. The Secretary
10 -18 -90 2
agreed and noted that the applicants are working with the church to
possibly expand parking into an unused portion of their off -site
parking lot. He added that the Edina Realty building could expand
its site and take land from the vacant parcel to the east to
provide more parking. He stated that he recommended combining
whatever land was needed for the additional parking through a plat
and that that land also be rezoned to C1. He added that the City
did not want to allow shortcutting through the Edina Realty site
and through the church's off -site parking lot to avoid the signal
at Noble and Brooklyn Boulevard.
Mr. Blumentals stated that they were negotiating with the church,
but that it was more difficult than negotiating with an individual
and that he hoped a site plan would be available for the
Commission's review when the rezoning comes back for final
consideration.
Commissioner Sander stated that she thought that Edina Realty had
approximately 80 agents office in the existing building. She
stated that the site is already short on parking spaces in
practical terms and that more parking is needed even without the
bank. There followed a brief discussion of parking problems in the
area and the formulas for office, medical and bank uses.
Commissioner Holmes inquired as to the provision for handicapped
parking. The Secretary stated that handicapped parking stalls were
already provided and no new ones would probably be needed because
of the additional stalls.
PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 90026)
Chairman Pro tem Ainas then opened the meeting for a public hearing
on Application No. 90026 and asked whether anyone present wished to
comment regarding the proposal. No one spoke.
Commissioner Holmes stated that his main concern with the proposal
was the need for additional parking. Commissioner Sander asked
whether it was necessary to send this application to a neighborhood
advisory group in light of the fact that they were notified and yet
no one has shown up to comment on the application. The Secretary
stated that he still recommended that the standard procedure be
followed and that the rezoning be referred to a neighborhood
advisory group. He stated that people may simply support the
office development and oppose multiple family and, therefore, have
no objection to the rezoning; or there may be other reasons why no
one showed up at the public hearing.
ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO 90026 (Edina Realty/Blumentals
Architecture)
Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to
table Application No. 90026 and refer the matter to the Northwest
Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. Voting in
10 -18 -90
3
favor: Chairman Pro tem Ainas, Commissioners Sander, Mann and
Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
10 -18 -90
4
R
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 90026
Applicant: Edina Realty /Blumentals Architecture, Inc.
Location: 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard
Request: Rezoning
The applicant requests rezoning from R5 to C1 of a 1.1 acre parcel
of land at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard. The land in question is
presently developed as the site of the Edina Realty office
building. It is bounded on the north by the Brooklyn United
Methodist Church parking lot and two single - family homes, on the
east by a vacant R5 zoned parcel that was to be the site of another
smaller office building, on the south by the Boulevard Plaza office
condominium development, and on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard.
The basic purpose of the rezoning is to allow a small bank facility
to locate in the existing Edina Realty office building. Financial
institutions are a permitted use in the C1 zoning district, but are
not one of the service /office uses allowed by special use permit in
the existing R5 zoning district.
All rezoning applications are to be evaluated in light of the
Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in
Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance (copy attached) . The
applicant's representative, Mr. Janis Blumentals, has submitted a
letter (also attached) in which he addresses the guidelines point
by point. A recitation of the guidelines and the applicant's
arguments along with staff comments follows.
a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit?
Applicant: "The rezoning would make this site, presently zoned R5,
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which calls for
service /office use."
Staff: The Comprehensive Plan does specifically recommend
service /office use on this site and the vacant site to the east
(see area #41 on the Land Use Revisions Map, attached). The
proposed C1 zoning is consistent with the Plan recommendation.
Perhaps the more immediate question is whether there is a benefit
to allowing some service /office uses, such as banks, which are
allowed in the C1 zone, but not the R5 zone. The C1 zoning would
allow for slightly more intense uses, but would also preclude
multi - family uses which are not consistent with the Plan for this
area.
b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with
surrounding land use classifications?
10 -18 -90 1
Application No. 90026 continued
Applicant: "The neighboring land, on both sides of Brooklyn
Boulevard is zoned either R5, Cl or C2. With the heavy traffic on
the boulevard many of the R5 lots have been developed as Cl by
special use permit. Directly to the north of our site is a very
large church parking lot. The undeveloped land behind our property
is planned and designed for an office building."
Staff: We would agree that the proposed C1 zoning is consistent
and compatible with surrounding land use classifications and with
the nature of Brooklyn Boulevard as a major thoroughfare.
C) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be
contemplated for development of the subject property?
Applicant: "Permitted uses that are compatible with the
constraints of the existing office building will work, since this
land is already developed as an office building and its required
parking."
Staff: One of the issues that needs to be addressed with a bank
occupancy within the existing office building is parking.
Financial institutions are required to have parking based on the
retail parking formula. The proposed bank facility would occupy
approximately 400 sq. ft. of space on the first floor. The general
office formula requires only two spaces for this area. However,
the retail formula requires 11 spaces for the first 2,000 sq. ft.
of gross floor area or fraction thereof. Therefore, the retail
formula requirement for this space is 11 spaces. The irony of the
situation is that, if the bank use were larger, the total parking
requirement for the building would actually be less. There may be
a need to address this irony somehow in the ordinance. At present,
however, there is a need to provide nine (9) additional parking
stalls. It is our understanding that there have been discussions
with the Brooklyn United Methodist Church to either acquire or
encumber land on their off -site parking lot to provide additional
parking. As a result, the applicant will either have to obtain a
special use permit for off -site accessory parking or may have to
expand the area to be rezoned to include whatever land is acquired.
The buffer requirements for a parking lot for an office building
are the same as for a church parking lot. We do not believe the
need to provide more parking for the bank use presents additional
issues which argue against the rezoning of the office building
site. They can feasibly be addressed through a proper site plan
which may be forthcoming.
d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification
changes in the area since the subject property was zoned?
10 -18 -90 2
Application No. 90026 continued
Applicant: "Several of the adjoining properties that are zoned R5
have used special use permits for C1 use, in lieu of rezoning, so
the general atmosphere of Brooklyn Boulevard is commercial, even
though the present zoning on many of those sites is for apartments.
The amount of traffic on the Boulevard reinforces the commercial
character of the avenue."
Staff: one zoning change that has taken place since this property
was zoned R5, is that the land to the south, which contains the
Boulevard Plaza office condominiums was rezoned from R5 to R3. A
special use permit was granted for the office use in the R3 zone.
Zoning this property to R3 would be somewhat consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, but would preclude a bank occupancy. The
proposed C1 zoning is more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
recommendation for this parcel since it calls specifically for
service /office uses. The applicant is correct in observing that
there have been office developments in this area and that, because
of the traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard, service /office use of the
property is logical.
e) In the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals, is there a
broad public purpose evident?
Applicant: "Not applicable."
Staff: Not applicable.
f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development
restrictions for the proposed zoning districts?
Applicant: "The subject property is in compliance with zoning
regulations presently in force for C1 districts, and through
rezoning would allow uses such as financial institutions, in this
building."
Staff: The applicant has addressed use compliance with C1
regulations, but not other C1 requirements, such as parking. The
site meets lot width and area requirements for a Cl parcel adjacent
to a major thoroughfare. The greenstrip, setback and parking
requirements are met for a general office use. However, as has
been pointed out above, the site does not have adequate parking if
a bank occupancy is proposed. The applicant must address the
parking issue by acquiring or encumbering land beyond the existing
site. However, even if no additional parking can be obtained, we
do not feel the rezoning should, therefore, be denied. The
10 -18 -90 3
Application No. 90026 continued
proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the
existing land use is consistent with the proposed zoning. A bank
use may not become feasible for parking reasons. Nevertheless,
most service /office uses can be comprehended.
g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted
in the present zoning, with respect to size, configuration,
topography or location?
Applicant: "The present R5 zoning without the special use permit
for this piece of land would not have been useful for the original
development, since the size of this lot is not sufficient to
provide multi - family housing and the necessary green areas and
amenities, etc. The use of the office buildings as buffers between
commercial or street with heavy traffic and single - family
residential has proven superior to multi- family housing
developments, due to the limited hours of business, and generally
clean nature of offices."
Staff: We would not agree that the original parcel (about 72,500
sq. ft.) was too small for multi - family development, but certainly
a project of that size would have limited amenities. The R5 zoning
probably made sense 20 years ago when traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard
was less than today and when there was a strong demand for
apartments. Today, it is felt that the community has a surplus of
apartments and the traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard probably lends
itself more to commercial than residential development.
Service /office uses have been viewed for some time as a good
transitional use along Brooklyn Boulevard to buffer retail nodes
from each other and the Brooklyn Boulevard from single- family
development.
h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning
district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the
lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or
3) the best interests of the community?
Applicant: 11 1. This rezoning will expand the Cl zone only to the
extent that this land will become part of the use recommended in
the Comprehensive Plan.
2. This piece of land is already developed, and is in
compliance with the regulations set forth for the Cl
zone.
3. It is in the best interest of the community to have the
actual zoning reflect what exists on the property and
eliminate any questions or gray areas created by a
special use permit."
10 -18 -90 4
Application No. 90026 continued
Staff: The proposed zoning is consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan. There is little vacant land in either the R5
or Cl zones; however, this parcel is not vacant anyway. We would
recommend that the area to be rezoned be expanded to the vacant
parcel to the east. That parcel was created about five years ago
and was planned to be the site of another, smaller office building.
We do not feel that it would be appropriate to leave that parcel
zoned R5 and possibly allow any apartment building which would have
to gain access through the existing office building site at 7100
Brooklyn Boulevard. The plat that divided the original parcel was
approved with the understanding that the easterly parcel would be
developed as an office. An approved plan for an office building on
that parcel does exist. We believe it would be in the best
interests of the community to rezone both parcels to C1 and
preclude any multi - family development in this location.
i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an
owner or owners of an individual parcel?
Applicant: "It is in the interest of the City to clarify the
actual zoning of this property, so that what is on paper agrees
with what there is on the site."
Staff: We agree in this case and would add that it is in the
City's interest to have both zoning and use consistent with the
City's Comprehensive Plan.
Procedure
The City's practice with rezoning applications is for the Planning
Commission to open a public hearing, take comments and then table
the application and refer it to the relevant neighborhood advisory
group for review and comment. We would recommend following that
procedure in this case also.
Submitted by,
Gary Shallcross, Planner
roved by C j
/ 000 Ronald A. arren, Director of Planning and Inspection
10 -18 -90 5
Section 35 -208 REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES.
1. Purpose
The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the com-
prehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced through
uniform and equitable evaulation of periodic proposed changes to this
Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution
No. 77 -167, the City Council has established a rezoning evaluation
policy and review guidelines.
2. Policy
It is the policy of the City that: a) zoning classifications
must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and b) rezoning
proposals shall not constitute "spot zoning," defined as a zoning
decision which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner, and
does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning
principles.
3. Procedure
Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits, measured
against the above policy and against these guidlines which may be
weighed collectively or individually as deemed by the City.
4. Guidelines
(a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit?
(b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with
surrounding land use classifications?
(c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be
comtemplated for development of the subject property?
(d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification
changes in the area since the subject property was zoned?
(e) In the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals, is there a
broad public purpose evident?
(f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development
restrictions for the proposed zoning districts?
(g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted
in the present zoning district, with respect to size, con-
figuration, topography or location?
(h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district,'
warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of
developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the
best interests of the community?
(i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of
an owner or owners of an individual parcel?
Section 35 -313. R4 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT.
1. Permitted Uses
a. Multiple family dwellings of one and one -half or two stories in
height.
b. R3 uses, provided such uses shall adhere to the district
requirements that prevail in the R3 zoning district.
C. Parks, playgrounds, athletic fields and other recreational uses of
a noncommercial nature.
d. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses or to the
following special uses when located on the same property with the
use to which it is accessory, but not including any business or
industrial accessory uses. Such accessory uses to include but not
be restricted to the following:
I. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading.
2. Garages for use by occupants of the principal use.
3. Playground equipment and installations, including swimming
pools and tennis courts.
4. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance.
5. A real estate office for the purpose of leasing or selling
apartment units in the development in which it is located.
6. Home occupations not to include special home occupations as
defined in Section 35 -900.
2. Special Requirements
a. See Section 35 -410 of these ordinances.
3. Special Uses
a. Nursing care homes, (at not more than 50 beds per acre), maternity
care homes, boarding care homes and child care homes, provided that
these institutions shall, where required by state law, or
regulation, or by municipal ordinance, be licensed by the
appropriate state or municipal authority.
V/ Section 35 -314. R5 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT.
1. Permitted Uses
a. Multiple family dwellings of two and one half or three stories in
height.
b. R3 uses, provided such uses shall adhere to the district
requirements that prevail in the R3 zoning district.
35 -314
C. R4 uses, provided such uses shall adhere to the district
requirements that prevail in the R4 zoning district.
d. Parks, playgrounds, athletic fields and other recreational uses of
a noncommercial nature.
e. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses or to the
following special uses when located on the same property with the
use to which it is accessory, but not including any business or
industrial accessory use. Such accessory uses to include but not
be restricted to the following:
1. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading.
2. Garages and ramps for use by occupants of the principal use.
3. Playground equipment and installations, including swimming
pools and tennis courts.
4. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance.
5. A real estate office for the purpose of leasing or selling
apartment units in the development in which it is located.
6. Home occupations not to include special home occupations as
defined in Section 35 -900.
2. Special Requirements
a. See Section 35 -410 of these ordinances.
3. Special Uses
a. Nursing care homes, (at not more than 50 beds per acre), maternity
care homes, boarding care homes and child care homes, provided that
these institutions shall, where required by state law, or
regulation, or by municipal ordinance, be licensed by the
appropriate state or municipal authority.
b. Certain service- office uses which, in each specific case, are
demonstrated to the City Council to be:
1. Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as with
those uses permitted in the R5 district generally.
2. Complementary to existing adjacent land uses as well as to
those uses permitted in the R5 district generally.
3. Of comparable intensity to permitted R5 district land uses with
respect to activity levels.
35 -314
4. Planned and designed to assure that generated traffic will be
within the capacity of available public facilities and will not
have an adverse impact upon those facilities, the immediate
neighborhood, or the community.
and which are described in Section 35 -320, Subsections 1 (b) (c)
(d) and (j) through (t). Such service- office uses shall be subject
to the C1 district requirements of Sections 35 -400 and 35 -411, and
shall otherwise be subject to the ordinance requirements of the use
classification which the proposed use represents.
C. Chapels, churches, synagogues and temples, provided primary
vehicular access shall be gained to the uses by a collector or
arterial street.
Section 35 -315 R6 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT.
1. Permitted Uses
a. Multiple family dwellings of four or five stories in height.
b. Low rise multiple family dwellings of one and one -half through
three stories in height, provided such low rise dwellings are part
of a planned integral development with (a) above. Further provided
such low rise dwellings:
1. Shall contain no more than 65% of the total dwelling units in
the planned development.
2. Shall conform to the density requirements of the zoning
district which their respective heights prescribe.
C. Retail food shops, drycleaning pickup stations, beauty parlors,
barber shops, and valet shops within multiple family dwellings
containing 30 or more dwelling units. Such shops shall be
accessible to the public through a lobby with no advertising or
display to be visible from outside the building, and shall be
restricted to the ground floor or subfloors.
d. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses when
located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory,
but not including any business or industrial uses. Such accessory
uses to include but not be restricted to the following:
1. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading.
2. Garages and ramps for use by occupants of the principal use.
3. Swimming pools and tennis courts.
4. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance.
5. A real estate office for the purpose of leasing or selling
apartment units in the development in which it is located.
35 -316
2. Special Requirements
a. See Section 35 -410 of these ordinances.
Special 35 -320 Cl SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT.
1. Permitted Uses
The following service /office uses are permitted in the Cl district,
provided that the height of each establishment or building shall not
exceed three stories, or in the event that a basement is proposed,
three stories plus basement:
a. Nursing care homes, (at not more than 50 beds per acre), maternity
care homes, child care homes, boarding care homes, provided
however, that such institutions shall, where required by state law,
or regulations of the licensing authority, be licensed by the
appropriate state or municipal authority.
b. Finance, insurance, real estate and investment office.
C. Medical, dental, osteopathic, chiropractic and optometric offices.
d. Legal office, engineering and architectural offices, educational
and scientific research offices (excluding laboratory facilities),
accounting, auditing and bookkeeping offices, urban planning agency
offices.
e. Religious uses, welfare and charitable uses, libraries and art
galleries.
f. Beauty and barber services.
g. Funeral and crematory services.
h. Photographic services.
i. Apparel repair, alteration and cleaning pickup stations, shoe
repair.
j. Advertising offices, provided that the fabrication of signs shall
not be a permitted use.
k. Consumer and mercantile credit reporting services office,
adjustment and collection service offices.
1. Duplicating, mailing and stenographic service offices.
M. Employment agency offices.
n. Business and management consultant offices.
o. Detective and protective agency offices.
35 -320
p. Contractor's offices.
q. Governmental offices.
r. Business association, professional membership organizations, labor
unions, civic, social and fraternal association offices.
S. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses when
located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory.
Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the
following:
1. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading.
2. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance.
3. The compounding, dispensing or sale (at retail) of drugs,
prescription items, patent or proprietary medicines, sick room
supplies, prosthetic devices or items relating to any of the
foregoing when conducted in the building occupied primarily by
medical, dental, osteopathic, chiropractic or optometric
offices.
4. Retail food shops, gift shops, book and stationery shops,
tobacco shops, accessory eating establishments, sale and
service of office supply equipment, newsstands and similar
accessory retail shops within multistor-,� office buildings over
40,000 sq. ft. in gross floor area, provided: that there is no
associated signery visible from the exterior of the building;
there is no carry -out or delivery of food from the lot; and the
total floor area of all such shops within a building shall not
exceed 10% of the total gross floor area of the building.
t. Other uses similar in nature to the aforementioned uses as
determined by the City Council.
U. Financial institutions including, but not limited to, full- service
banks and savings and loan associations.
V. Drop -in child care centers licensed by the Minnesota Department of
Public Welfare pursuant to a valid license application, provided
that a copy of said license and application shall be submitted
annually to the City.
W. Leasing offices, provided there is no storage or display of
products on the use site.
2. Special Requirements
a. See Section 35 -411 of these ordinances.
35 -320
3. Special Uses
a. Accessory off -site parking not located on the same property with
the principal use, subject to the provisions of Section 35 -701.
b. Group day care facilities provided they are not located on the same
property as or adjacent to a use which is not permitted to abut R1,
R2, R3 zoned land and provided that such developments, in each
specific case, are demonstrated to be:
1. Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as with
those uses permitted in the C1 district generally.
2. Complementary to existing adjacent land uses as well as to
those uses permitted in the C1 district generally.
3. Of comparable intensity to permitted C1 district land uses with
respect to activity levels.
4. Planned and designed to assure that generated traffic will be
within the capacity of available public facilities and will not
have an adverse impact upon those facilities, the immediate
neighborhood, or the community.
5. Traffic generated by other uses on the site will not pose a
danger to children served by the day care use.
and further provided that the special requirements set forth in Section
35 -411 are adhered to.
C. Instructional uses for art, music, photography, decorating, dancing
and the like and studios for like activity.
Section 35 -321. C1A SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT.
1. Permitted Uses (No height limitation)
a. All of the permitted uses set forth in Section 35 -320 shall be
permitted in a building or establishment in the C1A district.
2. Special Requirements
a. See Section 35 -411 of these ordinances.
3. Special Uses
a. Accessory off -site parking not located on the same property with
the principal use, subject to the provisions of Section 35 -701.
b. All of the special uses set forth in Section 35 -320 shall be
allowed by special use permit in the C1A district.
-
�q
6 �e. : � Tq J I ' � i•i ��.. � �'( :I! „S�. -+ ..i s•s �.,... -�r� :.':f..
T `, , ��s — t o
pI r � u U) I a�
ce) am
L n, D("T
i�E::'i�T�l�i�lf�'i L I' 1 ` I —
1
)[[Ikal!Itr I��;; '� a [ � [ j , �} �',� IT7111[ 1�1
I CZr �ICsa. i• r r
' ')a�l
Hill
'1IITEL ��—
�!_��;� -� __ .� - ; •�L� . �,;, T I � _> >,���,,. .1:1[7 {� -triy t,l�' 1C '1EL"''
1(Illlil! II [1111 HE]']
i[1in [) � Iii D __ � ^` � ;\ ,, m:._`.� �;�`�•�I �� [ l� •
r
•i �
� • , .�. •, >. `, : • . • I 1 (� � i JI ar i ii: �f� i�i fit r _ il_�. /�. /� -r.►
p
fill Ilk
Ll
CL •- r
i
� , F�'t : < {�, G1 ! 1� — { � �R;y uEll 1 r r I..• +: �. ?2 (� a �.. � _
� 1 y �({� Au [I � /gy �� y 1 11111 1 11111 � li �I`{�gii
C
1 �\ a sn t '� "' ' ' r r•.�yJ 1 ' \` '� i y. _.• - (tlll[ L r I
rl I1 , r,+ { ii �>•jj'r,•' T is :.1' ,r �,Ir' J� II � { r 7 �1,! I4 i � 1 f�l•.,',T � �� � % \ \�r �� � � C=]
"*' ,r� l ,Ti+. ,JI� M�( -11 1 -`�,: �_ :1 - � ; �•'� ,; �.. kt,h F��..)�,i �;.T '�,� {. T / I.:.
[ �I I Y= -- i r I'' � � I � �i �t �t t :.•l„ �� p CLS
.lti{ �: f l i ..- t .-n•_ .T1 .. 7.. �IiIIiLTI' l ` nr�" -�"` , .J ..
�f 1'Ifl { (1, 1 'f },' j (n
i �yi� .• j� �n'`•..n... �i i. �• � l.z ...y .! __. ��� ,• ti Yi = '�a'-J �+-.. � � ,
r � �a� £ S � dY "`kkk!l/� ,• i '1 . "�����' j�it1i�TL� .� ._d._ _,: - _- _ ,,,,,Jl� \� p ��
• �.. � '' i i 111
� -� - f;;
F 1- YYY
• R
t
-
T�c ;
lLl. ___.. .. _ Q. .�. /•+a
B
TABLE 14
Land Use Plan Revisions
Location
Number Recommended Land Use
la. Mid- Density Residential or Public Land
lb. Mid- Density Residential
2. Single - Family Residential
3• Commercial Retail
4. Commercial Retail
5. Mid- Density Residential
6a. Light Industrial
6b. Light Industrial
6c. Mid- Density Residential
7a. Single - Family Residential
7b. Public Open Space
8. Multiple - Family Residential
9. Commercial /Retail
10. Commercial /Retail
11. Mixed Use Development (Including High - Density, High -Rise
Residential, Service /Office and General Commerce)
12. Mid- Density Residential /High Density Residential
13. Mid- Density Residential
14. Single- or Two - Family Residential
15. Public Open Space
16. Public Open Space
17. Mid- Density Residential
18. Light Industrial
19. Commercial
20. Low - Density Residential
21. Service /Office
22. Low - Density Residential
23. Service /Office /Mid - Density Residential
24. Service /Office
25. Service /Office /Mid - Density Residential
26. Service /Office /Mid- Density Residential
27. Service /Office /Mid - Density Residential
28. Service /Office/Mid- Density Residential
29. Commercial Retail
30 Mid - Density Residential /Service /Office
31. Service /Office /Mid - Density Residential
32. Mid- Density Residential /Service /Office
33. Mid- Density Residential /Service /Office
34. Mid- Density Residential
35. Commercial Retail
36. Mid- Density Residential /Service /Office
37. Mid- Density Residential
38. Single- Family Residential
39• Service /Office
40. Commercial Retail
41. Service /Office
42. Mid- Density Residential
98
/L IQ■■
OMNI
... • • ■ _: „ . • III■
:: � � ■��� ■■ C. �; '�,'■ �. � 1111 1 11■ 1 ���
r
. • • • 11111 111 1�11�
� ■ ■■ ■■ , : � ■ . 1 �1�l1■ ilii0i��1
II : 11111: -" : ■ ': 111 111111■ �1����1 1 ,� A
■ • . . ■ 111 1 1 �����1 ■
�. • �IIIIIr►� ■■ � 1 1 11
• • ♦i 11111■ �■ �,. �1� /,1 /
�� 111 r 1 1 1�1�11� ■�/
�/ 1111 1 1 • �►► ��1 1 ■ • ;�,... -.•.- •:;: • : >r
111111■ 11 •''. � • x#111111 111 • • � �, .. • ;� • :� ��,.,. .. �� ....
:::!: /111111�11� /1 i1 /1�� _ � .. 11 �••.1 1 1 "
� �■ �1 ■11111■ ■� ■■ ■ ■ �I �'1�11�1 „ 11 ■
��■ g.. X11111■ ....... � �� 1 �� . ��■ �
1 111111 ■� =i ��' �� �� ■
111111 ■i ,.� � 1� 1 � Di � �'
11 11 111111 111111 �■ C ■■ : � ■i ��Ir1��1■
/1 1111 /111 11 1■1 ; " �t 111 1 � ■ /1/11 �S�
1 �itll�111 . C
1111111111:; .„ .• • - � �■
-
■ ■ "� 'r � /11 IIa1111�
■, 111111■ 111111 1=■111� � � 1 1 111 1 11 ■ 1
•■■on� � 1111. , • ; � 1 1 111111■ 111 11
►e � � ► ♦ 11111
lol
Blumentals0
olm@
6205 Earle Brown Drive • Suite 120 • Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 (612) 561 -5757
September 26, 1990
REZONING EYALUATION IN SUPPORT OF REZONING APPLICATION FOR
EDINA REALTY BUILDING, 7100 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, BROOKLYN CENTER
A) IS THERE A CLEAR AND PUBLIC NEED OR BENEFIT? The rezoning
would make this site, presently zoned R -5, consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan which calls for service /office use.
B) IS THE PROPOSED ZONING CONSISTENT WITH AND COMPATIBLE WITH
SURROUNDING LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS? The neighboring
land, on both sides of Brooklyn Boulevard is zoned either
R -5, C -1 or C -2. With the heavy traffic on the boulevard
many of the R -5 lots have been developed as C -1 by special
use permit. Directly to the north of our site 1s a very
large church parking lot. The undeveloped land behind our
property Is planned and designed for an office building.
C) CAN ALL PERMITTED USES IN THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT BE
CONTEMPLATED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY?
Permitted uses that are compatible with the constraints of
the existing office building will work, since this land is
already developed as an office building and its required
parking.
D) HAVE THERE BEEN SUBSTANTIAL PHYSICAL OR ZONING
CLASSIFICATION CHANGES IN THE AREA SINCE THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY WAS ZONED? Several of the adjoining properties
that are zoned R -5 have used special use permits for C -1
use, in lieu of rezoning, so the general atmosphere of
Brooklyn Boulevard is commercial, even though the present
zoning on many of those sites is for apartments. The amount
of traffic on the Boulevard reinforces the commercial
character of the avenue.
E) IN THE CASE OF CITY- INITIATED REZONING PROPOSALS, IS THERE A
BROAD PUBLIC PURPOSE EVIDENT? Not applicable.
September 26, 1990
REZONING EVALUATION
Page 2 of 2
F) WILL THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BEAR FULLY THE ORDINANCE
DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS FOR THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICTS?
The subject property is in compliance with zoning
regulations presently in force for C -i districts, and
through rezoning would allow uses, such as financial
institutions, in this building.
G) IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY GENERALLY UNSUITED FOR USES
PERMITTED IN THE PRESENT ZONING DISTRICT, WITH RESPECT TO
SIZE, CONFIGURATION, TOPOGRAPHY OR LOCATION? The present
R -5 zoning without the s p e c i a l use permit for t h i s piece of
land would not have been useful for the original development,
since the size of this lot is not sufficient to provide
multi- family housing and the necessary green areas and
amenities, etc. The use of office buildings as buffers
between commercial or street with heavy traffic and single
family residential has proven superior to multi - family
housing developments, due to the limited hours of business,
and generally "clean" nature of offices.
H) WILL THE REZONING RESULT IN THE EXPANSION OF A ZONING
DISTRICT, WARRANTED BY: 1) COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING; 2) THE
LACK OF DEVELOPABLE LAND IN THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT; OR
3) THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY?
1. This rezoning will expand the C -1 zone only to the
extent that t h i s land w i I I become part of the use
recommended in the Comprehensive Plan.
2. This piece of land is already developed, and is in
compliance with the regulations set forth for C -1 zone.
3. it is in the best interest to the community to have the
actual zoning reflect what exists on the property, and
eliminate any questions or gray areas created by a
special use permit.
i) DOES THE PROPOSAL DEMONSTRATE MERIT BEYOND THE INTERESTS OF
AN OWNER OR OWNERS OF AN I N D I V I D U A L PARCEL? I t 1 s i n the
interest of the C i t y to c l a r i f y the actual z o n i n g of t h i s
property, so that what is on paper agrees with what there is
on the site.
MINUTES OF THE NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP
NOVEMBER 15, 1990
WILLOW LANE SCHOOL
CALL TO ORDER
The Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group met to consider rezoning
Application No. 90026 and was called to order by Chairman Louis
Terzich at 7:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group members Louis Terzich and
Barbara Sorenson. Also present were Planning Commissioner Mark
Holmes, Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Planner
Gary Shallcross and a representative of the applicant Janis
Blumentals. Two residents from the neighborhood were also present,
Mr. Mike Wenzler and Mr. Dan McFarren.
INTRODUCTION
The Director of Planning and Inspection introduced the item of
business for the neighborhood advisory group, (a rezoning from R5
to Cl of the property at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard) explaining the
rezoning procedure and also explaining that the referral to the
advisory group was for review and comment and was sought as a way
of getting some grass roots response to a rezoning proposal. The
Director of Planning and Inspection reviewed the materials in the
packet sent to advisory group members and explained each item of
information. He explained the uses that are allowed in the R5
zoning district and the C1 zoning district and noted that office
uses are allowed by special use permit in the R5 zone and are a
permitted use in the C1 zone. He reviewed a history of the parcel
in question. He noted that it had originally been used for a
school and then for a City Hall; then the building was occupied by
the Community Emergency Assistance Program until it was destroyed
by fire in 1977. He explained that there had been a meeting with
neighbors before the property, which was then owned by the City,
was sold and that the neighbors preferred a service /office use of
the property rather than multiple family use. An office
development, he pointed out, was approved by special use permit in
1985. He explained that the plan approved was for two office
buildings and that there is a potential for a second office
building to be built on the vacant site to the east of the
developed parcel. He pointed out that if an office building is not
built on that property, an apartment could be built under its
present R5 zoning. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated
that the reason for the rezoning is to allow for a small bank to be
a tenant in the Edina Realty building. He noted that financial
institutions are allowed in the C1 zone, but not in the R5 zone.
He added that additional parking would be needed to satisfy the
ordinance for the financial institution. He stated that the
applicant may attach some land from the church parking lot north of
the site or acquire some land for an off -site accessory parking
lot.
11 -15 -90 1
DISCUSSION
Mr. Mike Wenzler asked if part of the existing office building
would be converted to a bank. Mr. Louis Terzich explained the
proposal briefly. He stated that a small bank office would be
installed in the existing office building and that there would be
no drive -up. Mr. Wenzler stated that his main concern was traffic.
Mr. Dan McFarren added that there is not enough parking now and he
foresaw more problems in the future if a bank use were allowed
within the building. The Director of Planning and Inspection
pointed out that the City's parking formula for office uses is an
average which does not satisfy every possible situation. He stated
there may be occasional overflow parking from the Edina Realty site
onto the church parking lot to the north. He added that a medical
use would require additional parking beyond what would be required
for at the bank. He stated that the bank use itself may not
generate traffic to really need 11 more parking spaces, but that
those additional parking spaces may alleviate an existing parking
problem.
Mr. Wenzler asked whether the parcel to the east could be used to
provide the additional parking. Mr. Warren responded in the
affirmative, but stated that such an arrangement would affect the
office building plan for that parcel. He briefly explained the
layout for that site and the use intended.
Mr. Louis Terzich asked what the feeling of the church was
regarding selling part of their land for additional parking. Mr.
Janis Blumentals, representing the applicant Edina Realty, stated
that it was just a question of money.
Mrs. Sorenson asked whether the bank facility would be a full
service bank. Mr. Blumentals answered that checking and savings
accounts could be handled at the bank, but that there would be no
drive -up service. In response to another question from Mrs.
Sorenson, Mr. Blumentals explained that Metropolitan Federal Bank
is a huge bank with many branches. He pointed out that
Metropolitan Federal owns Edina Realty and it is trying to provide
one -stop shopping with real estate purchases and financing of those
purchases accomplished in one location. Mr. Terzich stated that he
was under the impression that no mortgage banking would be done
there. Mr. Blumentals responded in the negative and stated that it
could always be done at that location.
Mrs. Sorenson asked if there was any opposition expressed regarding
the rezoning. Mr. Warren stated that no one had appeared at the
Planning Commission meeting but the applicant. He stated that he
did not detect any major opposition to the rezoning proposal. Mr.
Wenzler stated that it was strange that it had to be rezoned at
all. Mr. McFarren stated that he was concerned regarding the
vacant parcel, that when it is developed, people may park in the
dead end street near his house and walk across his property. Mr.
Terzich suggested that perhaps a fence should be installed in this
11 -15 -90 2
area to prevent such cut - through traffic. Mr. McFarren stated that
that might be a good idea when the other office building is built.
There followed a brief discussion regarding the possibility of an
apartment building being built on the vacant parcel under the
existing R5 zoning. It was generally agreed by all present that
this would not be a good option. Mr. Warren added that group homes
are possible in both the R5 and C1 districts, but that the C1
zoning would rule out a typical multiple family residence.
There followed a brief discussion of fencing and buffer
requirements for the proposed parking area north of the existing
office on the property owned by the church. Mr. Warren explained
that City ordinance requires a 6' high screening device where
parking lots are adjacent to residentially zoned property.
Mr. Warren then explained the procedure that is generally followed
with rezoning applications. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan
recommends service /office use on the property in question and that
the proposed rezoning is consistent with the plan and seems to meet
the City's guidelines for evaluating rezoning. He stated that the
staff does support the proposed rezoning. Mrs. Sorenson stated
that it looked like a good proposal to her. Mr. Terzich stated
that he wanted the parking problem taken care of and that the new
parking area should be screened from the nearby residential
properties. Mr. Warren reviewed with those present the options for
meeting the parking requirements either on the church property or
on the vacant parcel to the east.
Mr. Terzich asked whether there would be a sign for the bank. Mr.
Shallcross explained the larger freestanding signs are now allowed
for office buildings and that the present sign could be expanded.
Mr. Warren added that the wall sign for the building could only
identify the building, and not the tenants.
Mrs. Sorenson inquired as to the possibility of sharing parking
with the church. Mr. Warren responded that this could be done in
a practical sense, but that the City would not approve an
arrangement where traffic could move from one property to the other
since this would allow for cut - through traffic. He stated that the
problems with barriers to prevent this cut - through traffic are just
a reality of the property.
MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 90026 (Edina
Realty)
Motion by Barbara Sorenson seconded by Louis Terzich to recommend
approval of Application No. 90026 with the recommendation that the
parking problem be alleviated and that all parking be screened and
fenced off properly in accordance with City ordinance. The motion
passed.
11 -15 -90
3
There followed a brief discussion of the procedure for handling the
rezoning. Mr. Terzich also noted that any new area to be used for
parking for the office building would also have to be included in
the rezoning.
ADJOURNMENT
By consensus it was agreed that there was nothing more to discuss
and the meeting adjourned at approximately 8:23 p.m.
Chairman
11 -15 -90 4
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION
APPLICATION NO. 90026 SUBMITTED BY EDINA REALTY
WHEREAS, Application No. 90026 submitted by Edina Realty
proposes rezoning from R5 (Multiple Family) to C1 (Service /Office)
the land at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called
public hearing on October 18, 1990 when a staff report and
testimony regarding the rezoning request were taken; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission expanded the area under
consideration to include the vacant parcel to the east of the Edina
Realty site and tabled the matter, referring it to the Northwest
Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment; and
WHEREAS, the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group met to
consider the matter on November 15, 1990 at Willow Lane School and
recommended approval of the rezoning proposal, including the vacant
parcel east of the Edina Realty site, and with the understanding
. that all required parking would be provided and properly screened;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission resumed consideration of
the matter on December 6, 1990, received a staff report and further
testimony during a continued public hearing in which it was evident
that the parking issue was not yet resolved; and
WHEREAS, the Commission considered the rezoning request
in light of all testimony received, -the Guidelines for Evaluating
Rezonings contained in > 35 -208 of the City's Zoning
Ordinance, and in light of the_ recommendations of the City's
Comprehensive Plan and adopted Resolution 90 -3 recommending
approval of the rezoning; and
WHEREAS, the Council considered the matter at its
December 18, 1990 regular meeting, accepted testimony and the
recommendation of the Planning Commisiion and evaluated the
proposal in light of City Ordinance Section 35 -208 regarding
rezonings and in light 'of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of
the City of Brooklyn Center that Application No. 90026, submitted'
by Edina Realty, be approved in consideration of the following:
1. The Comprehensive Plan recommends service /office
land use on the land in question as noted on the
Land Use Revisions Map (Table 14 and Figure 15 of
the Plan).
• RESOLUTION NO.
2. The proposed Cl zoning of the Edina Realty property
at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard and the vacant parcel to
the east is consistent and compatible with
surrounding land use classifications.
3. All permitted uses in the Cl zone may be
contemplated for development or redevelopment of
the subject property.
4. The subject property will bear fully the ordinance
development restrictions for the C1 zoning
district.
5. The property in question is unsuited for multiple
family development which is presently allowed by
the R5 zoning.
6. In light of the above, it is believed that the
proposal is consistent with the Guidelines for
Evaluating Rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of
the Zoning Ordinance and is, therefore, in the best
interests of the community.
• BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the rezoning to Cl of the land in question be
subject to the applicant complying with all requirements of the
City's Zoning Ordinance.
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
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the
day of , 1991 at p.m. at the City
Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance regarding the zoning classification of certain
land.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request
at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel
Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES
REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City
of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner:
Section 35 -1120. MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT
(R3). The following properties are hereby established as being
• within the (R3) Multiple Family Residence District zoning
classification:
Lot 1, Block 1, Boulevard Plaza Condominium Addition
Section 35 -1140. MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT
(R5). The following properties are hereby established as being
within the (R5) Multiple Family Residence District zoning
classification:
All of Lot 7, Auditor's Subdivision No. 57, except
highway and that part of Section 27 described as follows:
Commencing at a point in the west line of the northwest
1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of the south 1/2 of Section 27
a distance of 5 rods north from the southwest corner
thereof; thence east 561 feet; thence SO 49' E a
distance of 82.5 feet to the north line of Lot 4,
Auditor's Subdivision No. 57; thence west to a point in
the north line of said Lot 4 distance 396 feet east from
the east line of Lot 7, Auditor's Subdivision No. 57;
thence south 82.5 feet; thence west to the northeasterly
line of State Highway No. 152; thence northwesterly along
said northeasterly line to the south line of Lot 7;
thence north to the northeast corner thereof; thence west
to the west line of the northwest 1/4 of the southwest
1/4 of said Section 27; thence north to the point of
beginning; except highway.
t
i ORDINANCE NO.
That part of the south 80 feet of the north 125 feet of
Lot 5, Auditor's Subdivision No. 57 lying west of the
following described line: Commencing at a point on the
south line of said Lot 5 distant 55 feet east of the
southwest corner thereof; thence NO 33 feet;
thence N12 48 feet to the north line of said
south 80 feet, and there terminating; except highway.
That part of the north 75 feet of the south 131 feet of
Lot 5, Auditor's Subdivision No. 57, lying west of a line
running north at right angles from a point in the south
line of said Lot 5 distant 185 feet east from the
southwest corner thereof, to the north line of said north
75 feet of the south 131 feet; except highway.
That part of the south 134.5 feet of the north 259.5 feet
of Lot 5, Auditor's Subdivision No. 57 lying west of a
line bearing NO 33 11 W from a point in the south line
of Lot 5 distant 55 feet east from the southwest corner
thereof; except highway.
That part of the south 56 feet of Lot 5, Auditor's
. Subdivision No. 57 lying west of the east 768.3 feet
thereof; except highway.
That part of Lot 17, Auditor's Subdivision No. 57,
described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner
of Lot 11, Auditor's Subdivision No. 57; thence west
62.64 feet; thence south 268 feet to the point of
beginning.
The south 269 feet of Lot 11, Auditor's Subdivision No.
57; except highway.
Lot 10, Auditor's Subdivision No. 57; except highway.]
Lot 1_, Block 1, Elnicky's Addition
That part of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1 of Section 27
T119. R21 described as follows: Beginning at the
southwesterly corner of Lot 1 Block 1 Realty Terrace on
file and of record with the County Recorder Hennepin
County, Minnesota thence East assumed bearing, along
the south line of said Lot 1 to the southeast corner
thereof, thence North for 243 feet, thence northwesterly
along tangential curve concave to the west having a
radius of 175.73 feet and a central angle of 24 degrees
29 minutes 14 seconds for 75.11 feet thence N 89
degrees, 25 minutes 18 seconds W for 410.19 feet to the
easterly right -of -way of Hennepin County Road No 152
f
ORDINANCE NO.
(a.k.a. Brooklyn Boulevard) thence southeasterly along
said right -of -way to point of beginning.
Section 35 -1170. SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT (Cl). The
following properties are hereby established as being within the
(Cl) Service /Office District zoning classification.
Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 7100 Corporate Plaza 2nd Addition
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after
adoption and upon (30) days following its legal publication.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new
matter) .
I move the passage c" `.he 1991 budget dollar amount. I move that an Jl. diate
freeze be placed on all hiring of new employees with the exception of the two
police officer positions requested and the police clerical support. I also
recommend a freeze on changes of employee status as it relates to title changes
and /or reclassification. All designated dollars for title changes, "
reclassification and new employees be placed into the general fund. furthe '%",
recommend the creation of a Citizens Advisory Task Force to evaluate the cities
current staffing patterns, programs and functions. The mission of the task
force is to develop a COST REDUCTION STRATEGY as it relates to functional
analysis (an in -depth analysis of program, functions, staffing). The task
force may recommend the use of an appropriate consultant. The task force will
be selected by the city council on or before the first council meeting in
February, 1991. The task force will provide a workplan for cost reduction
strategy to the city council at its first meeting in April, 1991.
MEMORANDUM
1
n
A 1 ,
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
DATE: December 14, 1990
SUBJECT: Impact of Anticipated State of Minnesota Revenue
Shortfall and 1991 Brooklyn Center Budget
For a number of weeks now the news media has been filled with
information regarding a possible state revenue shortfall which
could impact state aids to cities and other local governments.
Finance Director Holmlund and I have reviewed information
available and find that much of it is speculative in nature.
However, one thing has come through clearly and that is there
probably will be some significant shortfall in state revenue.
Also to an undetermined extent our 1991 projected state aid
revenues are in jeopardy.
Because factors place our 1991 state aids in jeopardy, I
recommend that concurrent with the passage of the 1991 budget a
hold be placed on those portions of the 1991 budget which call
for increases in personnel and /or major program expansions. I
would recommend this holding action remain in effect until such
time as the Governor and the state legislature have determined
the impacts of the anticipated shortfall in state revenues.
b
Ila,
(EHRABDGT)
Member introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
HRA RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BROOKLYN CENTER HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY BUDGET FOR THE YEAR 1991 PURSUANT TO MSA CHAPTER
469.033, SUBDIVISION 6 AND MSA CHAPTER 469.107, SUBDIVISION 1
------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment Authority
has considered the attached budget and finds that this budget is necessary
for the operation of the Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment
Authority during the year 1991:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority for the City of Brooklyn Center that the attached budget of
the Economic Development Authority for said City is hereby approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution, together
with the attached budget, be submitted to the City Council of the City
of Brooklyn Center.
-------------------- - - - - -- -------------------------------
Date Chairman
The motion for the adoption of the forgoing resolution was duly seconded
by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
i
(EEHRATR)
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
HRA RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE TAX LEVY FOR THE BROOKLYN CENTER
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR THE YEAR 1991
------------------------------------------------------------
BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the
City of Brooklyn Center as follows:
Section 1: That there be and hereby is levied a property tax for
the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, for the year 1991, at the
rate of 0.0131% of taxable market value of all taxable property, real
and personal, situated within the coroporate 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, for
the purpose of establishing an H.R.A. Fund and conducting the operation
of a H.R.A. pursuant to the provisions of MSA 469.001 through 469.047.
Section 2: That there be and hereby is levied an additional property
tax for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, for the year 1991, at
the rate of 0.0013% 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, for
the purpose of defraying costs of providing informational service and
relocation assistance as authorized by MSA 469.033, Subdivision 6.
Section 3: That the consent resolution by the City Council of the
City of Brooklyn Center to this special tax for the operation of the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority be attached to this resolution
and made part of it.
Section 4: That said tax rate and levy be certified to the County
Auditor of Hennepin County on or before December 28, 1990.
----------------------------- - - - - -- ---------------------------------
Date Chairman
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.
(AMEMODH)
��. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
TO: Mayor Dean Nyquist
Members of the City Council
Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Director of Finance
DATE: December 5, 1990
SUBJECT: TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO THE 1991 BUDGET
Prior to the adoption of the 1991 Budget, two technical corrections must be made to
it to reflect changes approved by the City Council after the Budget had been proposed.
These corrections are as follows:
---------------------------------
1. Forfeited drug money received in 1990 which will be unspent and closed
to the City Fund Balance on December 31, 1990. The City Council, on
December 3, approved the appropriation of these funds to the 1991 Budget.
a. Increase Appropriations as follows:
0 -----------------------------------
Police Protection
Training Account No. 4411 $ 6,000
Drug Task Force Account No. 4410 $ 3,008
Telephone and Telegraph Account No. 4322 $ 3,350
b. Increase Estimated Revenue as follows:
-------------------------------------
Transfer From Fund Balance Account No. 3960 $ 12,358
2. Pass - through money from the State of Minnesota to the West Hennepin Human
Services Planning Board for coordination and implementation of the
Community Energy Program the City has been jointly sponsoring since 1989
with the Cities of Crystal and Golden Valley.
a. Increase Appropriations as follows:
-----------------------------------
Planning and Inspection Department
Professional Services Account No. 4310 $ 6,998
b. Increase Estimated Revenue as follows:
--------------------------------------
State Grant for Energy Conservation Account No. 3348 $ 6,998
P aul o m un
(WWRTATB)Member introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 1991 FINAL BUDGET
-----------------------------------------
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the
appropriations for budgeted funds for the calendar year 1991 shall be:
GENERAL FUND
Unit No. Organizational Unit Amount
-- - - - - -- ------------------------------ - - - - -- ----- - - - - --
11 Council $ 76,276
12 Charter Commission 1,500
13 City Manager's Office 389,927
14 Elections and Voters' Registration 26,924
15 Assessing 191,221
16 Finance 372,184
17 Independent Audit 15,000
18 Legal Counsel 192,600
19 Government Buildings 484,694
20 Data Processing 227,136
31 Police Protection 2,839,704
32 Fire Protection 648,663
33 Planning and Inspection 292,930
34 Emergency Preparedness 71,093
35 Animal Control 22,876
41 Engineering 440,465
42 Street Construction and Maintenance 1,011,872
43 Vehicle Maintenance 423,569
44 Traffic Signs and Signals 37,000
45 Street Lighting 143,000
46 Weed Control 3,000
51 Health Regulation and Inspection 91,900
52 Social Services 26,532
61 Recreation and Parks Administration 299,286
62 Adult Recreation Programs 304,015
63 Teen Recreation Programs 13,975
64 Children's Recreation Programs 76,386
65 General Recreation Programs 87,253
66 Community Center 456,872
69 Parks Maintenance 722,242
70 Convention and Tourism Bureau 183,000
80 Unallocated Departmental Expense 853,846
Total General Fund $11,026,941
1980 PARK IMPROVEMENT BOND REDEMPTION FUND 363,363
1991 CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS REDEMPTION FUND 306,000
---- - - - - --
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR BUDGETED FUNDS $11,696,304 ;
= = == and = ==
RESOLUTION NO. - 90_ - - --
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 $ 5,619,134
Penalties and Interest on Property Taxes 20,000
Sales Taxes on Lodging 390,600
Business Licenses and Permits 184,900
Nonbusiness Licenses and Permits 130,100
Intergovernmental Revenue 2,255,067
General Government Charges for Services 126,800
Public Safety Charges for Services 17,000
Recreation Fees 734,545
Fines and Forfeits 285,000
Miscellaneous Revenue 1,034,000
Fund Balance Transfers 312,358
Transfers From Other Funds 586,800
TOTAL ESTIMATED SOURCE OF FINANCING $11,696,304
I ------------------------- ------------------------------------
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
thereof: and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
i
(IRTATL) Member introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A FINAL TAX LEVY FOR 1991 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 to the Hennepin County Auditor on or before September 1, 1990 and
a final tax levy on or before December 28, 1990.
Center: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
1. There is hereby approved for expenditures from general taxes, the
following sums for the purpose indicated:
GENERAL FUND $4,949,771
1991 CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS REDEMPTION FUND 306,000
$5,255,771
The foregoing does not include levies already certified to the County
Auditor for the payment of outstanding loans, which levies for the year 1991 are
as follows:
1980 PARK IMPROVEMENT BONDS REDEMPTION FUND $ -- 363,363
TOTAL EXPENDITURES FOR THE YEAR 1991 FROM GENERAL TAXES $5,619,134
2. Of the above amounts, $807,033 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 $5,255,771, 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
1991.
4. This final tax levy supersedes any taxes previously levied for taxes
payable in the year 1991 for the City of Brooklyn Center.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
thereof: and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
(EEHRACR)
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING A 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 1991
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Tax Levy for the Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment
Authority for the Year 1991 "; and
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 pro p ert
within the City of Brooklyn Center at the rate of 0.0144% of taxable market value
of all taxable property, real and personal, situated within the corporate limits
of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota and not exempted by the Constitution of
the State of Minnesota or the valid laws of the State of Minnesota.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the said property tax levy, to be used for
the operation of the Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment Authority
pursuant to the provisions of MSA 469.001 through 469.047, be certified for
tax levy to the County Auditor of Hennepin County on or before December 28, 1990.
--------------------------- - - - - -- ------------------------------------
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
er
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 12 /lg / 90
Agenda Item Number Q. .
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
ADMINISTRATIVE TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION REGARDING BROOKLYN BOULEVARD BETWEEN 49TH
AVENUE AND T.H. 100
********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL: '
SY KNAPP, DIRECTO PUBLIC WORKS
m.
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes )
On October 9, 1989 the City Council adopted a resolution requesting Hennepin County
Department of Transportation (HCDOT) to review existing conditions on CSAH 152
(Brooklyn Boulevard) between 49th Avenue North and T.H. 100, and to develop plans
for safety and access improvements to this segment of roadway.
A copy of HCDOT's 9/12/90 letter of response to the City's request is attached. In
summary, HCDOT's letter states that (refer to attached Exhibit A - location map and
Exhibit B - Existing Conditions)
• installation of a traffic control signal system at the Brooklyn Boulevard /51st
Avenue intersection is warranted by existing traffic volumes
• existing traffic volumes do not warrant the installation of a traffic control
signal system at the intersection of the south ramp terminal with Brooklyn
Boulevard. However,
o if the existing T.H. 100 OFF ramp for northbound traffic at 50th Avenue North
is closed (as currently proposed by MNDOT in conjunction with their plans to
upgrade T.H. 100 in Brooklyn Center), the resulting diversion of traffic to
the T.H. 100 /Brooklyn Boulevard interchange would increase the volume of
traffic using the intersection of the south ramp terminal with Brooklyn
Boulevard to a level which would warrant the installation of a traffic control
signal system at that intersection.
An additional consideration is that the City has previously discussed the possible
• realignment of Lilac Drive so that, instead of connecting to Brooklyn Boulevard at
51st Avenue, it would connect to Brooklyn Boulevard at the intersection of the south
ramp terminal for the T.H. 100 interchange (see Exhibit C attached). When this
concept was considered in 1983, it was considered as part of a larger concept which
also included the removal of both the OFF and ON ramps for northbound T.H. 100
• traffic at 50th Avenue, and the signalization of the Brooklyn Boulevard /ramp
terminal intersection. Consideration of that proposal was terminated in 1983
primarily because of neighborhood opposition to the closing of the ramps at 50th
Avenue.
After considering this historical perspective, MNDOT's plans for upgrading T.H. 100
(within the next 4 to 6 years) and HCDOT's analysis, the Administrative Traffic
Committee, on October 30, 1990, recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution
which
• requests HCDOT to proceed with installation of a traffic control signal system
at the Brooklyn Boulevard /51st Avenue intersection as soon as possible.
(Note: It is estimated that the total cost of this installation would be
$80,000 to $100,000, and that these costs would be split 50/50 between HCDOT
and the City. Regular Municipal State Aid Street funds could pay for one -half
of the City share, while the other one -half could be charged to the "local"
MSA fund)
• requests that MNDOT and HCDOT develop plans for closing the 50th Avenue ramps
from T.H. 100 and installing a traffic control signal at the Brooklyn
Boulevard /south ramp terminal, in cooperation with the City's plan to develop
a new Lilac Drive connection to this intersection.
Note The resolution as written requests that these changes also be made as
soon as possible. If the Council prefers to wait for these changes to be made
• in conjunction with MNDOT's schedule for upgrading T.H. 100 to freeway
standards (i.e., 1993 - 1997), the resolution should be amended accordingly.
The estimated cost for these traffic signals is also $80,000 to $100,000.
However, on this location, MNDOT should pay 25% of the cost, HCDOT should pay
50%, and the City 25% (from local MSA funds). In addition, the City would
have to pay the entire costs for developing the new Lilac Drive connection to
this intersection, i.e. - $50,000 to $100,000, depending on the extent and
details developed for this connection.
City Council Action Required
- Review and discussion of this report.
- Consider adoption of the attached resolution.
xkxx�Yx��Y�Y�Yx�Y�Y�Yx�Y�x�' c�Yx�Yx�Yxxx�xxxx�Y���Yxx�Y��x�xxx��Y�Y�Y�Yxx��Y�Y�Y�Y�Yx�xxx�Yxk��� :�Y�sti�Yxxx�� kT'-T'n'ns�
Note Additional information for the 12/3/90 Council meeting
Attached is a copy of Hennepin County's diagrams showing the results of their 16-
hour (6:00 a.m, to 10:00 p.m.) traffic counts, taken in April, 1990. (Note:
Approximately 90 percent of daily traffic occurs within this 16 -hour period. The
estimated 24 -hour counts have been shown in parenthesis on each leg of the
intersection).
Also An alternate resolution which simply requests HCDOT to install a traffic
control signal system at the 51st Avenue intersection is also provided for
consideration by the City Council.
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO CSAH 152 (BROOKLYN BOULEVARD) BETWEEN
49TH AVENUE AND T.H. 100
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 89 -194 the Hennepin
County Department of Transportation ( HCDOT) has reviewed existing conditions
and problems relating to CSAH 152 (Brooklyn Boulevard) between 49th Avenue
North and T.H. 100 and has reported to the City that:
• installation of a traffic control signal system at the intersection of
CSAH 152 (Brooklyn Boulevard) with 51st Avenue North is warranted by
existing traffic volumes; and that
• existing traffic volumes at the intersection of CSAH 152 (Brooklyn
Boulevard) with the south ramp terminal at the T.H. 100 interchange do
not warrant installation of a traffic control signal system at that
intersection; but that
o if the existing OFF ramp for northbound traffic at 50th Avenue is
closed, as currently proposed by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MNDOT) in conjunction with their plans for the future
upgrading of T.H. 100, then the resulting diversion of traffic to the
T.H. 100 /Brooklyn Boulevard interchange would increase the volume of
traffic using the intersection of CSAH 152 with the south ramp terminal
to a level which would warrant the installation of a traffic control
signal system at that intersection.
AND WHEREAS, the City Council supports the closing of the ON and OFF
ramps for northbound traffic at 50th Avenue, as soon as possible, if a traffic
signal system is concurrently installed at the intersection of CSAH 152
(Brooklyn Boulevard) with the south ramp terminal from T.H. 100.
AND WHEREAS, the City Council recommends that, if traffic signals are
installed at the CSAH 152 /T.H. 100 south ramp terminal intersection,
consideration should be given to revising the geometric design of that
intersection to include a direct connection from Lilac Drive to that
intersection.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. HCDOT is hereby requested to proceed with the installation of a
traffic control signal system at the CSAH 152 /51st Avenue North
intersection as soon as possible, based on a cooperative agreement
to be developed for this improvement.
RESOLUTION NO.
2. MNDOT is requested to develop plans for closing the ON and OFF
ramps for northbound traffic at 50th Avenue North and to proceed
with these changes as soon as possible.
3. MNDOT and HCDOT are requested to proceed with installation of a
traffic control signal system at the intersection of CSAH 152 with
the south ramp terminal for T.H. 100, such installation to be
complete before the ramps at 50th Avenue are closed, based on a
cooperative agreement to be developed for this improvement; and
4. MNDOT and HCDOT are requested to cooperate with City staff to
develop plans for geometric redesign of the CSAH 152 /T.H. 100
south ramp terminal intersection to include a direct connection
from Lilac Drive to that intersection.
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.
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION TO INSTALL A TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM ON
CSAH 152 (BROOKLYN BOULEVARD) AT 51ST AVENUE NORTH
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 89 -194 the Hennepin
County Department of Transportation ( HCDOT) has reviewed existing conditions
and problems relating to CSAH 152 (Brooklyn Boulevard) between 49th Avenue
North and T.H. 100 and has reported to the City that installation of a traffic
control signal system at the intersection of CSAH 152 (Brooklyn Boulevard)
with 51st Avenue North is warranted by existing traffic volumes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that HCDOT is hereby requested to proceed with the
installation of a traffic control signal system at the CSAH 152 /51st Avenue
North intersection as soon as possible, based on a cooperative agreement to be
developed for this improvement.
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.
rp
FRANCE o AVE. N
cn C
< CA n >< -
J EWING AVE. rTl N. z v
-�
LD
D �;<'
rn
DREW -' AVE. N. D
_
r� rr� o �
z a ti � -� ;-
X
O SSFO
ABBOTT AVE. \-o--ul �G = `_� E3�OOK
,\ Ul
t < X T x
o� � ►.._-
�
ZENITH ' o " zm
z '
r
tt N
k
w
XERXES ». AVE. N. - N
/ cn r'
r -
:D
/ YASHBUR AVE-N.-° n
O (A
�.� _{ -{ U) N lif'T( N� 11VF NN, I lz
CD
05
-4 M
DREW A vE.
_..._ .._
0�
1 t <--- -
0 .A S �-q� Z z cn
((n n Fy`L m D
n N
-A o .
lq C' 0
ABBOTT AVE.
.n D
v\ E
n � ZENITH rn
M D z -
m
OM
N ---°�
XERXES AVE. N.
L1lASUBURN AVE._N, r�
EXISTING �
SIGNALS N. L I L A C r
SIGNALIZE
INTERSECTION
CONSTRUCT NEW CONNECTION:
LILAC DR. TO BROOKLYN BLVD.
OPPOSITE EXISTING
INTERCNANGc RAMPS �
Q 52 ND ,&V
U:
51 S T. ' <
SIGNALIZE
I NTERSECTION �,
w a
1 CLOSE x
cn
ENTRANCE w �
RAMP > w , w c�r�
50TH AVE. N. cfl
O CLOSE
F ;
EXIT
� RAMP o _ cs� .
cn z
ExISTINC
49TH Q N SIG
Qi
EXHIBIT C
HENNEPIN COUNTY BUREAU OF PUBLIC SERVICE -- - �- - - -- - - - --
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS __� - df sTR1ANS 3
19,676
PLANNING SECTION CsA� X52 1 17703
TRAFFIC MOVRENT STUDY AT 5/ .9vE N 2 LAVE APP
Ti(E 3 AP/Z / L &?,0 - wl: oo 4M - 2:OD PAf 15 8/5 r
DATE WEp 4 1990 - 2 -0o PM - /D.'DD PM F
TIDE OF STUDYs /6 h/ode ro Q
STUDY NO. 1793 WEATHERe CL EAR 4
rn �
m co t`
6
I 1
i ii 2G� • 20 6 1417 1)6 T
H I I
c l
I cn I ^ 3o 14A, ~
Iwl N
Iwl
iii 0 2 /9 . 10 N iii
58 12
V s ro P _--t-- - N to
NOTE: ESTIMATED
I
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
8320 13 COUNTS ARE SHOWN
NEM+EPIN 2 LANE AoP IN PARENTHESIS ( )
PREPARED BY RZ 21 i6'or
CHECKED BY W L ___ 137�18j __ -- SHEET /
Zf[PEDES RIANS 16 ____
_ 1_
7
HENNEPIN COUNTY BUREAU OF PUBLIC SERVICE ----------
f
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS - 3�PEDESTRIANS
PLANNING SECTION �o0 23 F
TRAFFIC MOVELENT STUDY AT 4 2 LAvB APP
Tub 3 AP2 /L /990 - 6: oo AM - 2%o0 PAf 15 53 2 r
DATE WED 4 APRIL. 1990 - 2-oo PM - /O.'DD PAI � � ti F ^ �
TIRE OF STUDYs 41+1 PEA14C 11ou 7:oo -BOO
STUDY NO. / 783 WEATFERs CZ EAR_ 41 1
o ao t-
1 1 �
I N I 6 123 I t 1 S
l l /6 20 1 5 i N, ill f`
II v 4 7 -
� M .N' L /L of -2, - - S / s AVE �✓' _ mi l.
iwl N 30 MoN lwl
In-1 q 6' 10 N Inwl
u
w 0 11 1 18 .3
n Q
^
/ 12 1 1
� (� � .�- N to
ST o P .mot' _ N
Q
� 361 13
�' 2 G4HE Af'O
MINEPIN
PREPARED BY R/- 1211 865
CHECKED BY W L SHEET 2
____
_Z�PEDES RIAIJS_.3_____
P
HENNEPIN COUNTY BUREAU OF PUBLIC SERVICE -- =PE {
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS - -D3 DESTRIANS o____
f
PLANNING SECTION CsA,� 1 7 06 ' 23
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT STUDY AT 5/ sT ,9►iE N. 2 LAND APP �
7uE 3 AP2 /L 7990 - * G : oo ,4M - 2 "pp PN/ 1 15 6 7'
z ,
DATE HIED 4 APRI[. /9 90 - 2:00 PM - /D 'DD PM N a F Q,
TIME OF STUDYs Aq g6,4 ,youe 4: .5.' 4.5 h o
STUDY NO. 179-3 WEATFERI CL Ef1R 4
m co tom- ;
t
�• i 6 12
j a i +- 26 20 I 5
II N 4 8 ij
I 4 L /L f C -A S S r f� ✓�C .,� �v I I i
of h - - 30 MoN Icni
l a--i / 10 N I
Ivl 41 6 12 I 18 /¢
i j
i I �
-S 7 - 0, 0 ti
io24 13
HElNEPIN T 2 441v A°P
PREPARED BY RL 21 iG 23 '
C1 -ECKED BY W L'
___ =�PEDES RIANS o •____
1
s
NORTH METRO MAYORS ASSOCIATION
Organized 1985
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
JOSEPH D. STRAUSS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
NORTH METRO MAYORS ASSOCIATION
612/493 -5115
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NOVEMBER 28, 1990
NORTHERN COMMUNITIES OPPOSE TOLL ROAD ISSUE
The Mayors of Maple Grove, Brooklyn Park, Blaine, Coon Rapids, Spring Lake Park and
Anoka County Commissioners have been joined by the North Metro Mayors Associations
in opposing the 16 mile toll road proposed last week by the Minnesota Tollway
Authority, Inc.
The following joint statement was released today by Mayor Elwyn Tinklenberg of Blaine,
President of the North Metro Mayors Association.
"While the Mayors and Anoka County Commissioners generally support the concept of
innovative public /private ventures to construct and operate transportation facilities, they
believe that this proposal skims the cream off an already in -place and programmed
highway project."
"Our communities have waited some 30 years for TH 10 and TH 610 to work its way
through various stages of governmental approval. Both projects have now been identified
as high priorities for design and construction, with funding committed for TH 10. The
need for TH 10 and TH 610 Crosstown is great. It addresses a continuing east -west
access problem for our communities. TH 10 and TH 610 needs to be built. It is the
highest transportation priority for the communities of the North Metro area. It should
be built as part of the total metropolitan transportation system. But not as a toll road."
"We are particularly disappointed that the proponents of this idea never bothered to come
to the communities directly affected by this proposal. They just simply announced one
day that construction of a toll road would begin in the fall of 1991. Their approach to
this proposal is presumptuous, and demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of what
the public's reaction would be."
8525 Edinbrook Crossing, Suite 5, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55443
Telephone 612- 493 -5115 FAX 612- 424 -1174
"This proposal is unfair to the communities of the North Metro area as major portions
of this proposed project have already been paid for in terms of right- away- acquisition,
environmental impact statement work, design and initial construction."
'We will not permit outsiders to determine the fate of our communities' transportation
system. Our voices will be singly focused: TH 10 and TH 610 Crosstown will not be
a toll road!"
The following communities comprise the North Metro Mayors Association (NMMA):
Anoka, Blaine, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Centerville, Champlin,
Columbia Heights, Coon Rapids, Crystal, Dayton, Fridley, Lino Lakes,
Minneapolis, New Brighton, New Hope, Ramsey, Robbinsdale, Spring Lake Park
-30-
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 12 /18/90
Agenda Item Number /Re,
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
HENNEPIN RECYCLING GROUP - PLASTIC'S PROGRAM
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Ci Mana '
Signature - title
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
Attached please find a copy of a memorandum to the Hennepin Recycling Group board members (HRG)
relating to a summary of the HRG's plans to add plastics and corrugated cardboard to our curbside
collection. The memorandum explains the rationale behind expanding the recycling program to include
these items in the requirements of Hennepin County. The Council should be advised that the current
per monthly rate for recycling will not have to be changed to accommodate these increased costs.
This increase can be absorbed because the citizens of the three communities involved in the HRG
produced a rate of recycling of glass, cans, and newspapers which qualified for very high
reimbursement payment from Hennepin County.
RECOMMENDATION We recommend the City Council give favorable consideration to the attached
resolution authorizing the addition of plastic and corrugated cardboard to our recycling utility
service.
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH
BROWNING FERRIS INDUSTRIES
WHEREAS, on October 9, 1990, the Hennepin County Board
adopted Resolution 90 -10 -869, which sets forth municipal
requirements to collect all plastic bottles by the spring of
1991; and
WHEREAS, the 1991 Hennepin County Funding Policy
further requires municipal curbside recycling programs to include
the collection of corrugated cardboard in order to receive County
funding reimbursement; and
WHEREAS, the Hennepin Recycling Group Board must
negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding to expand the existing
curbside program to include the collection of other materials;
and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County staff members were invited to
attend Hennepin Recycling Group negotiation meetings with
Browning Ferris Industries, but chose not to attend meetings, so
HRG staff involved County staff in negotiations with BFI by
telephone and facsimile communications; and
WHEREAS, the HRG Board has found the increase in price
per Certified Dwelling Unit (CDU) per month requested by BFI to
be justified.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of
Brooklyn Center approves the Memorandum of Understanding with
BFI, allowing a $0.45 per month increase in the price per CDU,
and directs staff to proceed with expanding the curbside service
according to the time schedules set forth in the Memorandum of
Understanding under the condition that Hennepin County staff
agrees that the increased cost per CDU is authorized for 1991
County Funding Reimbursement.
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.
XEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
The Hennepin Recycling Group (HRG) and Woodlake SaniLdry
Services, Inc., hereby agree to tho following changes to the
terms Of their Residential Lurbside Recycling contract dated
February 16, 1989, as allowed in Section 9.A., Additional
Recycling Collection Services.
Material
1. Collection of all plastic addnl. $.34 /HH /mo.
bottles with neck, as specified
in Hennepin County regulations
to the existing curbside program_
2. Collection of corrugated card- addnl. $.06/HH /mo.
board, flattened, to the existing
curbside program.
The above price adjustments shall become effective as of
February 4, 1991.
Be it further agreed that the contract price adjustment per
CDU per -month to become effective January 1, 1991, shall be
S.05 per Cni1 per month, which brings the price per CDU from
$1.15 Lu $1.20.
HENNEPIN RECYCLING GROUP WOODLAKE SANITARY SERVICE, INC.
BY BY
(hair District Manager
DATE DATE
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 12/18/90
Agenda Item Number — / ,-,:) , C/
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
AUTHORIZATION OF PAYMENT OF 1990 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES DUES
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
City Mana er
Signature - title
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report ( Comments below/attached-
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
Attached please find a copy of a chronology of Brooklyn Center's efforts to address the League of
• Minnesota Cities establishment of the LMCIT institutional fee. The Council will recall that they
placed a hold on the payment of the 1990 League of Minnesota Cities dues until such time as the
League of Minnesota Cities demonstrated they were effectively addressing Brooklyn Center's concern
regarding this issue. This last fall, Mayor Nyquist received a letter indicating the League of
Minnesota Cities had established a formal process which will effectively and impartially review the
LMCIT institutional fee issue. We believe this action represents significant commitment on the part
of the League of Minnesota Cities to address Brooklyn Center's concerns regarding this issue.
RECOMMENDATION We recommend the City Council's favorable consideration of the attached
resolution authorizing the payment of the 1990 League of Minnesota Cities dues.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES
LMCIT ISSUE - CHRONOLOGY
FALL OF 1988
LMCIT Board of Directors discussed the imposition of an institutional fee as
requested by the League's Executive Director Don Slater. Paul Holmlund, Board
Member from Brooklyn Center, registered his objections.
WINTER OF 1988
LMCIT Board of Directors votes to agree to the imposition of a 1.5% Institutional
Fee. Holmlund votes no.
League Board of Directors adopts the recommendation to impose the fee as of
1/1/89.
SPRING OF 1989
Gerald Splinter, City Manager of Brooklyn Center, meets with Don Slater to
discuss the concerns that Paul Holmlund raised regarding the Institutional Fee.
SUMMER OF 1989
Brooklyn Center City Council discusses the institutional fee imposition and
reviews the information on the history of the League's action.
FALL OF 1989
Brooklyn Center City Council adopts a resolution protesting the imposition of the
Institutional Fee.
WINTER OF 1989
League President Millie Macleod sends letter to all City Council Members
explaining the Board's procedure in adopting the institutional fee.
The League publication - Minn. Cities reprints President Macleod's letter.
Mayor Dean Nyquist sends a letter to all Mayors of Minnesota regarding the
institutional fee along with copy of the Brooklyn Center resolution.
President Macleod, Mayor Bob Benke of New Brighton (Vice- President of the
League), and Don Slater met with Mayor Nyquist, Councilmember Cohen, City Manager
Splinter, and Finance Director Paul Holmlund to discuss the issue.
Mayor Nyquist sends letter to President Macleod thanking her for the meeting and
expressed our willingness to work with the League to satisfy the concerns of
Brooklyn Center.
SUMMER OF 1990
Bob Benke elected President of the League and proceeds to establish committees to
examine the institutional fee and the programs it is designed to serve.
Nyquist, Splinter, and Cohen meet with Bob Benke to review the progress regarding
the institutional fee issue.
Benke sends letter to Mayor Nyquist outlining the approach he and the Board are
using to address the concerns of Brooklyn Center.
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT OF 1990 LEAGUE OF
MINNESOTA CITIES DUES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center objects to the imposition of a 1.5% institutional fee on
the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust for League
purposes; and
WHEREAS, the League of Minnesota Cities board of
directors adopted the imposition of the institutional fee as of
January 1, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center communicated its objections to this fee along with
numerous other cities in Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, through the efforts of LMC President Benke, a
process for review of Brooklyn Center's concerns relating to the
institutional fee has been established.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Brooklyn Center that it commends the action of the
League of Minnesota Cities board of directors to establish a
process for reviewing the credibility of the LMCIT institutional
fee and hereby authorizes the payment of the 1990 League of
Minnesota Cities dues.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member , and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date /-;z / gQ
Agenda Rem Number `I-
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
1991 LIQUOR LICENSES FOR RENEWAL
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
w
Signature - toe - Ja s Lindsay, Chief of Police
* * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ** * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached yes )
Attached is a list of 1991 liquor licenses up for renewal, with the exception of the
Duoos Brothers American Legion, which is a separate item. The department has all
information required with the exception of two license holders; the Days Inn and the
Yen Ching Restaurant. As this is the last opportunity for the City Council to
approve the licenses, we have included these two on the list and ask that they be
passed contingent on submittal of missing supporting documents.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve the attached list of liquor licenses for renewal in 1991.
•
e
L � YN cFH
POLICE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
POLICE
TO: City Manager Gerald G. Splinter
FROM: Chief James Lindsay
DATE: December 13, 1990
SUBJECT: Police Department Liquor License Annual Report
The following is a summary of the calls for service and police action taken in and around
establishments which hold on -sale beer, wine or liquor licenses within the corporate limits
of the city of Brooklyn Center. This report is based on data collected between January 1,
1990, and October 31, 1990.
There are 20 licensed establishments included in this report. There were a total of 713
calls for service involving these 20 licensed establishments. Of these, eight were background
investigations regarding owners and managers of the establishments; 39 citations for parking
violations; and 81 calls to assist individuals who had locked their keys in their car. These
service related calls accounted for 18% of the total calls for service. The remaining 72%
of the calls or 624 calls for service were in a variety of categories.
There were nine incidents of drug arrests made in or near establishments holding liquor
licenses. Seven of these nine arrests were created by the North Hennepin /Anoka Task
Force and the liquor license establishments were used as a common ground for the
exchange of drugs and money. It should be noted that the cooperation of the management,
especially in the hotels, aided in these arrests. The other two incidents were drugs found
on an individual arrested for another offense and charged as a result of the search of the
person.
The American Legion Club - 4307 70th Avenue North
There were nine reported incidents at the American Legion Club. This license will be
covered under a separate memo.
Memorandum to City Manager Gerald G. Splinter
Page 2
December 13, 1990
Applebee's - 1347 Brookdale Center
There were 22 incidents reported at this location.
1 - Aid and Assist
2 - Medicals
S - Miscellaneous Publics
1 - Rules and Regulations
1 - Suspicious Activity
2 - Thefts
1 - Found Property
6 - Bar Checks
The rules and regulations violation was the result of a Health Department inspection.
Beacon Bowl - 6525 Lyndale Avenue North
There were two calls for service to this establishment during the reporting period. One of
these calls consisted of four juveniles attempting to take cases of beer from a delivery truck
outside the establishment.
2 - Theft
Chuck Wagon Inn - 5720 Morgan Avenue North
There were two calls to the Chuck Wagon Inn during the reporting period. In one case the
management contacted the police department for assistance in removing an intoxicated
patron.
1 - Aid and Assist
1 - Miscellaneous Public
Davanni's - 5937 Summit Drive
There were nine calls for service to Davanni's during the reporting period. The majority
of these incidents (five) were lock -outs. The incident of note is the strong -arm robbery of
a patron in the parking lot.
5 - Lockouts
1 - Miscellaneous Public
1 - Vandalism
1 - Robbery
1 - Animal Impound
y
Memorandum to City Manager Gerald G. Splinter
Page 3
December 13, 1990
Days Inn - 1501 Freeway Boulevard
There were 107 calls for service to the Days Inn. The majority of these calls had nothing
to do with the liquor operation. There were, however, two calls to assist in removing
intoxicated individuals to the Detox Center. One incident was of a drug arrest which was
set up by the Task Force. One of the six medicals was a call to the bar where a patron was
later transported to North Memorial Medical Center and some warrant arrests made as a
result of calls to the bar area.
3 - Assault
1 - Background
2 - Detox
3 - Disturbing the Peace
1 - Drugs
3 - Forgery
1 - False Alarm
13 - Lockouts
6 - Medicals
31 - Miscellaneous Public
1 - Driving Violation
13 - Parking Violations
1 - Property Damage Accident
3 - Suspicious Activity
10 - Theft
1 - Abandoned Property
3 - Others
7 - Assist to Other Agencies
2 - Bar Checks
2 - Rules and Regulations
Dayton's Restaurant - 1100 Brookdale Center
There was one call to the restaurant, a miscellaneous public. Allegedly there was a fight
in the restaurant. The participants were gone upon the arrival of the police department.
Denny's Restaurant - 3901 Lakebreeze Avenue North
There were 19 calls for service during the reporting period. Of these, one individual was
taken to detox after the police department was called to assist management with a patron.
One was arrested for disturbing the peace and a rules and regulations violation was noted
during a health department inspection.
1 - Detox
2 - Disturbing the Peace
6 - Lockouts
1 - Medical
Memorandum to City Manager Gerald G. Splinter
Page 4
December 13, 1990
4 - Miscellaneous Public
3 - Theft
1 - Rules and Regulations
Earle Brown Bowl - 6440 James Circle
There were 78 calls for service to the Earle Brown Bowl during the reporting period.
Employees contacted the police department to assist them in removing a patron and one
was sent to detox. There were five medicals, but only one relating to the bar where a
patron fell or passed out. In reviewing the two accidents, both drivers were arrested for
driving while intoxicated. The balance of the calls for service were related primarily to the
operation of the bowling alley.
1 - Background
1 - Detox
2 - Forgery
2 - Hit and Run Accidents
12 - Lockouts
5 - Medicals
26 - Miscellaneous Public
1 - Obstructing Legal Process
2 - Parking Violations
1 - PD Accident
1 - PI Accident
9 - Theft
6 - Vandalism
2 - Bar Checks
1 - Domestics
1 - Obscenity
4 - All Others
1 - Property Recovered
50's Grill - 5524 Brooklyn Boulevard
There were six calls for service to this license holding establishment during the reporting
period.
1 - Miscellaneous Public
1 - Motor Vehicle Theft
2 - Theft
1 - Burglary
1 - Dog Disturbing
Memorandum to City Manager Gerald G. Splinter
Page 5
December 13, 1990
Ground Round - 2545 County Road 10
There were 29 calls for service to the Ground Round during the reporting period. The
incidents of theft primarily consisted of no -pays from the restaurant while the rules and
regulations violation was a citation issued to a taxicab picking up a fare without a license.
1 - Aid and Assist
2 - False Alarms
4 - Lockouts
4 - Miscellaneous Public
2 - PD Accident
5 - Theft
2 - Vandalism
6 - Bar Checks
1 - Forgery
1 - Rules and Regulations
1 - Other
Holiday Inn - 2200 Freeway Boulevard
The 265 calls for service to the Holiday Inn constituted 37.3% of the total number of calls
for the highest percentage of any license holding establishment. It should be noted that the
majority of these calls, however, related to the portions of the Holiday Inn outside the bar
area. It is significant to note that the staff and management contacted the police
department to remove five patrons who were subsequently sent to the Detox Center and of
the seven drug violations for which arrests were made at the Holiday Inn, six of these were
made by the North Hennepin /Anoka Task Force which received cooperation from the
Holiday Inn management. Incidents of medical emergencies were called in by the restaurant
and hotel and the obscenity case was an intoxicated individual and the police were called
by staff. Eleven calls concerning other jurisdictions were warrant arrests made in and near
the Holiday Inn.
1 - Aid and Assist
2 - Assaults
10 - Bar Check
3 - Background
5 - Detox
4 - Disturbing the Peace
7 - Drugs
2 - False Alarms
3 - Forgeries
4 - Hit and Run Accidents
25 - Lockouts
8 - Medicals
86 - Miscellaneous Public
Memorandum to City Manager Gerald G. Splinter
Page 6
December 13, 1990
3 - Motor Vehicle Theft
4 - Obstructing Legal Process
1 - Obscenity
11 - Parking Violations
2 - PI Accidents
11 - Suspicious Activities
15 - Theft
10 - Vandalism
11 - Other Jurisdictions
18 - All Others
10 - Property Found
La Casita Restaurant - 2101 Freewav Boulevard
There were 16 incidents to which the Brooklyn Center Police Department responded at this
establishment. None related to the liquor license or its operation.
1 - Aid and Assist
2 - False Alarms
4 - Lockouts
1 - Medicals
1 - Miscellaneous Public
1 - Motor Vehicle Theft
2 - Theft
1 - Vandalism
1 - Other Jurisdictions
1 - Burglary
1 - Property Found
Little Brooklyn - 6219 Brooklyn Boulevard
There were two calls for service to this establishment, neither of which related to the
operation of the liquor license.
1 - False Alarm
1 - Medical
Lynbrook Bowl - 6357 North Lilac Drive
There were 79 calls to this establishment during the reporting period. The majority of these
calls were miscellaneous calls for service and parking violations. Of significance are two
arrests for drug violations, one made by the Task Force using the parking lot as a meeting
place. The other, a possession of controlled substance found as the result of an arrest on
another charge.
Memorandum to City Manager Gerald G. Splinter
Page 7
December 13, 1990
1 - Aid and Assist
1 - Assault
1 - Background
2 - Drugs
5 - Lockouts
25 - Miscellaneous Public
1 - Motor Vehicle Theft
1 - Obstructing Legal Process
13 - Parking Violations
5 - Suspicious Activities
6 - Theft
2 - Vandalism
2 - Other Jurisdictions
6 - Bar Checks
5 - Driving Violations
2 - Other
Pizza Hut - 6002 Shingle Creek Parkway
There were eight calls for service to this establishment during the reporting period, none
of which were related to the operation of the liquor license.
1 - Aid and Assist
1 - Background
3 - Miscellaneous Public
1 - Suspicious Activity
2 - Theft
Red Lobster - 7235 Brooklyn Boulevard
There were 28 calls for service during the reporting period. There was a call of a patron
with a gun disturbing in March of 1990. This individual was arrested. Moreover, there was
a driving while intoxicated arrest made at the Red Lobster. This was the result of driving
violations in the city of Brooklyn Park.
1 - Background
1 - Disturbing the Peace
6 - False Alarms
4 - Lockouts
3 - Medicals
5 - Miscellaneous Public
1 - Suspicious Activity
3 - Theft
1 - Vandalism
1 - Other Jurisdictions
1 - Loose Dog
D
Memorandum to City Manager Gerald G. Splinter
Page 8
December 13, 1990
Scoreboard Pizza - 6800 Humboldt Avenue North
There were nine calls for service to this liquor establishment during the reporting period,
none of which related to the operation of the liquor license.
1 - Aid and Assist
1 - False Alarm
2 - Lockouts
2 - Miscellaneous Public
1 - Suspicious Activity
2 - Theft
T. Wright's - 5800 Shingle Creek Parkway
There were 21 calls for service to this licensed establishment during the reporting period.
There was an arrest made for a drug transaction. This was made by the Task Force in the
parking lot.
1 - Drugs
5 - False Alarms
1- Lockout
1 - Medical
4 - Miscellaneous Public
2 - Motor Vehicle Theft
4 - Theft
1 - Vandalism
2 - Bar Checks
Yen Ching Restaurant - 5900 Shingle Creek Parkway
There was one call for service to this licensed establishment, that being a burglary in March
of 1990.
ON -SALE INTOXICATING LIOUOR LICENSES:
CLASS A: $8,000.00
General Mills Restaurants, Inc
d /b /a Red Lobster Restaurant
7235 Brooklyn Boulevard
Brooklyn Center, MN 55429
CLASS B: $11
Midwest Restaurant Association, Inc.
d /b /a Applebee's
1347 Brookdale Center
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Integra
d /b /a Days Inn
1501 Freeway Boulevard
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Earle Brown Bowl, Inc.
d /b /a Earle Brown Bowl
6440 James Circle North
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
The Ground Round, Inc.
d /b /a Ground Round Restaurant
2545 County Road 10
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Larken, Inc.
d /b /a Holiday Inn
2200 Freeway Boulevard
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
ON -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSES (Continued):
CLASS B (Continued):
S.A.H. Corp
d /b /a LaCasita Restaurant
2101 Freeway Boulevard
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
The Matarese, Inc.
d /b /a T. Wrights Restaurant
5800 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
CLASS C: $14
Steven J. Nelson, Inc.
d /b /a Lynbrook Bowl
6357 North Lilac Drive
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
CLASS F: $5,000
Omega Foods d /b /a Atrium Catering
Earle Brown Heritage Center
6155 Earle Brown Drive
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
SUNDAY: $200
Midwest Restaurant Association d /b /a Applebee's
Omega Foods d /b /a Atrium Catering (Earle Brown Heritage Center)
Integra d /b /a Days Inn
Earle Brown Bowl, Inc. d /b /a Earle Brown Bowl
ON -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSES (Continued):
Sunday (Continued):
The Ground Round, Inc. d /b /a Ground Round Restaurant
Larken, Inc. d /b /a Holiday Inn
S.A.H. Corp. d /b /a LaCasita Restaurant
Steven J. Nelson, Inc. d /b /a Lynbrook Bowl
General Mills Restaurants d /b /a Red Lobster
The Matarese, Inc. d /b /a T. Wrights Restaurant
ON -SALE WINE LICENSES: $2
Iron Horse Liquors, Inc.
d /b /a Dayton's Brookdale Inn
1100 Brookdale Center
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Denny's Inc
d /b /a Denny's Restaurant #1284
3901 Lakebreeze Avenue North
Brooklyn Center, MN 55429
Yen Ching Restaurant
5900 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
ON -SALE NONINTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSE: $500
Beacon Bowl
6525 Lyndale Avenue North
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
City of Brooklyn Center
d /b /a Centerbrook Golf Course & Central Park Concessions
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
The Chuck Wagon Inn
1928 57th Avenue North
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Davanni's, Inc.
d /b /a Davanni's
5937 Summit Drive
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Iron Horse Liquors, Inc.
d /b /a Dayton's Brookdale Inn
1100 Brookdale Center
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Denny's Inc
d /b /a Denny's Restaurant #1284
3901 Lakebreeze Avenue North
Brooklyn Center, MN 55429
Brooklyn Center Restaurants, Inc.
d /b /a The 50's Grill
5524 Brooklyn Boulevard
Brooklyn Center, MN 55429
Little Brooklyn Restaurant
6219 Brooklyn Boulevard
Brooklyn Center, MN 55429
ON -SALE NONINTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSE (Continued
Pizza Huts of the Northwest, Inc.
d /b /a Pizza Hut #426005
6000 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Scoreboard Pizza, Inc.
d /b /a Scoreboard Pizza
6816 Humboldt Avenue North
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Yen Ching Restaurant
5900 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
OFF -SALE NONINTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSE: $100
Country Club Market, Inc.
d /b /a Country Club Market
5715 Morgan Avenue North
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Jerry's Enterprises, Inc.
d /b /a Country Store - Brooklyn Center
3600 63rd Avenue North
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Birch Bru, Inc.
d /b /a SuperAmerica #4160
6545 West River Road
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Birch Bru, Inc.
d /b /a SuperAmerica #4058
1901 57th Avenue North
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date
Agenda Item Number 3 /
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Duoos Brothers American Legion Post #630 1991 Liquor License Renewal Request
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
2
Signature - ti e - James Lindsay, Chief of Police
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached X
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
• SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached yes
Attached is a memorandum that illustrates the police activity in 1990. A report summary showing police
activity from 1969 to 1990 has also been submitted with the Legion's Charitable Gambling Renewal
Request. This report illustrates the American Legion's inability to properly manage a Liquor and
Charitable Gambling establishment by giving detailed facts of incidents.
Because of the increase in the number of incidents in the 1980's, the Legion has experience both
suspension and revocation of their licenses. The Legion has not followed through with their
commitment to change.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Police Department recommends that the American Legion be put on notice in 1991 to improve the
management operation or their liquor license would be in jeopardy.
Licenses to be approved by the City Council on December 18, 1990: l
BOWLING ALLEY /
Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle ') \ • �,�.� -��
City Clerk
CIGARETTE (OVER THE COUNTER SALES)
Brookdale Unocal 76 5710 Xerxes Ave. N.
Brooks Food Market 6804 Humboldt Ave. N.
Centerbrook Golf Course 5500 N. Lilac Drive
Country Store 3600 63rd Ave. N.
Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle
F & M Distributors 5951 Earle Brown Drive
Snyder Bros., Inc. 1296 Brookdale Center
Superamerica 1901 57th Ave. N.
Superamerica 6545 West River Road
T. Wright's 5800 Shingle Ck. Pkwy.
Target 6100 Shingle Ck. Pkwy.
City Clerk
COURTESY BENCH l'1
U. S. Bench Corporation 3300 Snelling Avenue
City Clerk
GASOLINE SERVICE STATION
The Howe Company 4821 Xerxes Ave. N.
Neil's Total 1505 69th Ave. N.
Osseo Brooklyn Bus Co. 4435 68th Ave. N.
Thompson Lumber Company 4810 N. Lilac Drive
City Clerk Clerk 1--L
LODGING ESTABLISHMENT - P, (A 4��
Northwest Residence 4408 69th Ave. N.
Sanitarian Ail
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS n
Total Mechanical Services, Inc. 153 E. Thompson Ave.
Building Official
PUBLIC DANCE
Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle
City Clerk
C
RENTAL DWELLINGS
Initial:
Keith and Jane Olson 4107 Janet Lane
Michael D. Hogenson 3813 Urban Ave. N.
M & J Properties 2805 67th Lane
Patricia Sandeen 1706 71st Ave. N.
Renewal:
Burgundy Properties, Inc. Hi Crest Apartments
Eileen and Jill Sherritt 5235 Drew Ave. N.
Allan and Vicki Olson 7111 Riverdale Road -t �� . I, �L�,�L/� ,A
Director of Planning
and Inspection
GENERAL APPROVAL:
D. K. Weeks, City Clerk
s.
(AMEMOI)
TO: Mayor Nyquist and Members of the City Council
Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Director of Finance
DATE: December 17, 1990
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE HENNEPIN -ANOKA SUBURBAN
DRUG TASK FORCE
I have attached a resolution which, if adopted by the City Council, would amend
the joint powers agreement._for the formation and administration of the Hennepin -Anoka
Suburban Drug Task Force.
The amendment would limit the City's liability under the terms of the joint powers
agreement for the Drug Task Force. As you may recall, when the Council approved
the agreement on January 29, 1990, the question of liability of the four cities
(Brooklyn Center, Park, Coon Rapids, and Maple Grove) was not resolved.
Charlie LeFevere was asked to suggest language which would limit the liability of
each city to that which it is covered by its insurance. He has done so, and that
language is incorporated in the attached amendment.
The Finance Director of each of the other three cities has been contacted. They
have.agreed to bring this amendment before their City Councils.
I have attached copies of correspondence between the City Attorney, the League of
Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust, the Finance Directors of the other task force
cities, and I. If you wish to have a better understanding of the issues involved,
this correspondence explains them quite well.
G 1, •-4,
-------- - - - - --
Paul W. Holmlund
Y
_ Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE
FORMATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE HENNEPIN -ANOKA SUBURBAN
DRUG TASK FORCE
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, on January 29, 1990, the City Council did adopt Resolution No.
90 -22 which authorized the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a joint powers
agreement for the formation and administration of the Hennepin -Anoka Suburban
Drug Task Force; and
WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of Resolution No. 90 -22, there were
concerns about the allocation of liability between the four cities which make up
the task force; and
WHEREAS, the Brookyn Center City Attorney has suggested changes to the
agreement which would clarify and limit the liability of each of the paraticipants;
and
WHEREAS, each of the other cities participating in the task force (i.e.
Brooklyn Park, Coon Rapids, and Maple Grove) have agreed to the suggested changes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute Adendum
No. 1 to the joint powers agreement for the formation and administration of the
Hennepin -Anoka Suburban Drug Task Force.
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.
JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
FOR THE FORMATION AND ADMINISTRATION
OF THE HENNEPIN -ANOKA SUBURBAN DRUG TASK FORCE
ADDENDUM NO. 1
This Addendum Made this day of , 19_, by and
between the cities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Coon Rapids and Maple
Grove, all Minnesota municipal corporations;
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the parties to this Addendum are parties to a joint powers
agreement entitled "Joint and Cooperative Agreement for the Formation and
Administration of the Hennepin -Anoka Suburban Drug Task Force," a joint powers
agreement made pursuant to Minn Stat § 471.59, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend said joint powers agreement as
hereinafter set forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, On the basis of the premises and the mutual obligations
hereinafter set forth, it is agreed that the Joint and Cooperative Agreement for
the Formation and Administration of the Hennepin -Anoka Suburban Drug Task
Force is amended by adding the following at the end of paragraph IX thereof:
The intent of the indemnification requirement of this Section is to
impose on each city a limited duty to defend and indemnify other
cities for claims arising within its jurisdiction. The purpose of
creating these reciprocal duties to defend and indemnify is to
simplify the defense of liability claims by eliminating conflicts
among defendants, and to permit liability claims against multiple
defendants in a single occurrence to be defended by a single
attorney. Therefore, each city's duty to defend and indemnify as
provided in this Section shall not apply to any claim that would
not be covered by the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance
Trust's standard liability coverage document, including optional
errors and omissions coverage. Further, each city's duty to
indemnify shall not exceed $600,000 less any amount which must
be paid for such claim on behalf of the indemnitor as the covered
party.
•
This Addendum may be executed in multiple counterparts and shall become
effective upon the authorized signature of all of the parties hereto. The Joint and
Cooperative Agreement for the Formation and Administration of the Hennepin -
Anoka Suburban Drug Task Force shall, in all other respects, remain in full force
and effect.
DATED:
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
By
Its
By
Its
DATED:
CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK
By
Its
By
Its
DATED:
CITY OF COON RAPIDS
By
Its
By
Its
DATED:
CITY OF MAPLE GROVE
By
Its
BY
Its
BR291 -011
2
The City Manager presented a Resolution Accepting Proposal and Awarding Contract
for Purchase of a Backhoe Mounted Pavement Breaker. He noted staff proposes to
I fund the purchase of this unit from the public utility fund.
I
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -20
Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND AWARDING CONTACT FOR PURCHASE OF A BACKHOE
MOUNTED PAVEMENT BREAKER
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager presented a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Sign the
Document Approving the City's Emergency Plan
RESOLUTION NO 90 -21
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE DOCUMENT APPROVING THE CITY'S
EMERGENCY PLAN
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager presented a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager
to Enter into a Joint Powers Agreement for the Formation and Administration of
the Hennepin -Anoka Suburban Drug Task Force. Mayor Nyquist questioned what the
liability was among the four cities. The City Attorney explained the current
l draft provides indemnity to the other cities, other than the City which the
event occurred in. He noted the League of Minnesota Cities is suggesting
language which will cover its concerns without exposing cities to further
` liability. Councilmember Scott inquired if this item should be tabled until the
language issue is cleared up. The Finance Director stated he has spoken with
L lice Chief, and the Chief is concerned because the Task Force is already
ing and feels it would be better to operate under this agreement than none
. Councilmember Pedlar inquired what benefit the City would be receiving
this agreement. The City Manager briefly explained how the four
ities hope to operate. Councilmember Cohen stated from his past dealings
he City of Maple Grove, it seems they are only interested in help from
yn Center and surrounding cities if it will benefit Maple Grove directly.
ed Mayor Nyquist to communicate his concerns to the Mayor of Maple Grove.
RESOLUTION NO 90 -22
Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A JOINT POWERS
AGREEMENT FOR THE FORMATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE HENNEPIN -ANOKA SUBURBAN
DRUG TASK FORCE
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously.
i
1/29/90 _5_
• Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following b resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -22
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY
MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A JOINT POWERS
AGREEMENT FOR THE FORMATION AND
ADMINISTRATION OF THE HENNEPIN -ANOKA
SUBURBAN DRUG TASK FORCE
WHEREAS, the four communities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn
Park, Maple Grove and Coon Rapids propose to combine forces to investigate
major drug cases; and
WHEREAS, the four communities have applied for and received
a grant to be used to investigate major drug cases; and
WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center has approved in its 1990 budget the
matching funds required for participation in the task force; and
WHEREAS, this effort requires a joint powers agreement between
the communities to form and administer the task force.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Brooklyn Center that the Mayor and City Manager are authorized
to enter into a joint powers agreement for the formation and administration
of the Hennepin -Anoka Suburban Drug Task Force.
January 29, 1990
Date �, lMayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
OF
B:FROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
TELEPHONE: 569 -3300
C ENTER FAX: 561 -0717
EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE
911
October 12, 1990
Mr. Alan J. Erickson
Director of Finance
City of Brooklyn Park
5800 - 85th Avenue North
Brooklyn Park, MN 55443
Dear Al,
The indemnification provision in the current joint powers agreement for the
Drug Task Force of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Coon Rapids, and Maple Grove
. creates an obligation on the part of each city to indemnify the other cities
and their officers for claims arising out of incidents which occur in their
own jurisdictions.
The original draft of the joint powers agreement did not have an indemnification
provision. Therefore, general principles of the common law relating to liabil-
ity would have applied and, basically, each city would have been responsible
for their own negligence. In a later draft of the agreement, our city attorney
recommended some changes to this language. The language recommended would
not have created an indemnification obligation. The draft agreement was then
submitted to LMCIT which recommended the addition of language which created
an obligation on the part of each city to indemnify the other cities and their
officers for claims arising out of incidents which occurred in their own juris-
dictions. If the activities of the Drug Task Force resulted in an accident
in Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Center would be obligated to indemnify the other
cities regardless of the actual fault of its own officers. LMCIT made this
recommendation to avoid multiple defendants and the resulting difficulty and
expense of hiring several attorneys to represent the various cities involved.
The indemnification provision would have the affect of making one city respon-
sible so that only one attorney would have to be hired by LMCIT.
The language recommended by LMCIT was incorporated into the joint powers agree-
ment. The problem with the language, as seen by our city attorney, is two-
fold. First, the indemnification does not specify any limits. The court,
in at least one case, has interpreted a commitment to indemnify which does
not specify limits as an implicit waiver of the protection afforded by the
t LZ c - Q
^' issuL�E'Ji Cx w"t :r
n ,
DMZ
Letter to Alan J. Erickson
October 12, 1990
Page 2
limitations on liability set forth in Minn. Stat., Chapter 466. Therefore,
we (the cities) may have unintentionally exposed ourselves to liability without
limit. Second, our attorney advises, even if the provision is not interpreted
as a waiver of the limits of liability the obligation to indemnify three other
parties could subject a city to four times the liability limits set forth in
the statute. Each city is potentially responsible for the payment of damages
up to $600,000 under Minn. Stat., Chapter 466. If one city is to indemnify
all parities to the agreement, the potential exposure could be $2,400,000.
Therefore, the current indemnification provision may be exposing any one of
the cities to liability in excess of its insurance coverage.
I have asked our city attorney to draft an addendum to the Drug Task Force
Joint Powers Agreement that would resolve the problems described and also ad-
dress the concerns of LMCIT. He has drafted that amendment and I have enclosed
it along with the correspondence between the city attorney, LMCIT, and I which
led to the drafting of the amendment.
If, after reading the addendum and the correspondence, you agree with the need
for the amendment and would be willing to bring it to your city council, please
give me a call so we can all bring it to our councils at the same time. You
may call me at 569 -3353.
Sincerely,
Paul W. Holmlund
Director of Finance
PWH /lm
cc: Mr. Charles L. LeFevere
Holmes & Graven, Chartered
470 Pillsbury Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402
r
Ms. Ellen A. Longfellow
League of Minnesota Cities
183 University Avenue East
St. Paul, MN 55101 -2526
Enclosures
HOLMES & GRAVEN
CHARTERED
e'* at Law 470 Pillsbury Center. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
_RT A. ALSOF (612) 337.9300 JI BA F.RTSCH CHARLES H AR A. LAW LER
RONALD H. BATTY Facsimile (612) 337 -9310 CHARLES 1,. LEFEI'FRF'
MARY J. RRENDEN JOHN M. LEFF.VRF. JR.
ROBERT J. LINDAI.I.
STEPHEN C. ARLS LAFRA K. MOLLET
ROBERT C. CARLSON DANIEL R. NEI SON
CIIRISTLNE M. CHALE
BARBARA L. PORTWOOD
JOHN R. DEAN
ROBERT J. DF.IKE WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL. MARY FRANCES SKALA
MARY' G. DOBBINS JAMES M. STROMIIFN
JEFFREY FNG STEVEN NI. TAI.LFN
STEFANIE N. GALEV JAMES J. TIIOIISON, JR,
DAVID L. GRAVEN 337 -9215 LARRI M. NFUR IIi FFIt
CORRINE A. HEINE BONNIE L. NIL KI. %S
JAMES S. HOLMFS _
DAVID J. KENNEDY OFf01 %SFI.
JOHN R. LARSON ROBFRT L. DA%IDSON
WELLINGTON H. LAW JOIN G. 110110111+11
July 31, 1990
Mr. Paul Holmlund
Finance Director
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Re: Drug Task Force Joint Powers Agreement Indemnification Provision
Dear Paul:
You have asked for my comment on the indemnification provision in the current
joint powers agreement for the Drug Task Force of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn
Park, Coon Rapids and ,Maple Grove.
The original draft of the joint powers agreement did not have an indemnification
provision. Therefore, general principles of the common law relating to liability
would have applied and, basically, each city would have been responsible for their
own negligence. In a later draft of the agreement, I recommended some changes to
this language; however, the language which I recommended would not have created
an indemnification obligation. Apparently, the draft agreement was submitted to
the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT), which recommended the
addition of language which created an obligation on the part of each city to
indemnify the other cities and their officers for claims arising out of incidents
which occurred in their own jurisdictions. In other words, if the activities of the
Drug Task Force resulted in an accident in Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Center would
be obligated to indemnify the other cities regardless of the actual fault of its own
officers. It is my understanding that the purpose of the League in making this
recommendation was to avoid multiple defendants and the resulting difficulty and
expense of hiring several attorneys to represent the various cities involved. The
indemnification provision would have the affect of making one city responsible so
that only one attorney would have to be hired by the LMCIT.
The language recommended by the LMCIT was incorporated into the joint powers
agreement. However, at least in the case of the Brooklyn Center City Council, the
Council requested that the staff attempt to improve on the indemnification
language, if possible.
Y
Mr. Paul Holmlund
July 31, 1990
Page 2
The problem, as I see it, with the agreement in its current form is two -fold. First,
the indemnification does not specify any limits. The court, in at least one case,
has interpreted a commitment to indemnify which does not specify limits as an
implicit waiver of the protection afforded by the limitations on liability set forth
in Minn. Stat Chapter 466. Therefore, the cities may have unintentionally
exposeTthemselves to liability without limit.
Second, even if the provision is not interpreted as a waiver of the limits of
liability, the obligation to indemnify three other parties could subject the City to
four times the liability limits set forth in the statute. In other words, each city is
potentially responsible for the payment of damages up to $600,000 under Minn
Stat Chapter 466. If one city is to indemnify all parties to the agreement, the
potential exposure could be $2,400,000. Therefore, the indemnification provision
may be exposing any one of the cities to liability in excess of its insurance
coverage. Ms. Ellen Longfellow, attorney for the LMCIT, has recommended some
language which would address these issues. I have modified some of the language
which she recommended and submit the following as possible language which would
address the major concerns which I have described above. This language could be
added at the end of paragraph IX in the agreement.
The intent of the indemnification requirement of this Section is to
impose on each city a limited duty to defend and indemnify the
other cities for claims arising within its jurisdiction subject to the
limits of the indemnifying parties insurance coverage. The
purpose of creating these reciprocal duties to defend and
indemnify is to simplify the defense of liability claims by
eliminating conflicts among defendants, and to permit liability
claims against multiple defendants in a single occurrence to be
defended by a single attorney, provided that such obligation to
indemnify does not expose any party to liability for which it has
no insurance. Therefore, the duty to indemnify provided in this
Section is limited to claims for which the indemnitor has
insurance coverage and to the amount of such ecvera0 less any
amount thereof which must be paid for such claim on behalf of
the indemnitor as the insured party.
The addition of this language would resolve the problems which I have described
above; and I believe that, in most cases, it would address the concerns of the
LMCIT as well. However, imposing a duty to indemnify regardless of fault does
give rise to two related problems. The first is that the party with the obligation
to indemnify would have to pay the amount of the deductible portion of its
insurance coverage. Therefore, for example, if Brooklyn Center was obligated to
indemnify the City of Brooklyn Park for a claim arising out of an accident caused
by a Brooklyn Park officer, the City of Brooklyn Center would have to pay up to
the full amount of the deductible amount provided in its insurance policy. Second,
I assume that an event such as the one described above would result in the loss
being charged against the City of Brooklyn Center for purposes of establishing the
claims experience for the City of Brooklyn Center, which, in turn, could have an
Mr. Paul Holmlund
July 31, 1990
Page 3
affect on the city's future insurance premiums. If the claim arises out of the
negligent act of an officer of some other city, it may not seem appropriate for the
City of Brooklyn Center to bear these additional expenses. However, it may be
equally as likely that some other city in the joint powers agreement would be
called upon to pay for damages caused by an act of a Brooklyn Center officer.
Therefore, this may be a reasonable calculated risk to take given the fact that
defense and assignment of fault is simplified not only for the LMCIT but for the
cities as well.
By copy of this letter, I invite the LMCIT to comment on the language which I
quote above as a suggested addition to the joint powers agreement. Additionally, if
the insurance trust has any suggestions about how to address the issues of payment
of deductibles and effect on experience rating, I would appreciate hearing them.
If you have any further questions, please give me a call.
Very truly yours,
Charles L. LeFevere
CLL:rsr
BR291 -011
cc: Ellen A. Longfellow, LMCIT
� 183 University Ave. East FR SEP 1 0 1990
St. Paul, MN 55101 -2526
League of Minnesota Cities (612) 227 -5600 (FAX: 221 -0986)
September 7, 1990
Charles LeFevre
Holmes and Graven
City Attorney - Brooklyn Center
470 Pillsbury Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
RE: Hennepin - Anoka Suburban Drug Task Force Agreement
Dear Mr. LeFevre:
Thank you for sending me a copy of your letter to Mr.
Holmlund regarding the Indemnification Provision in the Drug
Task Force. I apologize for the delay in responding. I passed
your proposal around to other people in our office and many
were gone on vacation.
We thought generally that it was a good proposal. One of
its strengths is that it states what the intent of the
provision is so that if a court has to interpret it, the court
would not have to speculate on why the parties agreed to it.
I have worked with the LMCIT administrator, Peter Tritz,
on this provision and he had some specific suggestions.
Enclosed is his memo on the topic. Note that we are alway
conscious of not referring to LMCIT as insurance. He also
addresses some of your concerns about the different coverages
that the task force cities have. It would make sense to put
one limit in so the cities are all agreeing on a similar amount
for the indemnification. Another area of concern is defense
costs. This may become an issue if one of the cities leaves
LMCIT and obtains private insurance.
It becomes complicated but I think that it is possible to
come up with some provision that will reduce the defense costs
without putting a city at risk of an uninsured exposure.
Please review the memo and contact me with any comments you
have. We appreciate your assistance and suggestions.
Sincerely
0 v �, A - �M IW,�)
Ellen A. Longfellow
LMCIT Staff Attorney
cc. Bob Weisbrod NSRS
To: Ellen
From: Pete
Re: Draft language for limited duty to defend and indemnify
You asked me to review and comment on Mr. LeFevere's suggested
language for defense and indemnification in the drug enforcement
joint powers agreement. I think his concept makes a lot of
sense, and I have only a few comments.
First, the language should reflect the fact that the cities may
have commercial liability insurance or may be LMCIT members, and
that LMCIT is not insurance.
Second, the language needs to reflect how coverage limits
actually apply to defense costs and to damages, respectively.
Under some commercial insurance policies, defense costs are
included in the policy limit. Under the LMCIT coverage,
however, they are not. In other words, under the LMCIT
coverage, the $600,000 limit applies only to damages; LMCIT is
also responsible for paying all defense costs in addition, with
no limit applicable to defense costs. The language in the draft
could be construed to limit the duty to defend, even though the
LMCIT coverage would continue to pick up defense costs.
• Third, the cities involved may carry different coverage limits.
If each city's respective duty to to indemnify is tied to its
own actual coverage limits, some of the cities would be giving
more protection to the other cities than they would receive in
return. Arguably it would be more equitable to specify a dollar
amount rather 'than to tie back to the coverage limits.
Fourth, if one of the cities carried commercial insurance rather
than being an LMCIT member, a similar reciprocity problem would
arise if (as would probably be the case) the commercial
insurance were not as broad as the LMCIT coverage. Again, it
might be more equitable if each city assumed the same duty to
indemnify the others, rather than limiting it to whatever the
individual city's insurance happened actually to cover. (One
way to do that might be to tie the duty to indemnify to those
claims that LMCIT would cover; a city that chose to buy a less
broad policy from a commercial carrier would simply be assuming
the risk - just as they would on that city's own liability.
I've tinkered with the language a bit to address these issues.
I'm not entirely satisfied with what I've come up with, but take
a look at it and let me know what you think.
The intent of the indemnification requirement of this
Section is to impose on each city a limited duty to
defend and indemnify the other cities for claims arising
within its jurisdiction. The purpose of creating these
reciprocal duties to defend and indemnify is to simplify
the defense of liability claims by eliminating conflicts
among defendants, and to permit liability claims against
multiple defendants in a single occurrence to be
defended by a single attorney.
Therefor, each city's duty to defend and indemnify as
provided in this Section shall not apply to any claim
that would not be covered by LMCIT's standard liability
coverage document, including optional errors and
omissions coverage. Further, each city's duty to
indemnify, shall not exceed $600,000 less any amount
which must be paid for such claim on behalf of the
indemnitor as the covered party.
Mr. LeFevere also points out that the city might be forced to
pay under its deductible liability arising out of another
party's negligence, and that losses the city has assumed under an
indemnification agreement would ultimately affect the city's
premiums. As he also points out, though, the city also receives
in return the other cities' agreement to indemnify it in certain
circumstances. In theory, what the city gets is of equal value
to what it gives. (Of course, that wouldn't necessarily be true
if the duty to indemnify was tied to the actual coverages and
limits the respective cities happened to carry. Nor would it be
true if one city's officers were substantially less well - trained
and supervised and thus more of a liability risk than the other
. cities; but of course, if you believe that to be true of one of
your partner cities, you probably shouldn't be working with them
in the first place.) And of course the whole point of the
reciprocal defense and indemnification agreements is to reduce
the city's net exposure, by reducing the costs of defense and
hopefully increasing the likelihood of a successful defense.
I certainly- agree, though, that it's extremely important that
all the parties to the agreement are very clear on what they are
agreeing to do and why. Each city needs to clearly understand
that they are agreeing to take on the liability for someone
else's negligence in certain circumstances; that this could mean
that the city pays a claim for which it would not otherwise be
liable; and why it makes sense for the city do agree to do so.
(Otherwise, you imagine the discussion at the council meeting:
"You mean Brooklyn Park's cop broke the guy's arm and we have to
pay for it? What kind of lamebrain would sign a contract like
that ? ") In the long run, I think this kind of arrangement
benefits everyone. But in the short run - e.g., if you look at
it right after the first claim - there might well be four
winners and one loser among the five cities.
As a final comment, it seems to me that the fact that a city be
paying the claim under its deductible is really a separate issue
from the question of whether it makes sense to assume certain
risks in return for having some of your risk assumed by others.
Whether to retain some risk under a deductible or to pay a
premium to transfer that risk to LMCIT or to an insurer is
really a matter of risk financing. How to most efficiently pay
for your risks is a separate question from what those risks are.
HOLMES & GRAVEN
CHARTERED
O ,neys at Law 470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
ERT A. ALSOP (612) 337 -9300 JULIE A. LAR'LER
PAUL. L T H. BATTY Facsimile (612) 337 -9310 CHARLES L. LEFEVERE
RONALD H. BATTY JOHN M. LEFF.V RE. JR.
h1ARY J. BRENDEN
STEPHEN J. BI 'BC[. _
ROBERT J. LINDALL
ROBERT C. CARLSON
LAURA K. MOLLET
CHRISTINE M. CHALE
DANIEL R. NELSON
JOHN B. DEAN WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL BARBARA L.PORTWOOD
ROBERT J. DEIKE MARY FRANCES SKALA
MARY G. DOBBINS 337 -9215 JAMES M. STROMMEN
JEFFREY'ENG STEVEN M. TALLEN
STEFANIE N. GALF.Y JAMES J. THOMSON. JR.
DAVID L. GRAVEN LARRY M. WERTHEIM
CORRINE A. HEINE BONNIE L. WILKINS
JAMES S. HOLMES _
D.A%ID J. KFNNEDY OF COI'NSEL
JOHN R. LARSON ROBERT L. DA%IDSON
N "ELI -IN91 , ember 24, 1990 JOHN G. HDESCHLER
Mr. Paul Holmlund
Finance Director
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Re: Drug Task Force Joint Powers Agreement Indemnification Provision
Dear Paul:
In my letter to you of July 31, 1990, I suggested some additional language that
could be added at the end of paragraph IX of the Drug Task Force Joint Powers
Agreement for the reasons set forth in that letter. In that same letter I asked for
comment on my recommendation from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance
Trust. Attached is a copy of a letter from Ms. Ellen Longfellow and a
memorandum from Pete Tritz, both of LMCIT. In Pete's memorandum, he
recommends some minor changes to the language which I have proposed to be
added at the end of paragraph IX of the Agreement. I have no objection to the
substitution of his proposed language rather than that which I have proposed.
Therefore, I would recommend that the language which he proposes be incorporated
in an addendum to the Agreement for consideration by the members of the Drug
Task Force. I believe that the addition of this language is in the best interest of all
parties. There will be cases in which one or more of the parties would have been
better off without any indemnification requirement. However, as pointed out in
the previous correspondence on this matter, there are good reasons for inclusion of
a limited indemnification provision.
If after reviewing the proposed language and the attached correspondence together
with my letter of July 31, 1990, a copy of which is attached, you determine that it
is appropriate to add the proposed language to the Agreement, please give me a
call. I would be happy to prepare a brief addendum to the Joint Powers Agreement
for consideration and execution by the cities. If you have any further questions,
please give me a call.
Very truly yours,
Charles L. LeFevere
CLL:rsr
Enclosures
BR291 -011
CC: Ellen A. Longfellow, LMCIT
HOLMES & GRAVEN
CHARTERED
G ,neys at Lae 470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
ERT A. ALSOP (612) 337 -9300 JULIE A. LAH'I.ER
PACI. D. BAER] SCHI CHARLES L. LEFE:�'ERE
RONALD H. BATTY Facsimile (612) 337 - 9310
MARL' J. BRENDEN
JOHN M. LEFEVRE, JR.
STEPHEN J. BE BE
ROBERT J. LINDALL
ROBERT C. C.AR LSD \'
LAURA K. MOLLET
CHRISTINE M. CHALE
DANIEE R. NELSON
JOHN B. DEAN BARBARA L. PORTWOOD
ROBERT J. DEIKE WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL MARS' FRANCESSKALA
MARS G. DOBBINS JAMES M. S1 ROMMEN
JFFFREI ENG STF.V EN NI. TAI.LEN
STEF:ANIE. N. GALEN JAMES J. THOMSON, JR.
DAN H) L. GRAN EN 337 -9215 LARRY M. WERTHEIM
CORRINE. A. HEINE BONNIE L. WILKINS
JAMFS S. HOI.MEs _
DA%ID J. KENNEDY OF COC NSEL
JOHN R. LARSON ROBERT L. DAYIDSON
R'ELLINGTON H. LAR JOHN G. HOESCHLER
October 4, 1990
Mr. Paul Holmlund
Finance Director
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Re: Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement for Drug Task Force
Dear Paul:
Attached is a draft Addendum for the Drug Task Force Joint Powers Agreement. I
believe our previous correspondence on this issue should be satisfactory to explain
the reasons for the change. However, if you would like some further backup,
please let me know.
Very truly yours,
Charles L. LeFevere
CLL:rsr
B R2 91 -011
cc: Ellen A. Longfellow, LAICIT
JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
GR NT
FOR THE FORMATION AND ADMINISTRATION
OF THE HENNEPIN -ANOKA SUBURBAN DRUG TASK FORCE
ADDENDUM NO. 1
This Addendum Made this day of , 19_, by and
between the cities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Coon Rapids and Maple
Grove, all Minnesota municipal corporations;
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the parties to this Addendum are parties to a joint powers
agreement entitled "Joint and Cooperative Agreement for the Formation and
Administration of the Hennepin -Anoka Suburban Drug Task Force," a joint powers
agreement made pursuant to Minn Stat S 471.59, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend said joint powers agreement as
hereinafter set forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, On the basis of the premises and the mutual obligations
hereinafter set forth, it is agreed that the Joint and Cooperative Agreement for
the Formation and Administration of the Hennepin -Anoka Suburban Drug Task
Force is amended by adding the following at the end of paragraph IX thereof:
The intent of the indemnification requirement of this Section is to
impose on each city a limited duty to defend and indemnify other
cities for claims arising within its jurisdiction. The purpose of
creating these reciprocal duties to defend and indemnify is to
simplify the defense of liability claims by eliminating conflicts
among defendants, and to permit liability claims against multiple
defendants in a single occurrence to be defended by a single
attorney. Therefore, each city's duty to defend and indemnify as
provided in this Section shall not apply to any claim that would
not be covered by the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance
Trust's standard liability coverage document, including optional
errors and omissions coverage. Further, each city's duty to
indemnify shall not exceed $600,000 less any amount which must
be paid for such claim on behalf of the indemnitor as the covered
party.
s
Y
This Addendum may be executed in multiple counterparts and shall become
effective upon the authorized signature of all of the parties hereto. The Joint and
Cooperative Agreement for the Formation and Administration of the Hennepin -
Anoka Suburban Drug Task Force shall, in all other respects, remain in full force
and effect.
DATED:
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
By
Its
By
Its
DATED:
CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK
By
Its
By
Its
DATED:
CITY OF COON RAPIDS
By
Its
By
Its
DATED:
CITY OF MAPLE GROVE
By
Its
By
Its
B R291 -011
2
(AMEMOI)
DEPARTMENT OF FIN
ANCE
TO: Mayor Nyquist and Members of the City Council
Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Director of Finance
DATE: December 18, 1990
SUBJECT: LMCIT INSURANCE DIVIDEND
Today, I received a check in the amount of $31,245 which represents the 1990 dividend
from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) on our property /casualty
insurance coverage.
• This is the fourth consecutive annual dividend that we have received from LMCIT
on.our property /casualty insurance program. The dividend of $31,245 will offset
our annual premium of $145,173. The dividend represents approximately twenty -two
percent of our total premium paid.
I have enclosed a letter from the LMCIT Board of Trustees which will explain the
dividend in detail.
Paul W. Holmlund
i
173- 183 University Ave. East
St. Paul, MN 55101.2526
League of Minnesota Cities ( 612) 227 - 5 6 00 (FAX: 221. 0986)
December 17, 1990
To: LMCIT member cities
From: LMCIT Board of Trustees
Re: LMCIT property /casualty dividend 3 (� a 4 5
Enclosed is the check for your city's share of the $7,000,000
which the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust is
returning to the members of the property /casualty program for
1990. This is the fourth consecutive annual dividend, and
brings the total to over $23 million returned to cities.
How is your city�s share determined?
The surplus that LMCIT has at any one time is the cumulative
result of all of the cities premiums and losses since LMCIT
• began. Cities that have been members the longest and which have
had fewer losses have in effect contributed more to creating
that surplus. Therefor, as in the past, the LMCIT Board has
used a dividend formula designed to give those cities a
proportionally greater share of the total. That formula also
incorporates a Nloss limiting factor"' which tempers the effect
of a single large NshockN loss on the city's dividend.
How does the formula work?
The enclosed sheet shows the data used to calculate your city's
dividend. All figures are as of May 31.
When a single loss exceeds one -half of the city's premium for
that year, only that part of the loss equal to one -half of the
premium is counted in the formula. The Nadjusted lossN figure
is the total of the city's losses, with individual losses
limited that way. The adjusted loss figure is then subtracted
for the city's total earned premiums. The remainder represents
your city's contribution to the surplus.
The same calculation is performed for each city. The remainder
figures for all cities are totalled, and we then calculate each
city's remainder•as a percentage of that total. The city then
receives that percentage of the total $7 million dividend.
- OVER -
If dividends are possible, does it mean premiums are too high?
Setting premium rates amounts to trying to predict what future
losses will be, based primarily on what past losses have been.
With municipal liability, this is a very uncertain business, and
many factors can cause future losses to be greater than what we
project. New laws and court decisions, weather, the economic
climate, general societal attitudes, and pure luck can all
affect claims. How successful cities are in their efforts to
control and avoid losses is another major factor.
LMCIT continues to broaden the coverage to better address
cities' needs. Broadened coverage means that ultimately more
claims will be covered and paid than in the past. Exactly how
much more can be hard to estimate, since there often isn't
reliable loss data for these coverage improvements because
there's no precedent for covering it. This can add further
uncertainty to loss projections.
The LMCIT Board of Trustees considers it an absolute first
priority that LMCIT remain financially strong and able to meet
its obligations. For this reason, LMCIT's rates incorporate a
substantial "'safety margin^'. That is, the rates are designed so
that enough funds will be available even if losses substantially
exceed the projections. As a result of this cautious approach
to rate - setting, LMCIT ends up with surplus funds if losses turn
out to be at or below projections. The LMCIT Board believes
that it's better to charge enough to be covered in case things
go wrong and return the surplus if it isn't needed, than to risk
falling short and having to assess members for additional funds.
Can we expect similar dividends to continue in the future?
That depends on whether LMCIT's income from premiums and from
investments continues to exceed losses and expenses. Obviously,
we can't say for sure whether that will happen. The key
variable, of course, is the amount of losses.
As discussed above, I MICIT's rates are based on _projected losses.
Those projections are in turn based largely on what the actual
losses have been in past years. Over the past few years
especially, LMCIT's member cities have done a very good job of
controlling and reducing losses. If cities can maintain and
strengthen their loss prevention efforts, there's a good chance
of keeping losses at or below the projected levels. If that
happens, then the safety margin built into the rates won't be
needed for losses and those funds can therefor be returned to
the member cities as a dividend.
In simplest terms, LMCIT is nothing more than a mechanism
through which cities cooperatively use their own funds to pay
for their own losses. Every dollar that isn't needed to pay
losses or expenses can be returned to the cities. In short,
whether LMCIT will be able to return additional dividends in the
future really depends on whether cities can continue their
successful efforts to reduce and avoid losses.