HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 11-18 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
NOVEMBER 18, 1991
7 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Opening Ceremonies
4. Open Forum
5. Council Reports
6. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda
-All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be
routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one
motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items
unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item
will be removed form the consent agenda and considered in its
normal sequence on the agenda.
7. Approval of Minutes:
a. October 29, 1991 - Budget Work Session
*b. November 4, 1991 - Regular Session
8. Mayoral Appointments:
*a. Election Judges for December 17, 1991, Special Election
for Precinct 9
9. Presentation:
a. Resolution Providing for the Issuance and Sale of
$4,275,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding
Bonds, Series 1992A
10. Ordinances:
a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City ordinances
Relating to the Date of the Official Flood Plain Map
-This ordinance amendment was reviewed and recommended by
the Planning Commission at its November 7, 1991, meeting.
This item is offered this evening for a first reading.
11. Discussion Items:
a. Proposed 1992 Meeting Schedule
b. Draft Request for Proposal for Professional Services
Relating to Developing of a Water Management Plan
1. Resolution Approving Request for Proposals and
Authorizing Solicitation of Proposals to Develop a
Water Management Plan
c. 1992 Recycling Service Rate
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- November 18, 1991
12. Resolutions:
*a. To Increase the Processing Fee Charged on Applications for
Tax Abatements by the City of Brooklyn Center Assessor's
Office
*b. Commending Representative Phil Carruthers
c. Approving Amendment to Contract with SEH, Inc. for
Professional Services Relating to 69th Avenue Improvement
Project No. 1990 -10, Phase I Improvements
*d. Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission
Application No. 91018 Submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc.
*e. Accepting Quote and Authorizing the Purchase of Hearing
Protection Systems for Fire Pumpers
-This item approved in the 1991 budget.
*f. Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Sewer Replacement
at Brooklyn Drive, Improvement Project No. 1991 -23
13. 1992 Proposed Budget Work Session
*14. Licenses
15. Adjournment
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY
OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
BUDGET WORK SESSION
OCTOBER 29, 1991
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in a budget work session and
was called by order by Mayor Pro Tem Scott at 7:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Pro Tem Scott, Councilmembers Rosene and Cohen. Also present
were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Finance Director Paul Holmlund,
Assistant Finance Director Charlie Hansen and City Assessor Mark
Parish.
Mayor Paulson and Councilmember Pedlar were absent from the
meeting.
Mayor Pro Tem Scott explained to those present this was a Council
Work Session for the purpose of reviewing the 1992 City Manager's
proposed budget. The Council would start reviewing the budget in
detail after a presentation by Finance Director Holmlund. Finance
Director Holmlund presented the summary of the proposed 1992 budget
and tax levy.
Mayor Pro Tem Scott acknowledged the receipt of petitions from the
public regarding the proposed cutting of appropriations for the
canine unit and acknowledged the presence of representatives of the
Brooklyn Center Hockey Association and their request for additional
funding in the amount of $10,350 for their program. Members of the
Hockey Association requested the opportunity to appear at the City
Council's next budget work session on November 13, 1991, and the
Council members present agreed. They requested the City Manager to
develop additional statistical and other evidence to justify the
proposed cut of the canine program and City Manager Splinter agreed
the information would be provided to the Council prior to the next
budget work session on November 13, 1991.
Mayor Pro Tem Scott and council members present proceeded to start
through the 1992 proposed budget, starting with the revenue section
and then proceeded to review budgets starting with the City Council
through the Vehicle Maintenance budget.
There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by
Councilmember Rosene to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed.
The budget work session was adjourned at 10:03 p.m.
10 -29 -91 -1-
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
NOVEMBER 4, 1991
CITY HALL
CALL TO OR_ DER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor
Todd Paulson at 7:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Todd Paulson, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Jerry Pedlar, Dave Rosene, and Philip
Cohen. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Finance Director Paul Holmlund,
Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, and Council Secretary Peggy McNabb.
OPENING CEREMONIES
Sharon VanDenbos offered the invocation.
OPEN FORUM
Mayor Paulson noted the Council had received two requests to use the open forum session
this evening.
BROOKLYN CENTER YOUTH HOCKEY ASSOCIATION
Wayne Finley, 5454 Colfax Avenue N, addressed the Council on behalf of the Brooklyn
Center Youth Hockey Association. Mr. Finley advised the Council he is a 44 -year resident
of Brooklyn Center and has been actively involved in organizing and coaching various youth
sports for the past 36 years. Mr. Finley advised the Council the Brooklyn Center Youth
Hockey Association is a strong organization dedicated to maintaining a quality ice hockey
program for the children in Brooklyn Center. It is the only organization within Brooklyn
Center currently providing a youth hockey program.
Mr. Finley gave an overview of the costs involved with ice hockey, including uniforms,
equipment, insurance, and hourly rental rates of ice - skating rinks /arenas. Mr. Finley felt
many children are unable to participate in ice hockey because of the high costs involved.
The operating budget for the coming year is $24,000. He then reviewed the Hockey
Association's various methods of raising funds, such as product sales, proceeds from pulltabs,
proceeds from business ads in their programs. He went on to say that each year it becomes
more and more difficult to find local businesses to sponsor the hockey teams.
11/4/91
- 1 -
r
On behalf of the Brooklyn Center Youth Hockey Association, Mr. Finley asked the City
Council to consider a one -time contribution of approximately one-half of the current budget
to the Brooklyn Center Youth Hockey Association in order to subsidize the costs to the
families and make ice hockey more affordable for Brooklyn Center residents.
In response to Councilmember Pedlar's question as to the future of the Hockey
Association's program in the event funding from the City was not available, Mr. Finley said
as the costs go up and up each year, more and more families find it unaffordable and
consequently cannot participate. As the participation rate dwindles, the strength of the
association and program also dwindles.
In response to Councilmember Cohen's request for clarification on the request being a one-
time contribution and question as to how future budgets would be funded, Mr. Finley
affirmed this request was indeed a one -time solicitation for funding.
Following a discussion on the fairness and possible repercussion of contributing to one sport
and not others, Councilmember Pedlar advised the Council the Parks and Recreation
Commission members had discussed and strongly supported funding the Hockey Association
in order to maintain a quality ice hockey program in the community.
The City Manager advised the Council members the City has not provided direct aid to
athletic associations in the past; however, has provided assistance in the form of officials,
playing fields, and space for ads /communications in the City newsletters.
Councilmember Cohen felt a one -time contribution to the Hockey Association would be
appropriate because: 1) the ice hockey program helps to balance sports in the community;
and 2) the only ice hockey facilities provided by City are the outdoor ice - skating rinks, which
he felt was minimal compared to football fields, soccer fields, tennis courts, etc. He
recommended the funding consideration be discussed during the budget hearing for possible
input /response from residents.
The Mayor felt it would be preferable for the City to possibly purchase some capital - related
hockey equipment for the Association, rather than to subsidize the expense to families. He
further suggested the City could possibly assist the Hockey Association in finding ongoing
sources of revenue, such as recycling redemption proceeds.
The Mayor relayed to the Council members the City of Shoreview's belief that electing to
fund sporting programs for youth is a better alternative than funding juvenile correction
facilities /programs for youth who had nothing constructive or structured to do with their
time.
The Mayor thanked Mr. Finley and members of the Brooklyn Center Youth Hockey
Association for coming to the Council with their request. He advised them he and the
Council members would discuss it further with the Parks and Recreation Committee; and
11/4/91
-2-
he suggested representatives of the Hockey Association plan to attend the forthcoming
budget hearings.
PHILLIP DAHLEN 6518 WILLOW LANE N
Mr. Dahlen addressed the Council on a concern regarding contracted snow removal at the
apartment complex on Willow Lane following the recent snowstorm. He felt some very
unsafe conditions were created when piles of snow were left in the parking lot which in turn
forced residents to park in the roadway. Consequently, the roadway was completely
obstructed. Mr. Dahlen's main concern was that emergency vehicles would not have been
able to get through if needed.
The Director of Planning and Inspection advised the Council the City had received a
complaint on this particular situation and was prepared to notify the owner of the apartment
complex. He stated the City Ordinances require snow to be removed from parking lots
within 24 hours after the end of a snowstorm. He felt, however, consideration should be
given to the fact that the early snowstorm along with the record amount of snow caught
most residents completely unprepared for snow removal, and this was just one of many types
of problems created by the unexpected early snowstorm.
Mayor Paulson inquired if there was anyone else present who wished to address the Council.
There being none, he continued with the regular agenda items.
COUNCIL REPORTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Mayor Paulson advised the Council he had been out- and -about the City following the
October 31st winter snowstorm, and was very pleased to have observed a great deal of good
work being done by the Public Works staff in getting the snow moved in order to keep the
roads passable for automobiles, buses and emergency vehicles.
There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to
direct staff to draft a resolution officially recognizing the employees of Brooklyn Center for
outstanding work performance in responding to the winter snowstorm on October 31. The
motion passed unanimously.
OCTOBER RECYCLING WINNERS
Mayor Paulson announced the names of the $50 weekly recycling winners for October: Floyd
Swenson; Howard Meyer; William Barney; Leon Wenninger; and Beth Singh.
MAYOR'S PARTICIPATION AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY FORUM
The Mayor reported to the Council members he had been asked by the U.S. Conference of
Mayors to attend a forum at Harvard University last week. While there, he spoke on young
elected officials at the Kennedy School of Government. He felt it was a very worthwhile
experience.
11/4/91 -3-
LEGISLATOR OF THE YEAR
Councilmember Rosene acknowledged Minnesota State Representative Phil Carruthers'
attendance at the meeting and advised the Council Representative Carruthers had recently
been named Minnesota's Legislator of the Year.
There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to
present a resolution to Minnesota State Representative Phil Carruthers commending him
on this achievement. The motion passed unanimously.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Paulson inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items be removed from the
consent agenda. No requests were made.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
OCTOBER 21 1991 - REGULAR SESSION
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to
approve the minutes of October 21, 1991, regular session as printed. The motion passed
unanimously.
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -258
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT AND ACCEPTING PROPOSALS FOR
TELEVISING /CLEANING INTERCEPTOR SEWER, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO.
1991 -24
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry
Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -259
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION TO INCREASE THE FEE TO BE CHARGED FOR THE PROCESSING
OF RETURNED CHECKS ISSUED TO THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry
Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously.
11/4/91
4
RESOLUTION NO 91 -260
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS FOR JUDY LAMP, PRINCIPAL OF PARK
CENTER HIGH SCHOOL
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry
Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously.
LIC ENSES
There was a motion by Councilmember Celia Scott and seconded by Councilmember Jerry
Pedlar to approve the following list of licenses:
CHRISTMAS TREE SALES LOT
P.Q.T. Company 4007 - 58th Avenue N
Weber's Greenhouse 5040 Brooklyn Boulevard
Jerry's NewMarket 5801 Xerxes Avenue N
COMMERCIAL KENNEL
Brooklyn Pet Hospital 4902 France Avenue N
GASOLINE SERVICE
Brooklyn Center Municipal Garage 6844 Shingle Creek Parkway
ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISH
Brooklyn Center Chamber 6205 Earle Brown Drive
Brooklyn Center Park & Rec. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
LODGING ESTABLISHMENT
Inn on the Farm 6155 Earle Brown Drive
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS
Fisher -Bjork Sheetmetal Co., Inc. P.O. Box 40009
Midway Sign Company, Inc. 444 N Prior Avenue
S.B.S. Mechanical, Inc. 7160 Madison Avenue W
SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISH ENT
KarmelKorn Shoppes, Inc. Brookdale Center
TOBACCO RELATED PRODUC
Brooklyn Center Liquor Store #1 1500 - 69th Avenue N
Brooklyn Center Liquor Store #2 6250 Brooklyn Blvd.
Brooklyn Center Liquor Store #3 1966 - 57th Avenue N
Drug Emporium _ 5900 Shingle Creek Park-way
11/4/91
-5-
RENTAL
DWELLINGS
Initial:
MONYCOR Federal Savings Bank 6637 Humboldt Avenue N
Renewal:
Keith Nordby 5960 Brooklyn Blvd.
Ralph C. Johnson 5440 Bryant Avenue N
Robert Lerum 4207 Lakeside Avenue N -- #332
Ernest W. Gertzen 5349 Penn Avenue N
Stephen L. Cook 5306 Russell Avenue N
Robert and Arlene Johnson 7218 -24 West River Road
Wai A. Chan 6685 Xerxes Place N
Sherry A. Ronallo 819 -21 55th Avenue N
J. J. Barnett 2918 - 68th Lane N
The motion passed unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS:
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO 91018 -- PDO FOOD STORES INC
The City Manager presented PIanning Commission Application No. 91018 submitted by
PDQ Food Stores, Inc., requesting site and building plan and special use permit approval
to construct a 2,400 square foot gas station /convenience store /car wash at the southeast
quadrant of T.H. 252 and 66th Avenue North. This application was first considered by the
City Council at its meeting on October 7, 1991, at which time the City Council directed the
preparation of a resolution denying this application on the basis that the standards for a
special use permit had not been met. The City Council on October 21, 1991, considered
said resolution and tabled further consideration of this application at the request of the
applicant which indicated it was willing to make some modifications to its plan. Neighboring
property owners were notified of the City Council's November 4, 1991, further consideration
of a resolution of denial or approval of the proposal taking into consideration the revised
site plan.
The Director of Planning and Inspection reviewed PDQ's revisions to the site plan and
updated the Council on the Planning Commission's review and consideration of this
application.
The Director of Planning and Inspection further advised the Council notices of the Council's
consideration of this application had been sent, and the neighboring residents responded by
presenting a petition to the Planning and Inspection Department on October 30, 1991. The
petition was signed by over 150 residents, and expressed opposition to the PDQ proposal
to construct a gas station/convenience store /car wash at the proposed location. Copies of
the petition were included in the Council's agenda packets.
11/4/91 -
6-
The revised site plan moved the car wash to the north side of the site; shifted the service
station /convenience store southerly; showed the north access off the frontage road at the
same location as that currently serving the Atkins Mechanical site; and shifted the easterly
access to the shared drive to about midway on the site. The revised plan did show the
location of the north access off the frontage road was now acceptable to the City, and the
design seemed to lead patrons to the shared access to the east. Staff noted, however, the
northerly driveway width of 45' greatly exceeded the ordinance maximum of 30, and the
separation of the two accesses off the frontage road did not meet the ordinance minimum
of at least 50' of separation. The lighting and screening to the east continued to be a
concern and staff questioned whether or not a grading plan could be devised to provide
acceptable slopes on the site.
The Director of Planning and Inspection advised the Council that following the review of
the revised site plan by City Staff, a memo prepared by the City Planner was faxed to Jim
Merila, Merila and Associates, asking for a response to eight areas of concern listed in the
memo. He noted a copy of the memo was included with the Council's Agenda packets on
Monday, October 28.
City Attorney Charlie LeFevere arrived at 7:50 p.m.
The Director of Planning and Inspection next reviewed the response from PDQ's legal
counsel which was not received until the afternoon of Monday, November 4, as well as the
City's position on each item. Copies of the correspondence and applicable sections of the
City Ordinances were distributed to the Mayor and Council members:
Item #1 PDQ has redesigned its site plan relocating the northerly access on the frontage
road no closer to 66th Avenue than the existing driveway. PDQ does, however,
in an effort to lessen the loss of convenience to patrons, require approval of the
northerly driveway width of 46' and a separation between driveways of 46' as
shown on the revised site plan.
The Director of Planning and Inspection presented the City's position that
Section 35 -414, Subd. 4 of the City Ordinances states the maximum right -angle
width of any driveway shall be 30' at the property line, and that no driveway
shall be located within 50' of another driveway at the property line on the same
use site. Section 35 -703 states access to off - street areas shall be restricted to
driveways 30' or- less in width, and no two driveways on any single parcel of land
in a business or industrial district shall be less than 50' apart.
The Director of Planning and Inspection pointed out to the Council this point
of contention was not open to negotiation since it is governed by the
Ordinances, and therefore, a variance would have to be granted prior to
approval of this site plan.
11/4/91 -7-
Item #2 PDQ agrees to provide such signage.
The Director of Planning and Inspection advised the Council this refers to the
directional signery on the site to direct traffic to exit to east driveway.
Item #3 PDQ agrees to locate a 6' masonry wall along the east property line.
The Director of Planning and Inspection presented the City's concern that a
higher screening device may be required because of the drop in the grade at the
point at which the headlights will be shining directly toward Willow Lane
residences.
Item #4 PDQ will meet the City ordinance relating to foot candles of light at the
property. Recessed lighting does not accomplish the necessary exposure
required at this location.
The Director of Planning and Inspection reminded the Council this issue was
also not open for negotiation. Section 35 -414, Subd. 7 states lighting
surrounding automobile service stations must meet the provisions of Section 35-
712 stating that all exterior lighting shall be provided with lenses, reflectors, or
shades, so as to concentrate illumination on the property of the owner or
operator of said illumination devices, and that no glare shall emanate from or
be visible beyond the boundaries of the illuminated premises. The City's
position for Council consideration is lights that are dropped from the canopy will
emanate glare off the property and need to be recessed or shielded.
Staff have suggested the lights in the canopy be recessed or completely shielded;
however, PDQ maintains the lighting designs /features are required for maximum
exposure.
Item #5 The 6' illuminated lexon band on the canopy is a current PDQ design standard
for new stores and is a requirement for this development project.
The Director of Planning and Inspection contended the canopy would be an
attention- attracting device and, therefore, would have to be in compliance with
the City sign ordinance.
Item #6 PDQ agrees to provide such plans.
The Director of Planning and Inspection indicated PDQ would have to submit
a detailed lighting plan consistent with standards in the City ordinance.
11/4/91 _ _
8
Item #7 PDQ will provide such plan, subject to approval of all other items listed herein.
The Director of Planning and Inspection indicated PDQ would also have to
submit a detailed grading plan specifically addressing the severe slope acceptable
to the City Engineer.
Item #8 PDQ conceded to build a masonry wall, a brick wall has never been
contemplated.
The Director of Planning and Inspection advised the Council this was in
response to the City's position that the exterior of the masonry wall should
match the exterior of the building.
The Director of Planning and Inspection also pointed out a landscaping plan for the revised
site plan had not been submitted. He felt, however, it would not be significantly different
than the original plan but nevertheless has not been submitted.
The Director of Planning and Inspection advised the Council the staff felt PDQ had, for the
most part, met many of the standards and concerns contained in the resolution presented
to the City Council on October 21 denying the application. He recommended consideration
of approval of the application for the revised site and building plan and special use permit
subject to 18 specific conditions which were presented to the Council. The Director of
Planning Inspection next read the 18 conditions presented.
The Director of Planning and Inspection noted the plans currently before the City Council,
based on the last PDQ submission, do not meet all ordinance requirements, and the
conditions are designed to address these points, however, the applicants have not indicated
they would make the changes outlined in the conditions. He also reminded the Council the
resolution in the agenda packets had not been modified since receipt of this revised site
plan, and therefore, would be inappropriate for consideration as written. He further advised
the Council the ordinance amendment authorizing detached car washes at service stations
would be considered separately at the meeting, and this application would be dependent
upon adoption of the ordinance amendment.
Councilmember Cohen raised for discussion the fact that PDQ's application was not and
would not be in compliance with the City Ordinances until the 18 conditions were met. He
expressed dismay with PDQ's continual attempts to bargain issues that are clearly governed
by ordinances.
The Mayor opened the meeting for public comment.
11/4/91 -9-
MR JIM MERILA, MERILA AND ASSOCIATES
Mr. Jim Merila, Merila and Associates, expressed thanks to City staff for their fine efforts
in getting the revised site plan and recommendations to the Council in such a short period
of time. He asked the Council for consideration of PDQ's desire to screen the east side of
the site with landscaping until the development of the proposed future office building. Mr.
Merila then advised the Council a court of law in Maple Grove recently decided in favor of
Amoco Oil Company's contention that a canopy is part of the building, and not a sign.
In response to Councilmember Cohen's question as to PDQ's acceptance of the set of 18
conditions presented by the Director of Planning and Inspection, Mr. Merila indicated he
could not respond to them at this time.
ELLA SANDER, 6732 WILLOW LANE N
Ms. Sander first challenged the Council members to go to the SuperAmerica station and
stand the same distance away from it as the residences would be away from the proposed
PDQ station. She felt very strongly the PDQ development would definitely result in: 1)
declining property values; 2) severe traffic congestion; 3) unsafe conditions for children
getting on and off the buses; 4) increased crime; and 5) lights shining directly to the
neighboring houses. Ms. Sander expressed a great deal of concern as to what would happen
to the neighborhood if a PDQ store were developed.
BILL HANLEY 6452 WILLOW LANE N
Mr. Hanley questioned the timing on the traffic lights at this intersection, and stated that,
as is, only two cars can pull out onto T.H. 252 per light.
The City Manager advised Mr. Hanley the state has very strict controls on timing traffic
lights and that previous attempts by the City for timing adjustments have been unsuccessful.
In response, Councilmember Scott suggested the City Manager contact Mr. Bill Crawford,
State of Minnesota.
DON INGLE, 7206 WILLOW L N
Mr. Ingle felt a PDQ store would mean very unsafe conditions with significantly increased
pedestrian traffic crossing T.H. 252
TOM AUST 6500 WILLOW LANE N
Mr. Aust challenged Councilmember Rosene's recent statements quoted in the local
newspaper that if Tires Plus should "blend" well with the neighboring businesses, shouldn't
any development at the subject site also "blend" with neighboring homes? Mr. Aust then
raised a discussion on the crime at SuperAmerica and asked for some statistics. In response,
the City Manager reviewed the numbers and types of crime contained in the current 12-
month police report. Mr. Aust asked how the City intended to control another 24 -hour gas
station/convenience store when SuperAmerica seemed to be rather out of control.
is
11/4/91 - 10-
In response to the Mayor's question as to whether or not the Planning Commission needed
to again review the revised site plan, the City Attorney indicated it was his understanding
the changes were made in response to recommendations by the Planning Commission. If
the Council felt there were changes in the plan the Planning Commission had not yet
reviewed, the Council could in fact send the plan back to the Planning Commission.
The Director of Planning and Inspection raised for discussion the fact that these are not new
items; they are items that have been covered over and over again in an attempt to develop
an acceptable site plan in compliance with the City Ordinances. The City Manager advised
the Council staff is not in favor of continuing this process any longer and recommended a
decision be made at this meeting.
The Mayor, Council, and Attorney briefly discussed the City's grounds for denying the
application being the application /site plan not meeting the standards for a special use permit.
The City Attorney advised the Council he was familiar with the Amoco Oil Company case
that went to court in Maple Grove. The issue there dealt strictly with the size of the store,
and had nothing in common with the application before the Council.
There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to
deny Planning Commission Application No. 91018 submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc., on
the basis that the standards for a special use permit had not been met.
The Director of Planning and Inspection recommended a new resolution of denial be
drafted, including: 1) the history of the application; 2) the fact that the plan before the
Council this evening did not meet the standards for a special use permit in that it did not
comply with the City's zoning ordinances; and 3) language terminating the process of
repeated submissions of revised plans.
Councilmember Cohen stated the Council members and residents need to accept the fact
that Mr. Atkins does in fact have a right to sell this property for commercial use and
suggested possible work/communication begin on how to deal with the fact this property is
zoned C -2.
ROSS SNYDER, 6408 WILLOW LANE N
Mr. Snyder asked if the public hearing was still open for public comment. In response, the
Mayor stated public comment was certainly still welcome, however, a formal public hearing
was not required at this time. The Director of Planning and Inspection advised the Council
the notice that had been sent out was a standard public hearing notice, and in fact did
misinform the residents.
Mr. Snyder felt the Council should consider the fact that the City Ordinances were written
a very long time ago,'long before 24 -hour gas stations; and he felt the Council needs to look
to the future and to a healthy community in making a decision on this application.
11/4/91
11
BRUCE MORROW 7212 WILLO LANE N
Mr. Morrow suggested the City buy the site and develop a City park/playground.
CHARLES STUTZ 7001 WILLOW LANE N
Mr. Stutz questioned PDQ's claim to have completed a study which indicated the site will
support a gas station when previous gas stations at that site have continually failed.
Following a prolonged discussion recapping the history of this property, the PDQ
application, and recent improvements to T.H. 252, there was a motion by Councilmember
Pedlar and seconded by CounciImember Rosene directing staff to draft a resolution denying
this application on the basis that the standards for a special use permit had not been met.
The motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Mayor Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Rosene directing
staff to work proactively with Mr. Atkins and the residents of the Willow Lane /66th Avenue
area to ascertain what types of desirable development the City could pursue for Mr. Atkins'
property. The motion passed unanimously.
RECESS
The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 9 :35 p.m. and reconvened at 9:55 p.m.
ORDINANCES
AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENT IN EARLE BROWN FIRST ADDITION
The City Manager presented An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of a Drainage and Utility
Easement in Earle Brown First Addition. The ordinance was offered for a first reading on
October 7, 1991, published in the City's official newspaper on October 16, 1991, and was
offered this evening for a second reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 91 -18
Member Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption:
AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENT IN EARLE BROWN FIRST ADDITION
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Dave
Rosene. The motion passed unanimously.
11/4/91 -
12-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES
REGARDING GAMBLING REGULATIONS
The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances
Regarding Gambling Regulations. The ordinance was offered for a first reading on
October 7, 1991, published in the City's official newspaper on October 16, 1991, and was
offered this evening for a second reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 91 -19
Member Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES
REGARDING GAMBLING REGULATIONS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Dave
Rosene. The motion passed unanimously.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANNCES TO
_A LLOW DETACHED CAR WASHES AT SERVICE STATION SITES
The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances
to Allow Detached Car Washes at Service Station Sites. The ordinance was offered for a
first reading on October 7, 1991, published in the City's official newspaper on October 16,
1991, and was offered this evening for a second reading.
Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance
Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Allow Detached Car Washes at Service
Station Sites at 9:57 p.m. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address
the Council.
There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to
close the public hearing at 9:58 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 91 -20
Member Dave Rosene introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES TO
ALLOW DETACHED CAR WASHES AT SERVICE STATION SITES
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Phil
Cohen. The motion passed unanimously.
11/4/91 - 13 -
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
REQUEST OF MAROUETTE BANK BROOKDALE FOR CONSIDERATION OF
AMENDMENT OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE
The City Manager presented a request from Frank Slawson, President of Marquette Bank
Brookdale, for consideration of a variance or modification of the City's sign ordinance to
allow for a reduction in size or elimination of building signage as a trade -off for a smaller
free - standing signage. He recommended the Council refer this request to the Planning
Commission for review of the existing sign ordinance.
The Council discussed Mr. Slawson's request and briefly reviewed the history of the City's
sign ordinance. It was noted the Council had recently asked the Planning Commission to
review sections of the City's sign ordinance which relate to real estate and advertising signs.
The Mayor recommended the Planning Commission consider reducing the square- footage
percentage allowance for building signs in the C -2 zone and also review the allowance for
detached signs.
Councilmember me er Scott suggested, and a the Council concurred, h Pl i i on
c t e Planning Commission
gg g
should review and update the City's sign ordinance. She further expressed the need for
some flexibility within the ordinance.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to
refer this proposal to the Planning Commission and request they evaluate the City's existing
sign ordinance to see if reduction of wall signage is warranted and if smaller free - standing
signs would be a possible tradeoff. The motion passed unanimously.
CONSIDERATION OF SPECIFIED LICENSES
ON -SALE NONINTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR CHUCK WAGON
GRILL
There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
approve an on -sale nonintoxicating malt liquor license for the Chuck Wagon Grill at 5720
Morgan Avenue North. The motion passed unanimously.
UPDATE ON HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE
Councilmember Cohen advised the Council members the Human Services Committee
recently made a presentation addressing human service issues to a group of five
communities, four school districts and the Metropolitan Council. He felt the presentation
was very well received, and may chart a new course of action to addressing these issues. He
asked the City Manager to provide copies of that presentation to the Council members.
11/4/91 - 14 -
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar, and seconded by Councilmember Rosene
to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City
Council adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
Deputy City Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor
Recorded and transcribed by:
Peggy McNabb
Northern Counties Secretarial Service
11/4/91 -15
Mayoral Appointments:
Election Judges for December 17, 1991, Special Election for Precinct 9
The following persons are recommended for appointment as election judges for
the December 17, 1991, special election for.Precinct 9.
Precinct 9
Chair D -Rosie Teas
R -Joann Reavely
D -Tracy Tyler, Jr.
R -Mary VanDerWerf
D -Doris Chapman
(REQUEST2)
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER counci t Meeting Date
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
*************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $4,275,000 GENERAL
OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1992A
DEPT. APPROVAL:
�0-- W, _
Paul Holmlund, Director of Finance
MANAGERIS REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:_f
No comments to supplement this report
Comments below /attached
SUXXARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )
This bond sale is being proposed to provide funds to recall the General
Obligation Tax Increment Bonds of 1985A. Prevailing interest rates
• today are much lower than they were when the 1985 Bonds were sold. This
creates an opportunity for the City to lower its interest expense by
replacing the old high interest rate bonds with new lower interest rate
bonds. The difference between the two will be a savings to the City.
The 1985 Bonds can't be called (paid off and retired) until 1996.
Proceeds of the 1992 Bonds will be invested until 1996 when they will be
used to recall the 1985 Bonds. By acting now, the City is locking in
today's very low interest rates. This bonds sale could be done any time
between now and 1996. It is being proposed now because interest rates
aren't likely to go much lower and may rise instead.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Passage of the attached resolution authorizing the sale of bonds and
setting date of sale for January 13, 1992.
•
�L
Member introduced the g
followin resolution and moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION :TO.
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $4,275,000
GENERAL OBLIGATION TAR INCREMENT REFUNDING BONDS SERIES 1992A
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center ,
Hennepin County, Minnesota (City) as follows:
1. It is determined that:
(a) the City is authorized by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 475 (Act) and Section 475.67, Subdivision 13 of the Act
to issue and sell its general obligation bonds to refund
outstanding bonds when determined by the City Council to be
necessary and desirable;
i
(b) it is necessary and desirable that the City issue $4,275,000
General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 1992A
(Bonds) to refund certain outstanding general obligations of the
City;
(c) the bonds to be refunded (Refunded Bonds) consist of the
outstanding principal amount of the City's $5,250,000 General
Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1985A, dated November
1, 1985.
2. To provide moneys to refund in advance of maturity the Refunded
Bonds, the City will therefor issue and sell Bonds in the amount of $4,227,975• In
order to provide in part the additional interest required to market the Bonds at this
time, additional Bonds will be issued in the amount of $47,025. The excess of the
purchase price of the Bonds over the sum of $4,227,975 will be credit to the debt
service fund debt service fund for the Bonds for the purpose of paying interest first
coming due on the additional Bonds. The Bonds will be issued, sold and delivered
in accordance with the terms of the following Terms of Proposal:
RESOLUTION NO.
THE CITY HAS AUTHORIZED SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED TO NEGOTIATE THIS ISSUE
ON THEIR BEHALF. PROPOSALS WILL BE RECEIVED ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS:
TERMS OF PROPOSAL
$4,275,004*
C3TY 06 BROOKLYN CENT I, MINNESOTA
GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1992A
Proposals for the Bonds will be received by Springsted Incorporated on behalf of the City on
Monday, January 13, 1992, until 11:00 A.M., Central Time, at the offices of SPRINGS TED
Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 1 oo, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 -21 43, after which
time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds Wil be by the
C Council at 7:40 P.M. Central Time of the same day.
. Y
DETAILS OF THE BONDS
The Bands wiD be dated February 1, 1992, as the date of original Issue, and will bear Interest
payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 1992. Interest will
be computed on ttie basis of a 380 -day year of twelve 30 -day months. The Bonds wits be
Issued in the denomination of $5,000 each, or in integral multiples thereof, as requested by the
P urchaser and fu re istered as to principal and interest. Principal will be payable at.the main
fiY g p P
corporate office of the registrar and interest on each Bond will be payable by check or draft of
the registrar mailed to the registered holder thereof at the holder's address as it appears on the
books of the registrar as of the close of business on the 15th day of the immediately preceding
month.
The Bonds will mature February 1 in the years and amounts as follows:
1997 $405,000 2000 $615,000 2002 $785,000
1998 $466,000 2001 $695,000 2003 $770,004
1999 $640,000
* The City reserves the right, after proposals are opened and prior to award, to increase or reduce the
Principal amount of the Bonds offered for sate. Any such increase or redaction wig be in a total
amount not to acceed $50,000 and will be made in muftiples of $S,OW in any of the nunw W. in the
event the principal amount of the Bonds is increased or reduced, any premium offered or any
discount taken will be increased or reduced by a percentage equal to the percentage by which the
Principel amount of the Bonds is increased or reduced
OPTIONAL REDEMPTION
The City may elect on February 1, 1959, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or
after February 1, 2000. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part, at the option of
the City and in such order as the City shall determine and within a maturity by lot as selected
by the registrar. All prepayments shall be at a price of par plus accrued interest
SECURITY AND PURPOSE
The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and
credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition the City will pledge tax
increment income generated from the City's Earl Brown Farm Redevelopment Project and Tax
Increment Financing District. The proceeds will be used to refund in advance of their stated
RESOLUTION NO.
maturities all of the bonds maturing in the years 1997 through 20D3 of the 0*3 General
Obligaton Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1985A.
TYPE OF PROPOSALS
SALS
Proposals shelf be for not less than
$4,227,975 and accrued interest on rise total principal
amount of the Bonds. Proposals shall be accompanied by a Good Faith Deposit Cveposit" in
the form of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Sure Bond in the amount of $4 750
Surety 2. ,
pay able to the order of the Cit If a check is used it must acco each o
Y �Y PAY proposal. If a P
Financial Surety Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a
bond in the State of Minnesota, and preapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to
Springsted Incorporated prior to the opening of the proposals. The Financial Surety Bond
must identify each underwriter whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If
the Bonds are awarded to an underwriter using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is
required to submit its Deposit to Springsted incorporated in the form of a certified or cashier's
check or wire transfer as instructed by Springsted Incorporated not later than 3:30 P.M.,
Central; Time, on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by
that time, the Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit
requirement. The City will deposit the check of the purchaser, the amount of which will be
deducted at settlement and no interest will accrue to the purchaser. In the event the purchaser
fails to comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the City. No
proposal can be withdrawn oc amended after the time set for receiving proposals unless the
meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to
another
data without award
of the Scads having been made. Rates shall be in integral
multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. Rates must be In ascending order. Bonds of the same
maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No
conditional proposals will be accepted.
AWARD
The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be detem fined on a true
interest cost MC) basis. The City's computation of the interest rate of each proposal. in
accordance with customary practice, will be controlling.
BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER'S OPTION
tf the Bonds qualdy for issuance of any policy of municipal bond insurance or commitment
therefor at the option of the underwriter, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the
issuance of any such commitment shall be at the sole option and expense of the purchaser of
the Bonds. An increased costs of
issuance of the Honda resuitirh from such edZasB of
� y g l�
insurance shall
be paid by the urchaser, axes that, if the C' has r and received a
P Pt ity requested
rating on the Bonds from a rating agency, the City will pay that rating fee. Any other rating
agency fees shall be the responsibility of the purchaser.
Failure of the municipal bond insurer to Issue the policy after Bonds have been awarded to the
purchaser shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery on
the Bonds.
REGISTRAR
The City will name the registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City
will pay. for the services of the registrar.
RESOLUTION NO.
CUSIP NUMBERS
u r
If the Bonds qualify for assignment o f CUSIP numbers such numbers wilt be printed on the
Bands, but neither the failure to print such numbers an any Bond nor any error vdh respect
thereto wilt constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accW deWwy of the
Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers
shall be paid by the purchaser.
SE i �MENT
Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the
purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and the purchaser. Delivery will be
subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Holmes & Graven,
Chartered of Minneapolis, Minnesota, which opinion will be printed on the Bonds, and of
customary closing Papers, including a no- litigation certi icate. Cn the date of settlement
payment for the Bonds shalt be made in federal, or equivalent funds which shall be received at
the offices of the City or its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Except as
compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds shall have been made impossible by
action of the City, or its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss sutfsred by
the City by reason of the purchaser's non - compliance with said terns for payment.
OFFICIAL STATEMENT
The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent
Information relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly -final Official
Statement within the moaning of Rule 15c2 -12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
For copies of the Official Statement or for any additional information prior to sale, any
prospective purchaser is referred to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springsted incorpora
85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone (612) 223 -3000.
The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the
maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other
Information required by law, shall constitute a "Final Official Statement` of the City with respect
to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2 -12, By awarding the Bonds to any
underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting a proposal therefor, the City agrees that no
more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide w&4ut cost to the
senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 170 copies of
the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City designates
the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent
for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Pwticipating
U
- nderwriter, An underwriter deGveri sal with respect o the Bonds agrees and
e
that if its proposal is accepted by the (Q it shall accept s� designation amend thereby
shall
enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for
purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official
Statement.
RESOLUTION NO.
Date Todd Paulson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member and upon vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City
of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, hereby certify that I have carefully compared the
attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City held on Monday, November 18, 1991, with the original minutes on file in
my office and the extract is a full, true and correct copy of the minutes, insofar as
they relate to the issuance and sale of $4,275, 044 General Obligation Tax Increment
Refunding Bonds, Series 1992A of the City.
WITNESS My hand as City CIerk and the corporate seal of the City this
day of
City Clerk
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
(SEAL)
r.
ti
Recommendations
For
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
$4,275,000
General Obligation Tax Increment
Refunding Bonds, Series 1992A
Study No. 3956
SPRINGSTED Incorporated
i November 11 , 1991
SPRINGSTED
f {.vCE ADVISORS
16655 West Bluemound Road 65 a � � r;',+, Place 6800 College Boulevard
Suite 290 i.' ? C:- Suite 600
Brookfield, WI 53005 -5935 Saint Fau�l, Pui " -; x:5101 -2143 Overland Park, KS 6621 1 -1 533
(414) 782 -8222 1610) z`r;; `000 (913) 345 -8062
Fax: (414) 782 -2904 Pax
5 3002 Fax: (913) 345-1770
2739 Second Avenue S.E. 222 South Ninth Street
Cedar Rapids, !A 52403 -1434 Suite 2825
(319) 363 -2221 Minneapolis, MN 55402 -3368
Fax: (319) 363-6999 (612) 333 -9177
Fax: (612) 333 -2363
November 11, 1991
Mayor Todd Paulson
Members, City Council
Mr. Gerald Splinter, Manager
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Re: Recommendations for the Issuance of $4,275,000 General Obligation Tax Increment
Refunding Bonds, Series 1992A
We respectfully request your consideration of our recommendations for this issue in
accordance with the 'Terms of Proposal," attached.
On November 18, 1985, the City sold $5,250,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds,
Series 1985A (the 1985 Bonds ") at a net interest rate of 8.0542°/x. The issue was sold for the
purpose of financing public improvements associated with the Earle Brown Farm
Redevelopment Project, Tax Increment Financing District.
Based on current market conditions, it is our recommendation that the City proceed with the
sale of a "crossover" refunding bond issue that would refund all of the callable maturities of the
1985 Bonds. We project that the new bonds could be sold at a net interest rate of 5.897°
resulting in a savings to the City, net of all costs of issuance, of approximately $308,360 with an
estimated present value savings of approximately $195,250. Appendix I, page 4, is a summary
of the refunding bonds and savings.
In a crossover refunding, the proceeds of the refunding (new issue) bonds are placed in an
escrow account with a major bank and invested in government securities. These securities and
their earnings are structured to pay debt service on the new bonds through the call date of the
refunded bonds (February 1, 1996), at which time the escrow account will crossover and pay
the remaining principal on the original issue by calling in all of those remaining bonds. The
City will continue to pay debt service on the original issue through the call date. Beginning with
the August 1, 1996 interest payment, the City will crossover and begin making debt service
payments on the new issue, taking advantage of the lower interest rates.
Attached as Appendix I is a complete analytical summary of the refunding. Schedule A shows
• the debt service of the 1985 Bonds, as exists now. On the call date of February 1, 1996, all of
the 1985 Bonds maturing in 1997 -2003 totaling $4,180,000 will be called in for redemption.
Schedule B shows this amount of refunded principal.
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
November 11, 1991
Schedule C of Appendix I shows the nonrefunded principal and interest. The City will continue
to pay debt service on these amounts through February 1, 1996. Schedule D shows the
estimated debt service for the new crossover refunding bonds. The City will begin to pay debt
service on these bonds beginning on August 1, 1996. Up until that date, the debt service on
these bonds will be. paid by investment earnings of the escrow account. Schedule E of
Appendix I is the total estimated debt service for this issue, the outstanding debt for the 1985
Bonds, and the estimated annual savings.
These bonds will be dated February 1, 1992 and mature February 1, 1997 through 2003.
Interest on these bonds due August 1, 1992 through February 1, 1996 will be payable from an
escrow account established upon the successful sale of the bonds. Thereafter, principal and
interest payments will be made from tax increment income generated from the Earle Brown
Farm Redevelopment Project. Tax increment income is projected to be more than adequate to
make debt service payments on the 1985 Bonds through the crossover date and then make
debt service payments on the refunding bonds (this issue).
We recommend that bonds maturing in the years 2000 through 2003 be callable at the option
of the City on February 1, 1999, and on any day thereafter at par. This call feature will permit
the City to prepay a portion of the issue should funds become available.
Interest rates can change rapidly with changing market conditions. As always the City reserves
the right to cancel the sale of the bonds or reject the bids received if interest rates are deemed
unfavorable. Springsted Incorporated will continue to monitor interest rate changes between
now and the sale date and will keep the City informed.
The refunding issue as now structured includes all costs of issuance including bond discount
and rating fees. All savings estimates are net of these costs. Because the tax increment bonds
are exempt private activity bonds, as discussed in the following paragraph, the City will be
required to contribute an estimated $16,615 from available funds toward the cost of issuance.
This cash contribution is required to meet the requirements of exempt private activity bonds
which limits the total amount of issuance costs and discount to no more than 2% of the
principal amount of the bond issue. To account for the actual underwriter's discount on the
refunding bonds and actual costs of issuance, which may differ from the assumptions made in
these recommendations, we have included a provision in the offering to permit the City to
increase or decrease the principal in any of the maturities in a total amount not to exceed
$50,000 to offset any fluctuation. As interest rates fluctuate, the amounts of money needed in
the escrow account also fluctuates.
Because the 1985 Bonds were originally issued to finance development costs for property
which was privately developed, these bonds are "exempt private activity" bonds under Section
103 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The City is required to hold a public hearing on the
issuance of this refunding issue.
The City has an excellent "A -1" rating by Moody's Investors Service and we recommend that
the City authorize Springsted Incorporated to request a rating from Moody's for this issue. The
cost will be approximately $5,500, which will be billed directly to the City, and has been
included in our calculation of costs of issuance.
The refunding bonds are subject to the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and 1989 amendments. The
1986 Act and 1989 amendments modified rebating arbitrage requirements to the Treasury.
Generally speaking, all arbitrage profits (the yield difference between the earnings on the
investments and the yield on the bonds) must be rebated to the Treasury. The City will not owe
any rebate from investments of bond proceeds because the proceeds will be invested at a yield
less than the new refunding bond yield, thus creating no arbitrage. Another potential source of
rebate would stem from the creation of the debt service fund to pay debt service on the new
Page 2
City f Brooklyn Center, tY Y
M Minnesota
November 11, 1991
• bonds. The City will be exempt from rebate from this source so long as it deposits tax
increment income into a capital projects fund and transfers into the debt service fund only that
amount required to cover the current year's debt service, thus maintaining a "bona fide" debt
service fund. (A bona fide debt service fund requires that no more than 13 months of debt
service money be accumulated.)
The 1991 Legislature amended bond sale procedures to permit the non - public issuance of
obligations if the issuer retains an independent financial advisor. Springsted remains a
proponent of competitive bidding but sees some advantages to the new legislation. We
recommend a competitive negotiated sale where all bidders reasonably expected to compete
for an issue are notified of the pending sale and competitive proposals are received but no
legal advertisement is published. The issuer benefits from eliminating the publication costs and
any risk of having an issue delayed due to the time required for publication, or the inadvertent
failure of a legal notice to be published. In our ever changing industry published notices are no
longer a critical source of information for bidders. Other than for publication you should see no
change in your issuing procedures or in the bidding results.
We recommend these bonds be offered for sale on Monday, January 13, 1992 with proposals
received at the offices of Springsted Incorporated at 11:00 A.M. A tabulation of all proposals
will be made and presented to the City Council for consideration of award at 7:00 P.M. the
same evening. A representative of Springsted Incorporated will attend your meeting to provide
recommendations as to the acceptability of proposals received.
Respectfully submitted,
SPRINGSTED Incorporated
mli
Page 3
APPENDIX 1
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
G.O. Refunding Bonds, Series 1992A
I
Full Crossover Advance Refunding of
G.O. Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1985A
Even Annual Savings Structure
Issuer Funds Required: $16,615.78
Date of Bonds: 02/01/92
Delivery Date: 02/12/92
Refunded Call Date: 02/01/96
1 st Callable Date: 02/01/97
s
Comparison: Refunded Refunding
Principal: 4,180,000 4,275,000
Bond Years: 35,670.00 36,090.00
Avg. Maturity: 8.533 8.442
NIC: 8.025% 5.89710
Total Net Savings: 308,361.72
Present Value Savings: 195,253.96
As to of. P.V. Ref.'' Int.: 18.85%
Prepared: 11/06/91
By SPRINGSTED Incorporated
Page 4
o Minnesota Prepared: 11/06/91
C' of Brooklyn n Center, Minn P
i Y
s 198 A B SPRINGSTED Incorporated
Tax Increment Bonds, Series 5
B Y P
E sting Debt Service
Schedule A
Date Princi pal Rate Interest Semi - Annual Annual
08/01/92 198,462.50 198,462.50
02/01/93 140,000.00 6.900% 198,462.50 338,462.50 536,925.00
08/01/93 193,632.50 193,632.50
02/01/94 185,000.00 7.100% 193,632.50 378,632.50 572,265.00
08/01/94 187,065.00 187,065.00
02/01/95 240,000.00 7.300% 187,065.00 427,065.00 614,130.00
08/01/95 178,305.00 178,305.00
02/01/96 295,000.00 7.500% 178,305.00 473,305.00 651,610.00
08/01/96 167,242.50 167,242.50
02/01/97 360,000.00 7.700% 167,242.50 527,242.50 694,485.00
08/01/97 153,382.50 153,382.50
02/01/98 430,000.00 7.900% 153,382.50 583,382.50 736,765.00
08/01/98 136,397.50 136,397.50
02/01/99 510,000.00 8.000% 136,397.50 646,397.50 782,795.00
08/01/99 115,997.50 115,997.50
02/01/2000 595,000.00 8.000% 115,997.50 710,997.50 826,995.00
08/01/2000 92,197.50 92,197.50
01/2001 690,000.00 8.000% 92,197.50 782,197.50 874,395.00
dWl /2001 64,597.50 64,597.50
02/01/2002 795,000.00 8.100% 64,597.50 859,597.50 924,195.00
08/01/2002 32,400.00 32,400.00
02/01/2003 800,000.00 8.100% 32,400.00 832,400.00 864,800.00
als 5,040,000.00 3,039,360.00 8,079,360.00 8,079,360.00
Bond Years: 38,080.00 All lower calculations Refunded Bonds Only
Avg. Mat..: 7.556 are made from the date Avg. Mat..: 8.533
NIC........ 7.982% of the refunding bonds NIC ....... . 8.025
Page 5
of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Prepared: 11/06/91
Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1985A By SPRINGSTED Incorporated
Refunded Principal and any Call Premium
Schedule B
Date Principal Premium Semi - Annual Annual
02/01/96 4,180,000.00 4,180,000.00 4,180,000.00
•
O als 4,180,000.00 4,180,000.00 4,180,000.00
Call Date .............: 02/01/96 This portion will be paid by the escrow.
First Date Called.....: 02/01/97 The escrow will also pay the interest on
Call Premium..........: the refunding bonds thru the call date.
Page 6
of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Prepared: 11/06/91
. Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1985A By SPRINGSTED Incorporated
Non - Refunded Principal and Non - Refunded Interest
Schedule C
Date Principal Interest Semi- Annual Annual
08/01/92 198,462.50 198,462.50
02/01/93 140,000.00 198,462.50 338,462.50 536,925.00
08/01/93 193,632.50 193,632.50
02/01/94 185,000.00 193,632.50 378,632.50 572,265.00
08/01/94 187,065.00 187,065.00
02/01/95 240,000.00 187,065.00 427,065.00 614,130.00
08/01/95 178,305.00 178,305.00
02/01/96 295,000.00 178,305.00 473,305.00 651,610.00
als 860,000.00 1,514,930.00 2,374,930.00 2,374,930.00
Call Date .............: 02/01/96 This portion will be paid by the issuer.
First Date Called.....: 02/01/97 The issuer will also pay debt service on
Call Premium..........: the refunding bonds after the call date.
Page 7
y of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Prepared: 11/06/91
. Refunding Bonds, Series 1992A By SPRINGSTED Incorporated
Refunding Debt Service
Schedule D
Date Principal Rate Interest Semi - Annual Annual
08/01/92 122,111.25 122,111.25
02/01/93 122,111.25 122,111.25 * 244,222.50
08/01/93 122,111.25 122,111.25
02/01/94 122,111.25 122,111.25 * 244,222.50
08/01/94 122,111.25 122,111.25
02/01/95 122,111.25 122,111.25 * 244,222.50
08/01/95 122,111.25 122,111.25
02/01/96 122,111.25 122,111.25 * 244,222.50
08/01/96 122,111.25 122,111.25
02/01/97 405,000.00 5.250% 122,111.25 527,111.25 649,222.50
08/01/97 111,480.00 111,480.00
02/01/98 465,000.00 5.400% 111,480.00 576,480.00 687,960.00
08/01/98 98,925.00 98,925.00
02/01/99 540,000.00 5.550% 98,925.00 638,925.00 737,850.00
08/01/99 83,940.00 83,940.00
02/01/2000 615,000.00 5.700% 83,940.00 698,940.00 782,880.00
08/01/2000 66,412.50 66,412.50
01/2001 695,000.00 5.800% 66,412.50 761,412.50 827,825.00
01/2001 46,257.50 46,257.50
02/01/2002 785,000.00 5.900% 46,257.50 831,257.50 877,515.00
08/01/2002 23,100.00 23,100.00
02/01/2003 770,000.00 6.000% 23,100.00 793,100.00 816,200.00
W als 4,275,000.00 2,081,342.50 6,356,342.50 6,356,342.50
Bond Years: 36,090.00 * Paid by escrow. Bond Date.: 02/01/92
Avg. Mat..: 8.442 All other payments Delivery..: 02/12/92
NIC.......: 5.897% made by the issuer. Bond Yield: 5.75646%
l
Page 8
t
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Prepared: 11/06/91
Refunding Bonds, Series 1992A By SPRINGSTED Incorporated
A al Savings Analysis
Schedule E
Non - Refunded Refunding Total New Existing Savings
Date Debt Service Debt Service Debt Service Debt Service or (Loss)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
08/01/92
02/01/93 536,925.00 536,925.00 536,925.00
08/01/93
02/01/94 572,265.00 572,265.00 572,265.00
08/01/94
02/01/95 614,130.00 614,130.00 614,130.00
08/01/95
02/01/96 651,610.00 651,610.00 651,610.00
08/01/96
02/01/97 649 649,222.50 694,485.00 45,262.50
08/01/97
02/01/98 687,960.00 687,960.00 736,765.00 48,805.00
08/01/98
02/01/99 737,850.00 737,850.00 782,795.00 44,945.00
08/01/99
02/01/2000 782,880.00 782,880.00 826,995.00 44,115.00
08/01/2000
0 01/2001 827,825.00 827,825.00 874,395.00 46,570.00
1/2001
0 /01/2002 877,515.00 877,515.00 924,195.00 46,680.00
08/01/2002
02/01/2003 816,200.00 816,200.00 864,800.00 48,600.00
0 als 2,374,930.00 5,379,452.50 7,754,382.50 8,079,360.00 324,977.50
Present Value Rate...: 5.75646% Funds from Issuer....: (16,615.78)
Present Value Savings: 195,253.96 Funds to Sinking Fund:
As % of P.V. Ref. Int: 18.85% Total Net Savings....: 308,361.72
Page 9
THE CITY HAS AUTHORIZED SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED TO NEGOTIATE THIS ISSUE
ON THEIR BEHALF. PROPOSALS WILL BE RECEIVED ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS:
TERMS OF PROPOSAL
$4,275,000*
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1992A
Proposals for the Bonds will be received by Springsted Incorporated on behalf of the City on
Monday, January 13, 1992, until 11:00 A.M., Central Time, at the offices of SPRINGSTED
Incorporated,
85 East Seventh Place Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-2143, after which
time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the
City Council at 7:00 P.M., Central Time, of the same day.
DETAILS OF THE BONDS
The Bonds will be dated February 1, 1992, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest
payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 1992. Interest will
be computed on the basis of a 360 -day year of twelve 30 -day months. The Bonds will be
issued in the denomination of $5,000 each, or in integral multiples thereof, as requested by the
purchaser, and fully registered as to principal and interest. Principal will be payable at the main
corporate office of the registrar and interest on each Bond will be payable by check or draft of
the registrar mailed to the registered holder thereof at the holder's address as it appears on the
books of the registrar as of the close of business on the 15th day of the immediately preceding
month.
The Bonds will mature February 1 in the years and amounts as follows:
1997 $405,000 2000 $615,000 2002 $785,000
1998 $465,000 2001 $695,000 2003 $770,000
1999 $540,000
* The City reserves the right, after proposals are opened and prior to award, to increase or reduce the
principal amount of the Bonds offered for sale. Any such increase or reduction will be in a total
amount not to exceed $50,000 and will be made in multiples of $5,000 in any of the maturities. In the
event the principal amount of the Bonds is increased or reduced, any premium offered or any
discount taken will be increased or reduced by a percentage equal to the percentage by which the
principal amount of the Bonds is increased or reduced.
OPTIONAL REDEMPTION
The City may elect on February 1, 1999, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or
after February 1, 2000. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part, at the option of
the City and in such order as the City shall determine and within a maturity by lot as selected
by the registrar. All prepayments shall be at a price of par plus accrued interest.
SECURITY AND PURPOSE
The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and
credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition the City will pledge tax
increment income generated from the City's Earl Brown Farm Redevelopment Project and Tax
Increment Financing District. The proceeds will be used to refund in advance of their stated
Page 10
T
maturities all of the bonds maturing in the years 1997 through 2003 of the City's General
• Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1985A.
TYPE OF PROPOSALS
Proposals shall be for not less than $4,227,975 and accrued interest on the total principal
amount of the Bonda. Proposals shall be accompanied by a Good Faith Deposit ( "Deposit') in
the form of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond in the amount of $42,750,
payable to the order of the City. If a check is used, it must accompany each proposal. If a
Financial Surety Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a
bond in the State of Minnesota, and preapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to
Springsted Incorporated prior to the opening of the proposals. The Financial Surety Bond
must identify each underwriter whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If
the Bonds are awarded to an underwriter using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is
required to submit its Deposit to Springsted Incorporated in the form of a certified or cashier's
check or wire transfer as instructed by Springsted Incorporated not later than 3:30 P.M.,
Central Time, on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by
that time, the Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit
requirement. The City will deposit the check of the purchaser, the amount of which will be
deducted at settlement and no interest will accrue to the purchaser. In the event the purchaser
fails to comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the City. No
proposal can be withdrawn or amended after the time set for receiving proposals unless the
meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to
another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral
multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1 %. Rates must be in ascending order. Bonds of the same
maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No
conditional proposals will be accepted.
• AWARD
The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true
interest cost (TIC) basis. The City's computation of the interest rate of each proposal, in
accordance with customary practice, will be controlling.
BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER'S OPTION
If the Bonds qualify for issuance of any policy of municipal bond insurance or commitment
therefor at the option of the underwriter, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the
issuance of any such commitment shall be at the sole option and expense of the purchaser of
the Bonds. Any increased costs of issuance of the Bonds resulting from such purchase of
insurance shall be paid by the purchaser, except that, if the City has requested and received a
rating on the Bonds from a rating agency, the City will pay that rating fee. Any other rating
agency fees shall be the responsibility of the purchaser.
Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after Bonds have been awarded to the
purchaser shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery on
the Bonds.
REGISTRAR
The City will name the registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City
will pay for the services of the registrar.
Page 11
CUSIP NUMBERS
• If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the
Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect
thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the
Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers
shall be paid by the purchaser.
SETTLEMENT
Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the
purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and the purchaser. Delivery will be
subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Holmes & Graven,
Chartered of Minneapolis, Minnesota, which opinion will be printed on the Bonds, and of
customary closing papers, including a no- litigation certificate. On the date of settlement
payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds which shall be received at
the offices of the City or its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Except as
compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds shall have been made impossible by
action of the City, or its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by
the City by reason of the purchaser's non - compliance with said terms for payment.
OFFICIAL STATEMENT
The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent
information relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly -final Official
Statement within the meaning of Rule 15c2 -12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
For copies of the Official Statement or for any additional information prior to sale, any
• prospective purchaser is referred to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springsted Incorporated,
85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone (612) 223 -3000.
The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the
maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other
information required by law, shall constitute a "Final Official Statement" of the City with respect
to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2 -12. By awarding the Bonds to any
underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting a proposal therefor, the City agrees that, no
more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the
senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 170 copies of
the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City designates
the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent
for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating
Underwriter. Any underwriter delivering a proposal with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby
that if its proposal is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall
enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for
purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official
Statement.
Dated November 18, 1991 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
/s/ Gerald Splinter
City Clerk
Page 12
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 11/18/9
!Agenda kem Number X(. a,
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Relating to
the Date of the Official Flood Plain Map
DEPT. APPROV
Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection
MANAGERS REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: ; 4
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
Attached is a copy of a memo from the Planner regarding a minor,
although significant, amendment to the newly adopted flood plain
ordinance. This new flood plain ordinance was adopted by the City
Council on March 25, 1991. Copies had been supplied to the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for review and we proceeded
to adopt the ordinance after we thought it was in order.
We have recently been advised by the DNR that the date we used for
the flood insurance study and offical flood plain map as well as
the Minnesota Statute citation used in the ordinance are in error
and must be changed.
The ordinance amendment being of to the City Council makes
g Y
these changes and was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its
November 7, 1991 meeting.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council have a first reading on
this ordinance amendment to establish a date and time for public
hearing and second reading.
i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection
FROM: Gary Shallcross, Planner
SUBJECT: Flood Plain Ordinance Amendment
DATE: November 12, 1991
The attached ordinance amendment makes two technical changes to the
City's flood plain ordinance. One change is to the date of the
flood insurance study and official flood plain map. This date has
always actually been February 17, 1982, the effective date of the
City's original flood plain ordinance. Our existing ordinance
refers to the date the City received the study and map from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency. The effective date, however,
has always been February 17, 1982. The second change simply
reflects a recodification of state statutes whereby the old Chapter
105 has now become Chapter 103G. There is no substantial change in
the provisions of the statute cited.
These ordinance changes are being required by the Department of
Natural Resources on behalf of FEMA. We have asked whether these
changes are of such a minor technical nature that they could be
made administratively without a public hearing. I have been
informed, however, that the map date is significant and that state
law requires a public hearing for any Zoning Ordinance amendment.
The publication cost for this ordinance amendment is approximately
$17.00 according to the Deputy City clerk. The Planning Commission
has reviewed and recommended approval of this ordinance amendment.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public"-hearing will be held on the
day of , 1991 at : p.m. at City Hall,
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance relating to the date of the official flood plain map.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request
at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel
Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES
RELATING TO THE DATE OF THE OFFICIAL FLOOD PLAIN MAP
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 -2120. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
2. Establishment of Official Zoning Map
The Official Zoning Map together with all materials
attached thereto is hereby adopted by reference and
declared to be a part of this ordinance. The
attached material shall include the Flood Insurance
Study for the City of Brooklyn Center prepared by
the Federal Insurance Administration dated [August
17, 1981] February 17, 1982 Floodway Boundary and
Floodway Maps and Flood Insurance Rate Maps
therein, all as amended by the attached Amendment
No. 1, prepared by Barr Engineering. The Official
Zoning Map shall be on file in the office of the
City Clerk and the Zoning Administrator.
Section 35 -2140. FLOODWAY DISTRICT (FW).
4. Standards for Floodway Special Uses
g. Structural Works for Flood Control that will
change the course, current or cross section of
protected wetlands or public waters shall be
subject to the provisions of Minnesota
Statute, Chapter [105] 103G Community -wide
structural works for flood control intended to
remove areas from the regulatory flood plain
shall not be allowed in the floodway.
ORDINANCE NO.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after
adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of , 1991.
Mayor Todd Paulson
ATTEST:
Deputy Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be
deleted.)
L_
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date November 18 1991
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
1992 Council Meeting Schedule
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Patricia A. Page, Deputy Citjklerk
MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: r/
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SLTNE IARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )
Below is the proposed 1992 Council meeting schedule. Meetings have not been scheduled for
December to allow some flexibility with regard to the budget hearings.
January 13 July 13
January 27 July 27
February 10 August 10
February 24 August 24
March 9 September 14
March 23 September 28
April 13 October 13, Tuesday
April 20, Board of Equalization October 26
April 27
May 11 November 9
May 26, Tuesday November 23
June 8
June 22
RECOMMENDED CITY COI NCIL ACTION
I recommend approval of the proposed 1992 City Council meeting schedule.
0 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 11/18 /91
Abenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION APPROVING REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS AND AUTHORIZING SOLICITATION OF
PROPOSALS TO DEVELOP A WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
DEPT. APPROV L: ,
Sy Knapp,/Director of Public Works _
AV
e r`i ` a;„r:ti ✓`
MANAGER'S REVIE'W/RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
� � c k � k � k ��k* Mxxy c�c�! cx�; c�c�c�k�k�k�k' �! c�K�k�k�k�k> k> k��k�K�k> k> k> k> k�k�! c�KX�k�k�Kac�tcycycae� !c�!c�acxaex>;e
• SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 473.878 Brooklyn Center is required to
prepare "...a local water management plan, capital improvement program, and
official controls as necessary to bring local water management into conformance
with the watershed plans (which have been adopted by the Shingle Creek Watershed
Management Commission and the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission)
within the time period prescribed in the implementation program of the watershed
plan (both Commissions have established May 3, 1993 as the date by which the
local plans must be completed) and, as necessary, shall prepare or cause to be
prepared amendments to the local comprehensive plan........ This statutory
requirement has been noted to the City Council on several occasions — i.e.,
during the 1991 budget development process and during the development of the
City's Storm Drainage Utility (SDU) ordinance and budget. The adopted 1991 and
1992 budgets for the SDU system each include $75,000 for development of this plan
(i.e. - a total of $150,000).
Because the rules and regulations regarding the required content for such local
plans have been under development by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil
Resources (BWSR) during the past year, and because numerous changes were made, we
have waited until now to recommend initiation of the City's plan development. A
copy of BWSR's 7th draft dated 10/3/91 is attached (see yellow sheets). Although
this version is not formally adopted, it now appears that few if any substantive
changes will be made. Accordingly, we now recommend that the City initiate
development of Brooklyn Center's plan.
For that purpose, City Engineer Mark Maloney has prepared the attached draft copy
® of a "Request for Proposal" (RFP) which we recommend for use in soliciting
proposals for the required consulting services. ,As prepared, the RFP includes
the following features:
• It describes a process whereby plan development will be prepared in two
phases. Phase I consists of data inventory, problem identification,
priority ranking of problem areas and scoping of Phase II work. Phase II
would then consist of detailed planning to resolve problems, prioritizing
improvements and analyzing costs.
Note 1 : The primary reason for phasing development of this plan is that,
at this time, it is impossible to predict the amount of work which will be
required in the second phase. Under the RFP, the consultant selected for
Phase I will be required to document all work completed in Phase I so that
the City could elect to chose a different consultant for Phase II if it
wishes to do so.
Note 2 : While Phase I is generally limited to preliminary work, the RFP
specifically requires that Phase I also included a detailed analysis of the
63rd /65th Avenues storm sewer system, to develop potential solutions to the
problems which have occurred on Indiana Avenue, on Orchard Avenue and other
locations within the drainage area served by that storm sewer system.
Note 3 : At this time we estimate that each of the two phases will cost
approximately $75,000. While we are fairly confident that this is a
• reasonable estimate for Phase I, the costs of Phase II may vary greatly
depending on the scope of that phase after consideration of technical
requirements, citizen input and the City Council's decisions as to goals
and objectives.
• The work elements described in the RFP are intended to cover the
requirements of Minnesota Statutes and the rules and regulations
promulgated by BWSR. In addition, the RFP requires that the plan be
tailored to meet Brooklyn Center's needs, i.e. — to analyze the design
sufficiency of the City's entire storm drainage system, and to develop
plans for the protection and improvement of our lakes, streams and
wetlands.
• The RFP requires the consultant, with assistance from the City's staff, to
conduct at least two public open forum /informational hearings to solicit
public input.
• The RFP requires that proposals include a cost estimate for Phase I
services and a preliminary estimate of costs for Phase II services.
Proposed Process
In accordance with the "Policy for Procurement of Professional Services" which
was approved by the City Council on August 13, 1991, the following process for
selection of a consulting firm for this project is recommended:
• process approval by City Council ................November 18, 1991
• City Engineer sends RFP's to selected
0 list of consultants..... ... ...................November 20, 1991
• City Engineer and Director of Public
Works conduct "pre- proposal" conference
with consultants to discuss City's
needs in more detail .... ................,......November 27, 1991
• all proposals submitted to City Engineer ........ December 6, 1991
• selection committee reviews all
proposals, then selects 3
consultants for interviews ....................December 9 -20, 1991
• selection committee interviews
3 finalists, then tentatively
selects a consultant ... .......................December 23, 1991 to
January 10, 1992
• City Engineer and Director of Public
Works finalize proposed contract
with consultant .... ...........................Mid - January, 1992
• proposed contract submitted to City
Council for consideration .................. - ... Mid- January, 1992
• Phase I completed . ..............................6 months after award of
contract
Recommended List of Consultants to Receive RFP's
This is a specialized type of engineering service which requires (1) expertise in
municipal hydrology and financing, (2) extensive knowledge of the state's
requirements, and (3) an ability to communicate successfully with the numerous
governmental agencies who must finally "sign off" on the plan. Based on these
criteria and our knowledge of the consultants who regularly practice in this
metro area, we recommend that the RFP's be sent to the following consultants:
Barr Engineering Co.
Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Inc.
Orr- Schelen- Mayeron & Associates Inc.
Short - Elliott - Hendrickson (SEH) Inc.
Toltz King Duvall Anderson & Associates (TKDA) Inc.
Wenck Associates Inc.
Westwood Professional Services Inc.
It is also noted that James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers Inc. are generally
recognized as having excellent qualifications for this type of work. However,
since that firm is the consultant for the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi
Watersheds, we recommend that they not be considered for this study because of:
(1) A possible conflict of interest (i.e. Brooklyn Center's plan must be
• reviewed and commented on by both watersheds - with technical
assistance from its engineers).
(2) We believe that the local plan should be developed based on an
• independent perspective.
Selection Committee
It is recommended that the selection committee be composed of 3 members with
considerable knowledge of the City and State requirements. Accordingly, we
nominate the following persons for this committee:, each of whom has agreed to
serve if approved by the Council:
Charles (Chuck) Lenthe: Chuck is a Brooklyn Center resident who is now the
City Engineer at Blaine, and formerly was City
Engineer for Brooklyn Park. As such, he has
considerable knowledge of storm water management
problems which are common to Brooklyn Center and
Brooklyn Park. He has previously volunteered to
serve on other City commissions.
William (Bill) Monk: Bill is the City Engineer for Crystal and
understands the need to develop a management plan
which emphasizes water quality improvements,
especially in the Twin Lakes area.
Sy Knapp: Director of Public Works
It is also recommended that City Engineer Mark Maloney serve as the non - voting
• "executive secretary" to this committee — i.e., to prepare technical documents,
to prepare written communications, and generally to coordinate the activities of
the committee.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council.
•
Member introduced the following resolution and
0 moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS AND AUTHORIZING
SOLICITATION OF PROPOSALS TO DEVELOP A WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 473.878 requires each city in the
metropolitan area to prepare a local water management plan, and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared a Request for Proposals which
describes the City's needs to the development of such a plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to proceed in accordance with the
"Policy for Procurement of Professional Services" as approved by this Council
on August 13, 1991.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The Request for Proposals as prepared by the City Engineer is
hereby approved.
2. The Request for Proposals be submitted to the following forms:
Barr Engineering Co.
Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Inc.
Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates Inc.
Short (SEH) Inc.
Toltz King Duvall Anderson & Associates (TKDA) Inc.
Wenck Associates Inc.
Westwood Professional Services Inc.
3. The following persons are hereby approved as members of a
selection committee to review all proposals and select a
recommended consultant:
Charles Lenthe
William Monk
Sy Knapp
4. Upon receiving the recommendation of the selection committee, the
City Engineer and Director of Public Works shall attempt to
negotiate a finalized agreement with the selected consultant, and
to submit such agreement to the City Council for its
consideration.
5. All costs relating to thedevelopment of this plan shall be
charged to the Storm Drainage Utility fund.
RESOLUTION N0.
Date Todd Paulson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
1 CHAPTER 8410
2 BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES
3 METROPOLITAN LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT
4
5 8410.0010 - Scope
6 8410.0020 - Definitions
7 8410.0030 - Content of Joint Powers Agreements
8 8410.0040 - Removal of WMO Representatives
9 8410.0050 - Content of WMO Plans: Executive Summary
10 8410.0060 - Content of WMO Plans: Land and Water Resource Inventory
11 A. - Precipitation data
12 B. - General geology and topographic data
i3 C. - Surface water resource data
14 D. - Groundwater resource data
15 E. - Soil data
16 F. - Land use and public utility services
17 G. - Water based recreation areas and land ownership
18 H. - Fish and wildlife habitat
19 I. - Unique features and scenic areas
20 J. - Pollutant Sources
21 8410.0070 - Content of WMO Plans: Impact on Other Units of Government
22 8410.0080 - Content of WMO Plans: Establishment of Goals and Policies
23 8410.0090 - Content of WMO Plans: Assessment of Problems
24 8410.0100 - Content of WMO Plans: Implementation Program
25 Subpart 1 Regulatory Controls
26 Subpart 2 Stormwater & Drainage Design Performance Standards
27 Subpart 3 Information Program
28 Subpart 4 Data Collection Programs
29 Subpart 5 Management Programs
30 Subpart 6 Potential Structural Solutions to Problems
31 A. Structural options to existing problems
3 B. Cost analysis
33 C. Priorities
34 8410.0110 - Content of WMO Plans: Impact on Local Government
35 Subpart 1 Conflict with existing local controls
36 Subpart 2 F"mancial impact on local government
37 8410.0120 - Content of WMO Plans: Implementation Priorities
38 8410.0130 - Content of WMO Plans: Implementation Components
39 Subpart 1 Controls
40 Subpart 2 Responsibilities
41 Subpart 3 Schedule
42 Subpart 4 Capital improvement program
43 Subpart 5 Enforcement
44 Subpart 6 Administration process
45 8410.0140 - Plan Content: Plan Amendment
46 Subpart 1 Amendment section
47 Subpart 2 General amendment procedure
48 Subpart 3 Minor amendments to capital improvements
49 Subpart 4 Form of amendments
50 Subpart 5 Distribution of amendments
51 8410.0150 - Annual Reporting Requirements 1
52 Subpart 1 Requirement for annual financial, activity, and audit reports
1 7th Draft 10/3/91
1 Subpart 2 Content of annual financial and audit report
2 Subpart 3 Content of annual activity report
3 Subpart 4 Procedure for state audit
4 8410.0160 - Content of Local Plans: General Structure
5 8410.0170 - Content of Local Plans: Structure
6 Subpart 1 Purpose
7 Subpart 2 Water resource related agreements
8 Subpart 3 Executive summary
9 Subpart 4 Land and water resource inventory
10 Subpart 5 Assessment of problems
11 Subpart 6 Corrective actions
12 Subpart 7 Fmancial considerations
13 Subpart 8 Establishment of policies and goals _
14 Subpart 9 Implementation priorities
15 Subpart 10 Implementation program
16 Subpart 11 Amendment procedures
17 8410.0180 - Determinations of Failure to Implement
18 Subpart 1 Applicability
19 Subpart 2 Establishing cause
20 Subpart 3 Board staff responsibilities
21 A. Staff investigation and report
22 B. Meeting to discuss staff report
23 C. Official response from WMO
24 D. Appeal to dispute resolution committee
25 E. Report to board
26 Subpart 4 Board responsibilities
27 A. Findings of fact
28 B. Failure to act
29 C. Role of the dispute resolution committee
30
f
2 7th Draft 10/3/91 .
I CHAPTER 8410
2 BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES
3 METROPOLITAN LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT
4
5
6
7 8410.0010 - SCOPE.
8 Subpart 1. These rules apply to beth the general administration of metropolitan watershed
9 management activities upon promulgation and to amendments to existing plans made after January 1, 1995. If
10 no plan has been submitted to the board by the effective date of these rules, any plan thereafter submitted
11 must be in compliance with these rules. A WMO must amend its plan consistent with these rules and submit
12 such amendments to the board in conformance with its amendment schedule and /or amendment procedures
13 outlined in Sections 8410.0140 but not later than 10 years from the date of initial plan approval.
14 Subpart 2. Where the board determines that a plan has not been adequately prepared or is not
15 being properly implemented pursuant to is an action initiated in
16 accordance with Part 8410.0180, and there is reason to believe that an improved plan and its corresponding
17 implementation program would lead to improved water management, the board may order the responsible
18 authorities to develop an amended plan within a reasonable time frame. In making this determination, the
• 19 board must consider such items as:
20 A. when the plan was approved and adopted;
21 B. the status of local plan development and adoption;
22 C. the scope and anticipated costs to amend;
23 D. the availability of funds; and
24 E. the potential short and long term adverse impacts on the natural resources of the affected
25 watershed.
26
27 8410.0020 - DEFINITIONS.
28 Subpart 1. Applicability. The definitions in this part and in Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.205
29 apply to parts 8410.0010 through 8410.0180.
30 Subp. 2. Board. "Board" means the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources created by
31 Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.101.
32 Subp. 3. BWSR "BWSR" means the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources created by
33 Minnesota Statutes, section 1038.101.
34 Subp. 4. Capital improvement "Capital Improvemotit" means a physical improvement that is not
1 7th Draft 10/3/91
1 directed toward maintenance of an in -place system during its life expectancy. .
2 Subp. 5. Council. "Council" means the Metropolitan Council as created by Minnesota Statutes
3 section 473.123.
4 Subp. 6. FEMA. "FEMA" means the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
5 Subp. 7. Flooding Problem. "Flooding Problem" means a flooding problem that has been identified
6 as a problem by the WMO or local unit of government.
7 Subp. 8. Groundwater plan. "Groundwater plan" means a county plan adopted under Minnesota
8 Statutes Section 103B.255.
9 Subp. 9. Local comprehensive plan. "Local comprehensive plan" has the meaning given it in
10 Minnesota Statutes Section 473.852, subdivision 5.
11 Subp. 10. Local government unit. "Local government unit" or "local unit" has the meaning given it in
12 Minnesota Statutes Section 473.852.
13 Subp. 11. Metropolitan Water Management Act. "Metropolitan Water Management Act" means
14 Minnesota Statutes Sections 10313.201 to 10313.255.
15 Subp. 12. MDNR "MDNR" means the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
16 Subp. 13. MDH. "MDH" means the Minnesota Department of Health.
17 Subp. 14. MDOT. "MDOT" means the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
18 Subp. 15. MGS. "MGS" means the Minnesota Geological Survey.
19 Subp. 16. Minor plan amendments. "Minor plan amendment" means items such as: recodification of .
20 the plan, revision of a procedure meant to streamline administration of the plan, clarification of the intent of
21 a policy, the inclusion of additional data not requiring interpretation, or any other action which will not
22 adversely affect a local unit of government or diminish the WMO's ability to achieve a plan's goals or
23 implementation program.
24 Subp. 17. Minor watershed unit. "Minor watershed unit" means each of the approximately 5,600
25 minor watershed units delineated on the state watershed boundaries map prepared pursuant to the
26 requirements of Laws of Minnesota 1977, chapter 455, section 33, subdivision 7, paragraph (a).
27 Subp. 18. MPCA. "MPCA" means the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
28 Subp. 19. MUSA. "MUSA" means the Metropolitan Urban Service Area as defined on maps
29 prepared by the Metropolitan Council. The latest version of the map identifying the MUSA is adopted by
30 reference and is subject to periodic change. The latest version of the map identifying the MUSA may be
31 obtained from the Metropolitan Council Data Center, Mears Park Centre, 230 East 5th Street, St. Paul,
32 Minnesota 55101. The MUSA is the area of the Seven County Metropolitan Area which the Council is
33 committed by policy to provide regional planning for sanitary sewer, highway, transit, park and airport
34 facilities.
2 7th Draft 10/3/91
. 1 Subp. 20. Natural surface water storage and retention systems. "Natural surface water storage and
2 retention systems" means public waters and wetlands and as defined in Minnesota Statues 103G.005
3 Subdivisions 15 and 19, respectively.
4 Subp. 21. Official controls. "Official controls" has the meaning given it in Minnesota Statutes,
5 Section 473.852.
6 Subp. 22. Plan. "Plan" means the watershed management plan prepared by a watershed management
7 organization or county as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.231, subd. 1.
8 Subp. 23. Plan Review Authorities. "Plan Review Authorities" means the Metropolitan Council, the
9 MDH, the MDNR, the MPCA, the BWSR, and counties, cities, towns, and SWCDs partially or wholly within
10 the WMO as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.231, Subd. 7, 8, and 9.
11 Subp. 24. Public waters. "Public waters" means those waters of the state identified as public waters
12 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.005, Subdivision 15.
13 Subp. 25. Seven County Metropolitan Area. "Seven County Metropolitan Area means the counties
14 of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington, excluding the corporate boundaries of
15 the City of New Prague.
16 Subp. 26. Subwatershed unit. " Subwatershed unit" means a hydrologic area less than the entire area
17 under the jurisdiction of a watershed management organization.
18 Subp. 27. SWCD. "SWCD" means Soil and Water Conservation District.
. 19 Subp. 28. Watershed. "Watershed" means a drainage area having boundaries which are substantially
20 coterminous with those of an aggregation of contiguous minor watershed units possessing similar drainage
21 patterns and which cross the borders of two or more local government units.
22 Subp. 29. Watershed district. "Watershed district" means a district established pursuant to
23 Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103D.
24 Subp. 30. Watershed management organization. "Watershed management organization" or
25 "organization" means either: 1) a watershed district wholly within the metropolitan area, or 2) a joint powers
26 entity established wholly or partly within the metropolitan area by special law or by agreement that performs
27 some or all of the functions of a watershed district that has the characteristics and the authority specified
28 under Minnesota Statutes Section 10313.211. Counties may be watershed management organizations if a joint
29 powers WMO does not perform and the responsibility for plan preparation is deferred to them. Lake
30 improvement or conservation districts are not watershed management organizations.
31 Subp. 31. Wetlands. "Wetlands" means those waters of the state identified as wetlands under the
32 Minnesota Statutes Section 103G.005, Subdivision 19.
33 Subp. 32. Wetland Banking System. "Wetland banking system" means an accounting system
34 established by a unit of government for the purpose of tracking and managing net losses and gains to wetland
3 7th Draft 10/3/91
I values that occur as a result of development. •
2 Subp. 33. WMO. "WMO" means watershed management organization.
3
4 8410.0030 - CONTENT OF JOINT POWERS AGREEMENTS.
5 Subpart 1. In addition to a description of any authorities adopted pursuant to the content
6 requirements of Joint Powers Agreements as outlined in Minnesota Statutes Section 103B.211 Subdivision 1,
7 Joint Powers Agreements establishing a water management organization must at a minimum contain the
8 following items:
9 A. a purpose statement consistent with Minnesota Statutes 103B. 201,
10 B. a complete legal description defining the boundary of the WMO,
11 C. a requirement to adopt rules of order and procedure,
12 D. a process for establishing an annual budget and work plan,
13 E. a formula for determining each member's share of the annual operating budget,
14 F. a statement as to how member appointees are to be compensated,
15 G. a procedure providing for the establishment of citizen and technical advisory committees
16 or other means of public participation.
17 H. a section defming the powers and duties of the WMO,
18 I. a section establishing the duties and terms of the officers of the WMO,
19 J. a notification process on the location and time of meetings,
20 K a section defining the voting requirements for decision making and capital improvements
21 consistent with Minnesota Statutes 103B.211, Subd. 1, (c),
22 L. a section outlining meetings to be scheduled at least annually,
2 3 M. the process and responsibilities of the WMO and its members for filling vacancies
24 consistent with Minnesota Statutes 103B.227, Subdivisions 1 and 2,
2 5 N. the duration of the agreement and a process for dissolution which provides for at least 90
26 days notice of the intent to dissolve to the affected county(ies) and the board, and
2 7 O. a section defining how the membership will be represented with the total number of
28 representatives to be not less than 3.
29 Subpart 2. Joint Powers Agreements must be updated if necessary to be in conformance with these
30 rules no later than January 1, 1993 or one year after adoption of Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410, whichever is
31 later.
32 Subpart 3. A county may be a member of a Joint Powers Agreement WMO when the conditions
33 described in Minnesota Statutes Section 103B.211, Subdivision 3 are present.
34 All
4 7th Draft 10/3/91 i
I
1 8410.0040 - REMOVAL OF WMO REPRESENTATIVES.
2 A manager of a Watershed District or a member of a Joint Powers Board may be removed from the
3 position by the appointing authority prior to term expiration for violation of a code of ethics of the WMO or
4 appointing authority or for malfeasance, nonfeasance, or misfeasance, after being provided an opportunity for
5 hearing before the appointing authority. Managers holding the position as an elected official and are not re-
6 elected, or are serving an indefinite term at the pleasure of the appointing authority may be removed by the
7 appointing authority at will. Decision of the appointing authority may be appealed to the Board of Water
8 and Soil Resources.
9
10 8410.0050 - CONTENT OF WMO PLANS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.
11 Each plan must have a section entitled "Executive Summary'. The summary should outline the
12 purpose of the organization, the membership of the WMO board of managers, the general boundaries of the
13 WMO, a brief history of the organization, a summary of the watershed management goals, problems,
14 potential solutions, and general content of required local plans.
15
16 8410.0060 - CONTENT OF WMO PLANS: LAND AND WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY.
17 Each plan must contain an inventory of water resource and physical factors affecting the water
18 resources based upon existing records and publications. If data publications and maps are available locally,
19 they may be adopted by reference. The plan must include a brief summary of the data and must identify
20 where the publication can be obtained. At a minimum, the following information must be included in the
21 plan. Items A and C5 are allowed to be in the local plan instead of the WMO plan.
22 A. Precipitation. Plans must include precipitation data normally used in the seven county
23 metro area for hydrologic and hydraulic design.
24 B. General geology and topographic data. Each WMO plan shall contain a summary
25 describing the general topographic relief, geology, aquifers and all known groundwater- surface water
26 connections. The summary should reference available publications and maps where data may be available in
27 greater detail. A map defining appropriate subwatershed units within the WMO must be included.
28 C. Surface water resource data. Necessary surface water data within the watershed that
29 includes:
30 (1) a map of the public waters and public ditch systems established under
31 Minnesota Statutes 103D or 103E, including the location of any existing dams and control structures;
32 (2) a copy of the National Wetlands Inventory Map produced by the United States
33 Fish and Wildlife Service; and, if deemed useful by the WMO, a copy of the Metropolitan Mosquito Control
34 District Mosquito Control Wetland Inventory, 1
5 7th Draft 10/3/91
I
1 (3) either an inventory of the functional values of the wetlands present; or, •
2 provision for a phased project to create such inventory within a given time frame; or, the adoption of a
3 specific process to identify such functional values on a case -by -case basis for the review of individual project
4 proposals, all of which must be consistent with Minnesota Statutes Section 103B.3355;
5 (4) a table of the major hydrologic characteristics of public waters if provided by
6 the MDNR in a format that can be readily incorporated in a plan,
7 (5) a map(s) showing the areas served by each existing stormwater system which
8 identifies existing stormwater ponds and the location of all stormwater outfalls;
9 (6) a table summarizing available information on the 100 year flood levels and
10 peak discharges of existing and proposed stormwater ponds along with flood profile information that
11 corresponds to the peak discharges of channelized flow passing through the watershed. The plan shall
12 determine the need for additional data and recommend a schedule for securing same. A discussion must
13 also be provided relative to the consistency of the flood profile information developed as part of the
14 stormwater management plan to that of any information published in a FEMA Flood Insurance Study;
15 (7) a general discussion of, or a map showing areas of known flooding problems not
16 identified as flood prone in a published flood insurance study,
17 (8) a listing of the existing flood insurance studies and location where they can be
18 viewed;
19 (9) a summary of water quality data and any related information if available from
20 MPCA, MDNR, MDOT, MDH, the Metropolitan Council, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, the
21 WMO, the SWCD, the county(ies), and city(ies);
22 (10) a map or list, if available, showing the location of known existing and
23 abandoned surface water quality and quantity monitoring sites;
24 (11) a list of municipalities with approved shoreland ordinances and projected
25 completion dates for those without ordinances; and
26 (12) a table listing the amounts and locations of all surface water appropriations as
27 permitted by the MDNR and provided to the WMO.
28 D. Groundwater resource data. Necessary groundwater data includes any data required to
29 be included in the WMO plan by a county groundwater plan. If a county groundwater plan is not anticipated
30 to be completed, the WMO plan must include groundwater data as necessary to allow groundwater issues to
31 be addressed.
32 E. Soil data. Each WMO plan must include a general discussion of the types of soil present,
33 their development limitations their infiltration characteristics and their tendency to erode. The discussion
34 must include a list of references where more detailed data are available.
6 7th Draft 10/3/91
1 F. Land use and public utility services. Necessary land use and public utility service
2 information is limited to that which existed at the time the plan or plan amendment was developed,
3 including:
4 (1) a general map of existing land uses;
5 (2) a general map showing anticipated land uses;
6 (3) reference to the location of the metropolitan urban service area.
7 G. Water based areas and land ownership. Necessary information on water based
8 recreation areas and land ownership includes a map or a discussion of the location of all existing and
9 proposed local, regional, state and federal parks, preserves, wildlife areas, recreation areas, canoe routes and
10 water accesses available for use by the public.
11 H. Fish and wildlife habitat. Necessary information of fish and wildlife habitat includes:
12 (1) a list and description of the MDNR ecological and management classifications
13 for lakes and streams, where available;
14 (2) a list and description of the conclusions and recommendations of biological
15 surveys or reconnaissance studies, where available; and
16 (3) a description of state management plans for fish and wildlife areas, where
17 available.
18 I. Unique features and scenic areas. Necessary unique feature and scenic area information
. 19 includes a map or description (listing) of unique features and scenic areas with relationships to water
20 including state designated natural and scientific areas, areas containing county, state, and federal rare and
21 endangered species, and other features such as waterfalls, springs, historic mills and heritage elements
22 identified by the MDNR Heritage Program, to the extent it is available from the MDNR.
23 J. Pollutant Sources. A map or list from appropriate agencies of:
24 - (1) known closed and open sanitary landfills, closed and operating open dumps, and
25 Minnesota Superfund hazardous waste sites and a summary of available water quality information relating to
26 these sites; and
27 (2) feedlots, abandoned wells as defined by the MDH, per -mitts registered
28 underground and above zround storage tank sites, and permitted wastewater discharges, and a summary of
29 available water quality information relating to these sites.
30 If the information outlined in Section J is included in a county groundwater plan, this
31 information can be excluded from the WMO plan provided suitable references are provided.
32
33 8410.0070 - CONTENT OF WMO PLANS: IMPACT ON OTHER UNITS OF GOVERNMENT.
34 During the development of its plan or amendments thereto, each WMO shall request a summary of
7 7th Draft 10/3/91
1 the relevant water management policies and goals of each local, regional and state review authority identified
2 in Minnesota Statutes 10313.231, Subdivisions 7, 8 and 9. The WMO shall take into consideration the goals
3 and policies of the review authorities when drafting the WMO's goals and policies. The WMO plan shall
4 clearly outline and justify any anticipated inconsistencies between its goals and policies and those of the
5 authorities who responded, provided the requested information is furnished within 45 days of the WMO's
6 request.
7
8 8410.0080 - CONTENT OF WMO PLANS: ESTABLISHMENT OF GOALS AND POLICIES.
9 1 Each plan must contain spec goal statements and corresponding policies relating to the overall
10 purposes specified in M.S. Section 10313.201 of 04s ft4e. The goals and policies of the WMO shall attempt
11 to avoid conflict with county, regional or state goals and policies. The goals must be outlined in sufficient
12 detail to provide direction regarding what the policies are to accomplish, provide direction to the WMO
13 Board, and allow for the success or failure of these goals and policies to be quantified. The goals and
14 policies should recognize the fundamental relationship between water quality and land use. Development of
15 goals and policies must, at a minimum address the following issues:
16 A. Water Quantity. Plans must outline goals and policies describing how stormwater runoff will
17 be managed. The maximum allowable peak run -off must be established for appropriate subwatersheds to the
18 extent necessary to assure that the goals and policies of the WMO will be met and address how runoff from
19 developments creating more than one acre of new impervious surface will be managed with respect to
20 Minnesota Statutes 103133365. The plan must describe the criteria used for defining "appropriate
21 subwatersheds ".
22 B. Water Quality. Plans must, at a minimum, outline specific water quality goals and policies
23 for natural surface waters storage and retention systems within the WMO. Goals should be related to
24 parameters or quantities that can be measured. The relationship of land use to water quality should be
25 considered when developing goals and policies. The goals and policies should be developed to strive for
26 compliance with applicable water quality standards and be suitable for the intended uses of natural surface
27 water storage and retention systems.
28 C. Recreation and Fish and Wildlife. Plans must outline how water resource based
29 recreational activities and wildlife. interests will be protected and /or improved through the implementation of
30 the plan. In consideration of these issues, the plan must determine whether there is a need to classify or
31 prioritize individual water resources for management purposes. Plans must also e" the need to
32 establish a wedand banking system.
33 D. Enhancement of Public Participation, Information and Education. Plans must outline goals
34 and policies describing how and when public participation YAU be encouraged. Goals and policies must
8 7th Draft 10/3/91
1 address as a minimum the creation and purposes of advisory committees and public information programs.
2 E. Public Ditch Systems. If public ditch systems are within the WMO, the plan shall by policy
3 define the WMO's relationship to the ditch authority and recommend whether or not there are advantages to
4 managing the ditches under the Metropolitan Water Management Act and determine whether ditch
5 maintenance activities have the potential of adversely impacting any goal of the WMO.
6 F. Groundwater. If a county groundwater plan has not been commenced at the time the plan or
7 amendment thereof is initiated, the WMO shall assess the need and degree of involvement the WMO shall
8 have in groundwater management, and establish appropriate goals and policies.
9 G. Wetlands. Plans must outline specific goals and policies regarding the management of wetlands
10 within the WMO and identify high priority areas for wetland preservation, restoration and establishment.
11 Plans must also evaluate the need to establish a wetland banking system.
12
14 H. Erosion. Plans must identify specific goals and policies that will control soil erosion consistent
15 with the goals and policies outlined in Section 8410.0080.
16
17 8410.0090 - CONTENT OF WMO PLANS: ASSESSMENT OF PROBLEMS.
18 Each plan must contain an assessment of existing and potential water resource related problems
19 using a combination of analysis of land and water resource data collected pursuant to Part 8410.0060 and
20 through the identification of existing or potential problems by residents or local, regional, or state agencies.
21 During the development of this assessment, the WMO shall request a brief assessment of existing problems
22 affecting the subject WMO from the state. coup , and regional review agencies, , the
23 ,,,r,,._,. Waste r• 1 G amm i ss i en , th N412G", th MP' , th MPH the MDOT, and the Minnesota
24 Department of Agriculture based
25 on data, plans and other documentation within their possession. The WMO should solicit comments from
26 residents and local officials within the watershed for information about problems which may be more local in
27 nature. The WMO's assessment shall include a discussion of the relationship of locally identified problems
28 to problems identified by regional and state agencies, counties, and SWCDs provided such information is
29 received within 45 days of the WMO's written request. The assessment of existing and potential problems as
30 determined by the WMO must, at a minimum, include the following topic areas:
31 A. specific lakes and streams with water quality problems;
32 B. flooding and stormwater rate control issues within and between communities;
33 C. impacts of water quantity and quality management practices on recreation opportunities;
34 D. impacts of stormwater discharges on water quality, fish and wildlife resources;
>� 9 7th Draft 10/3/91
1 E. impact of soil erosion on water quality and water quantity;
2 F. general impact of land use practices, and in particular, land development and wetland
3 alteration on water quality and quantity,
4 G. the adequacy of existing regulatory controls to manage or mitigate adverse impacts on
5 public waters and wetlands.
6 H. the adequacy of programs to:
7 (1) limit soil erosion and water quality degradation, and
8 (2) maintain the tangible and intrinsic values of natural storage and retention
9 systems; and
10 (3) maintain water level control structures; and
11 I. the adequacy of capital improvement programs to correct problems relating to:
12 (1) water quality,
13 (2) water quantity management,
14 (3) fish and wildlife habitat, and public waters and wetland management, and
15 (4) recreational opportunities, and;
16 J. Future potential problems which are anticipated to occur generally within a 20 year
17 period based on growth projections and planned urbanization identified in local and regional comprehensive
18 plans. Such assessments must include a discussion of the relationship between locally identified problems
19 and the problems and goals identified in county, regional, state and federal plans which are brought to the
20 attention of the WMO Board.
21
22 8410.0100 - CONTENT OF WMO PLANS: IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
23 Each plan must describe an implementation program consisting of nonstructural, structural and /or
24 programmatic solutions to the problems, issues, and goals identified pursuant to Parts 8410.0080 and
25 8410.0090. In developing its implementation program the requirements contained in Subparts 1 through 6
26 must be followed. All plans should clearly define the responsibility of the WMO and the Iocal units of
27 government in carrying out the implementation program and further define the WMO's role when a local
28 unit of government is considering a variance or fails to implement its water resource management
29 responsibilities.
30 Subpart 1. Regulatory Controls. In establishing required regulatory controls, the following sections
31 must be considered:
32 A. Wetland protection. Each plan must provide for the regulation of activities in wetlands
33 and specify respective duties of the WMO and local units of government. Further, each plan must describe
34 any local controls and procedures in place with regards to carrying out the local government responsibilities
10 7th Draft 10/3/91
1 pursuant to the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, Chapter 354 of the Laws of 1991, and any rules
2 promulgated therefrom. Each plan must also define any other controls the WMO has determined to be
3 necessary in order to achieve its water management goals which may be more restrictive than that required
4 by said Act. The description must consider, where applicable the following topics:
5 (1) the relationship of the WMO, state agencies, local SWCDs, and affected
6 counties, cities and towns with respect to authority, administration and coordination;
7 (2) any designated repositories for required maps or inventories of wetlands;
8 (3) any procedures related to enforcement;
9 (4) a description of any local wetland banking programs and their relationship to
10 any corresponding state program; and
11 (5) the methods and procedures to be used in determining replacement of wetland
12 values in mitigation proposals.
13 B. Erosion Control. The WMO shall specify controls or programs to reduce erosion and
14 sedimentation to receiving waters. In rural areas, agricultural crop land erosion may be controlled by
15 implementing zoning ordinances consistent with Minnesota Rules Part 6120.3300, Subpart 7 and may include
16 other water resources outside of designated shoreland areas as deemed appropriate by the WMO. WMOs
17 affected by spec state laws requiring adoption of uniform county-wide erosion and sediment control
18 standards or programs must be compliant with such laws. All other WMO's must either adopt by reference
19 an existing set of erosion and sediment control guidelines or best management practices published by a
20 county, a SWCD, the Board or the MPCA, or establish comparable erosion and sedimentation guidelines of
21 its own for the purpose of administering erosion controls.
22 C. Permits. Each plan must specify controls which require all appropriate building permits,
23 driveway permits and grading permits to contain enforceable provisions to protect soil from erosion during
24 and after construction.' This does not include sites for which approved erosion control plans are in place.
25 D. Shoreland and Floodplain Ordinances. Each plan must identify member local units of
26 government that have failed to adopt and administer a MDNR approved shoreland and floodplain ordinances
27 where mandated by state law. Where the plan notes that flood damage has occurred outside of mapped
28 floodplains or potential for flooding exists adjacent to stormwater facilities, each plan shall require the local
29 unit of government to determine if additional local controls are necessary to address the situation.
30 E. Nuisance Controls. Where a plan notes the existence of certain land uses which could
31 adversely affect the WMO's ability to achieve its water quality goals, and these uses cannot be properly
32 managed or regulated with existing controls, the uses constitute a public nuisance in accordance with
33 Minnesota Statutes Section 609.74. In such cases, the plan must provide for the adoption of local controls to
34 define and abate such nuisances. For the purpose of these rules, public nuisances may include any action,
11 7th Draft 10/3/91
I failure to act or land use practice which would impair water quality if allowed to continue.
2 Subpart 2. Stormwater & Drainage Design Performance Standards. Each plan must contain
3 minimum standards and provide for appropriate controls for the design of new stormwater conveyance,
4 ponding and treatment systems consistent with the overall goals of the WMO plan and consistent with
5 Minnesota Statutes Section 103B3365 Subdivision 4. Included will be performance standards which provide
6 for:
7 A. the establishment of target in -lake nutrient concentrations and corresponding pollutant
8 loadings for sediment and nutrients.
9 B. the establishment of maximum permissible runoff rates
10 for selected design storms based on such considerations as, existing and future flood levels and expected
11 increases in runoff volume with respect to impacts on downstream channels and adjacent development;
12 C. the establishment of standards to reduce the impacts of flooding on natural resources,
13 personal and real property.
14 D. the establishment of design criteria for stormwater outlet structures to address floatable
15 pollutants and to provide for access for maintenance and repair;
16 E. pond design methodology for nutrient entrapment consistent with the subwatershed goals;
17 and
18 F. compliance with pollutant loading for spec subwatersheds, consistent with local,
19 regional, and statewide plans in consideration of MPCA water quality standards.
20 Subpart 3. Information Program. All plans must provide for the publishing of at least one written
21 communication per year identifying the representatives on the WMO Board, current advisory committee
22 members, how to contact the WMO, its role in local water management, the goals and policies of the WMO,
23 when public meetings are held, how the WMO is financed, where the plan can be viewed, and any other
24 information relative to the implementation of its plan. The communication may be accomplished through the
25 publication of a news letter, publication of all or a portion of its annual report, an article or news release
26 submitted to a local newspaper widely distributed in the member communities, an attachment to a sewer or
27 water bill, or any other similar media format which annually reaches the general population.
28 Subpart 4. Data Collection Programs
29 A. All plans must establish water quality and quantity monitoring programs that are capable
30 of producing accurate data to the extent necessary to ascertain whether the water quality goals of the WMO
31 are being achieved. Such programs shall, at a minimum, include the location of sampling, the frequency of
32 sampling, the proposed parameters to be measured and the requirement of periodic analysis of the data.
33 B. All plans should encourage all units of government collecting water quality and quantity
34 management data, to annually submit such data consistent vAth state compatibility guidelines to the WIVSO
12 7th Draft 10/3/91
. 1 and other appropriate state agencies for entry into public access data bases.
2 Subpart 5. Management Programs.
3 A. All WMO plans must assess or require local plans to assess the need for periodic
4 maintenance of public works, facilities and natural conveyance systems and specify any new programs or
5 revisions to existing programs needed to accomplish its goals and objectives. Plans must further identify
6 which units of government or private parties are responsible for maintenance thereof. Plans must, at a
7 minimum, assess or require local plans to assess:
8 (1) the need and frequency for sweeping of public and private streets and parking
9 lots;
10 (2) the need and frequency for inspecting stormwater outfalls, sumps, and ponds;
11 (3) the adequacy of maintenance programs for stormwater facilities and water level
12 control structures owned by both WMO members and nonmembers;
13 (4) the condition of public ditches constructed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 103F,
14 106A or 103D; if the WMO has jurisdiction over these systems;
15 (5) the need to establish a water body management classification system to provide
16 for water quality and quantity management based on a hierarchial basis; and
17 (6) the need to establish local spill containment clean -up plans; and
18 (7) the need for other management programs as deemed necessary.
19 B. All proposed management programs establishing a classification system for the
20 management of water bodies shall be consistent with Minnesota Rules Chapter 7050. Where WMO
21 classifications are inconsistent, the WMO shall petition the MPCA to revise the MR 7050 classification.
22 Subpart 6. Potential structural solutions to problems.
23 A. Structural options to existing problems. All plans which document existing water
24 management problems which cannot be resolved by preventative actions shall investigate the feasibility of
25 implementing structural solutions which would remediate or resolve each problem.
26 B. Cost analysis. For each structural solution proposed, all plans shall provide a cost
27 estimate and a recommendation as to how it should be funded.
28 C. Priorities. Each potential structural solution identified pursuant to this section shall be
29 assigned priorities. In assigning priorities, consideration shall be given to regional and state plans in
30 conjunction with the WMO's goals, policies and problems identified in Parts 8410.0080 and 8410.0090.
31
32 8410.0110 - CONTENT OF WMO PLANS: IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
33 Subpart 1. Existing Local Controls. All plans shall review the impact of local controls and
34 programs required by the plan in accordance with Part 84W.0100. This review will include concerns
13 7th Draft 10/3/91
1 expressed by counties, cities and townships with respect to their administrative and financial capabilities to .
2 adopt and enforce such controls and programs in addition to a table which generally describes the status of
3 local controls and programs of affected counties, cities and townships with respect to that required by the
4 plan.
5 Subpart 2. Financial Impact on Local Government. All plans shall contain an analysis of the
6 financial impact of implementation of the proposed regulatory controls and programs identified pursuant to
7 Part 8410.0100. Such analysis shall include at a minimum an estimate of the costs associated with the plan
8 implementation and anticipated source(s) of revenue.
9 Subpart 3. Adoption by reference. All or part of a WMO plan may be adopted by reference by a
10 local unit of government for all or part of its local plan to the degree specified in the approved WMO
11 plan.
12
13 8410.0120 - CONTENT OF WMO PLANS: IMPLEMENTATION PRIORITIES.
14 All plans must prioritize all plan implementation components to make the best use of available local
15 funding, to prevent future water management problems from occurring to the maximum extent practical and
16 to ensure that regional, county, state and federal grant funding is targeted properly.
17
18 8410.0130 - CONTENT OF WMO PLANS: IMPLEMENTATION COMPONENTS
19 Subpart 1. Controls. All plans must provide for the adoption of necessary regulatory controls,
20 stormwater design standards, education program, data collection programs, and maintenance programs which
21 the plan identifies pursuant to Part 8410.0100.
22 Subpart 2. Responsibilities. All plans must dearly distinguish the responsibilities of the WMO
23 versus the responsibilities of affected counties, tides and townships with respect to each implementation
24 program element established in accordance with Part 8410.0100.
25 Subpart 3. Schedule. All WMO plans must include a schedule for implementation by the WMO,
26 JPA members and affected local units of government. All plan controls and programs to be implemented by
27 the WMO must be in effect within one year of plan adoption. All local plan controls and programs must be
28 developed and in effect within two years of adoption of the last WMO plan within the local unit of
29 government.
30 Subpart 4. Capital improvement program. All plans shall include a capital improvements program
31 which identifies specific capital improvements necessary to implement the water resource management goals
32 and policies of the WMO.
33 Subpart 5. Enforcement. All plans must identify the procedure to be followed to enforce violations
34 of the controls of the WMO as well as the local unit of government.
14 7th Draft 10/3/91
1 Subpart 6. Administration process. All WMO plans must specify the administrative process and
2 time lines for the submittal, review, and approval of local plans and variances thereto by the WMO.
3
4 8410.0140 - PLAN CONTENT: PLAN AMENDMENTS
5 Subpart 1. Amendment section. All plans must contain a section entitled "Amendments to Plan"
6 which contains the year the plan shall extend to and establish the process by which interim amendments may
7 be made and who may initiate such amendments.
8 Subpart 2. General amendment procedure. All amendments to a plan must adhere to the review
9 process provided in Minnesota Statutes 103B.231, Subdivision 11, except where the proposed amendments
10 constitute minor amendments, and;
11 A. the WMO has held a public meeting to explain the amendments and published a legal
12 notice of such meeting twice, at least 7 days and 14 days prior to the date of the meeting;
13 B. the WMO has sent copies of the amendment(s) to the affected local units of government,
14 the Metropolitan Council and the state review agencies for review and comment; and
15 C. the board has either agreed that the amendments are minor or failed to act within 45
16 days of receipt thereof.
17 Subpart 3. Minor amendments to capital improvements. An amendment to an approved plan's
18 capital improvement program may be considered to be a minor plan amendment if the following conditions
19 are met:
20 A. the original plan set forth the capital improvement(s) but not to the degree needed to
21 meet the definition of "capital improvement program" as provided in Minnesota Statutes 103B.205.
22 Subdivision 3, and
23 B. the affected county or counties have approved the capital improvement in its revised,
24 more detailed form.
25 Subpart 4. Form of amendments. Unless the entire document is reprinted, all amendments adopted
26 by the WMO must be printed in the form of replacement pages for the plan, each page of which must,
27 A. on draft amendments being considered show deleted text with strike -outs and new text as
28 underlined,
29 B. be re- numbered as appropriate, and
30 C. include the effective date of the amendment.
31 Subpart 5. Distribution of amendments. Each WMO must maintain a distribution list of agencies
32 and individuals who have received a copy of the plan and shall distribute copies of amendments within 30
33 days of adoption thereof. All WMO's should consider sending drafts of proposal amendments to all plan
34 review authorities to seek their comments prior to establishing a hearing date or commencing the formal
15 7th Draft 10/3/91
1 review process.
2
3 8410.0150 ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
4 Subpart 1. Requirement for annual financial, activity, and audit reports. Within 120 days of the end
5 of the WMOs fiscal year , each WMO shall submit to the BWSR a financial report,
6 an activity report, and an audit report for the proceeding fiscal year if it has expended or accrued funds
7 during this time. These reports may be combined into a single document. The audit report for the
8 proceeding fiscal year must be prepared by a certified public accountant or the state auditor and also
9 forwarded to the State Auditor's Office no later than June 1.
10 Subpart. 2. Content of annual financial and audit report. The annual financial report must include
it the following information:
12 A. the approved budget;
13 B. a reporting of revenues;
14 C. a reporting of expenditures;
15 D. a financial audit report or section which includes a balance sheet, classification of
16 revenues and expenditures, an analysis of changes in final balances and any additional statements deemed
17 necessary for full financial disclosure.
18 Subpart. 3. Content of annual activity report. The annual activity report must include the following
19 information:
20 A. a list of WMO board members, advisory committee board members and board member
21 vacancies at the end of the reporting year; including designated effieer-s and member- mai4ng addresses and
22 information on how members can be contacted For joint powers WMOs, the list must
23 indicate the governmental organization each board member represents. For watershed districts, the list must
24 indicate the county that each member is appointed by;
25 B. a list of WMO employees and consultants; including mailing addresses and telephone
26 numbers.
27 C. an assessment of the previous year's annual work plan which indicates whether the
28 stated goals and objectives were achieved and, where they were not achieved, indicates why they could not be
29 achieved;
30 D. a projected work plan for the next year indicating the desired goals and objectives;
31 E. a summary of permits or variances issued or denied as well as any enforcement actions
32 initiated by either the WMO or its local units of government
33 F. a summary of any water quality monitoring data collected by-.the WMO or its local units
34 of government ,
16 7th Draft 10/3/91
1 G. the status of local plan adoption and implementation based on a review of the local unit
2 of governments' activities by the WMO during the past year:
3
4 H. a copy of the written communication required by Part 8410.0100, Subpart 3;
5 I. the WMO's activities related to the biennial solicitations for interest proposals for legal,
6 professional, or technical consultant services pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 103B.227, Subd. 5;
7 J. an assessment of changes in fund balances, including a description of the costs of each
8 program element with respect to the overall annual budget; and
9 K the status of any locally adopted wetland banking program.
10 Subpart 4. Procedure for state audit. The BWSR shall use the following procedure in determining
11 whether to order a state financial or performance audit of a WMO:
12 A. Before the BWSR will consider ordering a state audit, a written complaint must be filed
13 with the BWSR's executive director requesting the BWSR to order a state audit. The complaint must set
14 forth with as much specificity as possible the grounds for requesting a state audit. Valid grounds for
15 requesting a state audit include the mishandling or misuse of public funds and or the documented failure to
16 implement an approved plan.
17 B. The executive director shall determine whether there is a basis for a complaint before
18 reporting the complaint to the BWSR. The executive director shall ensure that the affected WMO is notified
19 of the complaint and given an opportunity to respond to the allegations prior to determining whether there is
20 a basis for the complaint.
21 C. If the executive director determines there is a basis for the complaint, the complaint shall
22 be reported to the BWSR. The affected WMO shall be given an opportunity to appear before the BWSR at
23 the time the complaint is reported to it and respond to the allegations in the complaint. The complainant
24 shall also be given an opportunity to appear.
25 D. After having the complaint reported to it, and after providing an opportunity for the
26 WMO and the complainant to be heard by it, the BWSR shall decide whether to order a state financial or
27 performance audit of the WMO.
28
29 8410.0160 - CONTENT OF LOCAL PLANS: GENERAL STRUCTURE.
30 Local plans must at a minimum meet the requirements for local plans as set forth in Minnesota
31 Statutes 103B.235, except as provided by the WMO plan pursuant to Part 8410.0110, Subpart 3. They must
32 include sections containing a table of contents, purpose, water resource related agreements, executive
33 summary, land and water resource inventory, establishment of goals and policies, relation of goals and
34 policies to local, regional, state, and federal plans, goals, and programs, assessment of problems, corrective
17 7th Draft 10/3/91
1 actions, financial considerations, implementation priorities, amendment procedures, implementation program,
2 and an appendix. Communities should consider including its local plan as a chapter of its local
3 comprehensive plan. The local plan shall be adopted within 2 years of BWSR's approval of the last WMO
4 plan that affects local unit of government.
5 8410.0170 - CONTENT OF LOCAL PLAN: STRUCTURE.
6 Subpart 1. Purpose. Each local plan must have a section entitled "Purpose" which outlines the
7 purposes of the water management programs required by Sections 10313.205 through 10313.255.
8 Subpart 2. Water Resource Related Agreements. Any appropriate water resource management
9 related agreements, which have been entered into by the local community must be outlined. This includes
10 joint powers agreements related to water management the local community may be party to between itself
11 and the WMO, adjoining communities, or private parties. Available information concerning these
12 agreements in general conformance with the content of joint powers agreements for WMO's as outlined in
13 Minnesota Rules Section 8410.0030 must be included.
14 Subpart 3. Executive Summary. Each plan shall have a section entitled "Executive Summary", which
15 generally summarizes the content of the local plan in a manner similar to that required for WMO plans
16 under Section 8410.0050.
17 Subpart 4. Land and Water Resource Inventory. Each local plan must contain a composite land and
18 water resource inventory containing all relevant data from WMO plans affecting it consistent with the data
19 required by Minnesota Rules Section 8410.0060.
20 Subpart 5. Establishment of Policies and Goals. Each local plan must state specific goals and
21 corresponding policies related to the purpose of these plans, be consistent with the policies and goals of the
22 WMO plans within the city or township, and address the relation of the local plan to the regional, state and
23 federal goals and programs outlined in Section 8410.0070.
24 Subpart 6. Assessment of Problems. Each plan must contain a summary assessment of existing
25 and /or potential water resource related problems, including those identified in WMO plans which affect the
26 community. The problem assessment must be completed for only those areas within the corporate limits of
27 the communi ty and meet the same content requirements as that outlined for WMO plans pursuant to
28 Minnesota Rules Section 8410.0090, Subparts 1 and 2.
29 Subpart 7. Corrective Actions. Each local plan shall describe non - structural, programmatic and /or
30 structural solutions to the problems identified in Part 8410.0170, Subpart 6. The mandatory actions outlined
31 in Minnesota Rules Section 8410.0100, Subparts 1 through 6 for WMO plans, shall be considered except that
32 such actions shall be limited to those that can be implemented at a local level. All corrective actions must be
33 consistent with the WMO plan(s) having jurisdiction within the municipality or township.
34 Subpart 8 - Financial Considerations. The local plans must contain an analysis of the financial
18 7th Draft 10/3/91
1 impact of implementation of the proposed regulatory controls and programs identified pursuant to Part
2 8410.0170, Subpart 7. The analysis must include at a minimum the following items:
3 A. the estimated cost of adoption and enforcement of local controls and standards for the
4 local municipality;
5 B. the estimated annual cost of implementation of other specified programs to each local
6 municipality,
7 C. a discussion of local ability to fund adoption of and enforcement of local controls and
8 standards, implementation of other specified programs, and capital improvements. Discussion to include:
9 (1) levy limit constraints;
10 (2) effect on other city funding needs;
11 (3) establishment of watershed management taxing districts;
12 (4) creation of stormwater utilities; and
13 (5) monetary impact against homes or farmsteads in effected community.
14 D. the impact on the local municipality of local implementation of each capital improvement
15 project component if ad valorem financing is used; and
16 E. a summary of grant funding that would likely be available to fund water management
17 projects and programs.
18 Subpart 9. Implementation Priorities. Local plans must prioritize implementation components so as
19 to make the best use of available local funding and prevent future water management problems from
20 occurring to the maximum practical extent. Local plans must prioritize WMO plan implementation
21 components in line with WMO priorities as outlined pursuant to Part 8410.0120, but for only those
22 implementation components that must be facilitated by the local municipality or township.
23 Subpart 10. Implementation Program. All local plans must outline required implementation
24 components that apply at a local level. These components shall be consistent with the required plan
25 components outlined for WMO plans under Part 8410.0130. Official local controls must be enacted with 6
26 months of adoption of the local plan.
27 Subpart 11. Amendment Procedures. The local plan must contain a section entitled "Amendments
28 to Plan", which contains the year the plan shall extend to and establish the process by which amendments
29 may be made. The amendment procedure shall be in conformance with the plan amendment procedure
30 outlined in the WMO plan(s) that effects the community. Local plan amendments must be forwarded to
31 each WMO affected by the local plan amendment for review and approval prior to adoption.
32 Subpart 12. Submittal and Review. After consideration and before adoption, the local plan shall be
33 submitted to all affected WMOs for review in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 10313.235. Each
34 local unit of government must also notify affected WMOs within 30 days of adoption and implementation of
19 7th Draft 10/3/91
1 the plan, including the adoption of necessary official controls.
2
3 8410.0180 - DETERMINATIONS OF FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT.
4 Subpart 1. Applicability. This part applies when a plan has not been adequately prepared. adopted.
5 or implemented in such a manner as to adequately address the sienificant water resource management issues
6 within the WMO. t be i • d for- h d e 1 the t S q 4Q f been se
si avc ovm :S : vxrave ovcaaSv cav :v i� uoc a x zv, v
7 .
8 Subpart 2. Establishing cause. Prior to the board's involvement in determinations of whether a
9 plan is being properly implemented, the board shall first establish just cause for such determination by review
10 of a written complaint from an aggrieved party or through conclusions arrived at by board staff pursuant to
11 the review of a WMO's annual report. Any complaint or appeal made by an aggrieved party pursuant to
12 Minnesota Statutes Section 103B.231, Subd. 13 must be made in writing to the Executive Director of the
13 Board and must summarize the issues at dispute and the efforts the party made to resolve the problem.
14 Subpart 3. Board staff responsibilities.
15 A. Staff investigation and report Board staff may investigate issues relating to alleged
16 failure to implement plans primarily by response from written complaint from an aggrieved party or by
17 review of WMO annual reports. Within 30 days of receiving a written complaint, board staff are required to
18 initiate a preliminary investigation of the facts as they appear based on personal observation, review of all
19 relevant documents and discussions with involved parties. The results of this preliminary investigation shall !
20 be reviewed with the executive director, and the board's legal counsel if appropriate, prior to preparation of
21 a report. The report shall ascertain whether a failure to implement exists, define the exact nature of the
22 failure to implement and recommend a course of action.
23 B. Meeting to discuss staff report. Upon completion of a report regarding a complaint or
24 review of an annual report, the staff shall send a copy of its report by certified mail to the WMO members
25 of record to set a time and place for a meeting agreeable to all parties to informally discuss the contents of
26 the report if a conflict exists. The complainant and any other aggrieved or affected party shall also be sent a
27 copy of this report by certified mail and shall be invited to attend any meeting held to discuss the report.
28 C. Official response from WMO. The affected WMO shall be allowed 30 days to hold a
29 public meeting to develop a formal, course of action if the joint powers agreement requires such process.
30 Any formal response shall be sent by certified mail to the board as well as any aggrieved or affected party
31 within 15 days of such meeting.
32 D. Appeal to Dispute Resolution Committee. The affected WMO and any aggrieved or
33 affected party may not appeal to the board's dispute resolution committee established pursuant to Minnesota
34 Statutes Section 103B.101, Subd. 10. to hear and resolve disputes over plan implementation until after the
20 7th Draft 10/3/91
1 meeting has been held in accordance with Part 8410.0180, Subpart 3, B.
2 E. Report to Board. Based upon information discovered at the meeting held in
3 accordance with Part 8410.0180, Subpart 2, B. or receipt of the formal response received from the WMO in
4 accordance with Part 8410.0190, Subpart 3, C. board staff shall report to the board at a regular meeting as to
5 the status of the dispute. If the board needs to take further action to resolve the dispute, board staff shall
6 recommend the appropriate course of action, consulting with the board's legal counsel as appropriate.
7 Subpart 4. Board Responsibilities
8 A. Findings of Fact. Upon receipt of the board staff's report and recommendations, the
9 board is required to do any or all of the following:
10 (1) do nothing further if the staffs investigation finds that the subject plan is being
11 properly implemented, provided the board concurs;
12 (2) advise board staff to conduct additional fact finding it deems necessary and
13 report back to the board accordingly;
14 (3) order the dispute resolution committee to convene to attempt to negotiate the
15 matter and to advise the board further;
16 (4) issue a findings of fact and conclusions of its investigation advising the affected
17 WMO(s), county, or counties of the documented failure to implement the subject plan and advise the
18 appropriate unit of government of its responsibility to implement the plan pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
19 10313.231, Subd. 3.,(b) within a prescribed period of time.
20 B. Failure to Act. Upon issuance of its findings pursuant to Part 8410.0190, Subpart 3, A.
21 the board shall notify the appropriate counties to proceed as required by Minnesota Statutes Section
22 103B.231, Subdivision 3, clauses (b) or (c) as applicable. If county fails to act after it is notified, the Board
23 shall notify state agencies that they may initiate their prerogatives under Minnesota Statutes Section
24 103B.231, Subdivision 3, Item (g).
25 C. Role of the dispute resolution committee. The board's dispute resolution committee
26 has the following duties and responsibilities with respect to disputes relating to failure to implement a plan:
27 (1) convene and hear appeals from both aggrieved parties and WMOs not satisfied
28 with the findings and recommendations of the board's staff report presented at the meeting required by Part
29 8448:8499 8410.0180. Subpart 2-B; and
30 (2) convene at the pleasure of the board as prescribed by Part 8410.0180, Subpart 4
31 3, A. (3) to attempt to negotiate and settle disputes over determinations relating implementation of plans and
32 to further advise the board.
33
34 a:10 /91- 7thdit.rul f
35
21 7th Draft 10/3/91
Request For Proposals
Water Management Plan • City of Brooklyn Center
November 18, 1991
L Proposal Process
The City of Brooklyn Center hereby requests proposals from qualified consultants to
prepare a water management plan and a comprehensive water quality public education
program. A pre - proposal meeting, for the purpose of providing additional information,
clarification etc. will be held at Brooklyn Center i Hall A M Wednesday,
C e City al at 9:00 W s
Y Y � Y,
November 27, 1991. Prospective proposers are strongly encouraged to attend this meeting.
P P P gY . g g
This document e t furnishes information to prospective proposers. Because of existing staff
workload, questions, requests and interviews outside this .format are discouraged.
Proposals must be received by Friday, December 6, 1991, at 4:30 p.m. and addressed
to:
Mark J. Maloney, City Engineer
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
After the proposals are reviewed, interviews with up to three selected proposers will be
arranged. It is anticipated that interviews will be conducted between the dates of
December 23, 1991 and January 10, 1992. Further information on the interview process will
be furnished to the selected consultants at least one week prior to interviews.
Page 1
H. Proposal Content
Each proposal should contain the types of information summarized next. Additional
information is allowable as long as it is directly relevant to the proposed project. Proposals
that are concise, well - organized, and to the point are preferred.
Qualifications and Experience of Proposed Project Team
Submit relevant qualifications and experience of the key members of the firm who will
be assigned to the project. This includes qualifications and experience in the following areas:
1. Stormwater Management Planning
2. Water Quality Planning and Lake Restoration
3. Wetland Protection
4. Work with Rules and Ordinances Related to Metropolitan Surface Water Management
5. Flood Control
6. Work in the City of Brooklyn Center
0 7. Work with Local Watershed Management Organizations (the Shingle Creek Watershed
Management Organization and the Central Mississippi Watershed Management
Organization)
Proposers are specifically requested not to include information about other members
of the firm who will not be assigned to this project.
Scope of Work
The City's requirements for the project are described in the attached Scope of Work.
This RFP's Scope of Work is general in nature. For each task, consultants are required to
identify in their proposals the specific approaches, methods, and assumptions. If a consultant
believes that a specific change in the Scope of Work may be necessary, this change should be
discussed in the proposal, including its location in the RFPs Scope of Work, the nature of the
change, and the reason for the change.
Page 2
Schedule
Proposals must contain a general schedule for completion of the proposed Scope of
Work, indicating the consultant's estimate of the time required to complete major tasks.
All tasks identified in this Request for Proposals as Phase I services must be
completed within six (6) months from the date that the City awards a professional
services contract.
Budget
Proposals must contain a cost estimate for Phase I, including:
• The number of hours to be worked by specific project team members for each major
task in the Scope of Work
• The proposed billing rates of these team members
• The total cost of each major task in the Scope of Work
In addition, the Proposal must contain an estimated range of costs for Phase II services,
as defined in this Request.
Proposers should note that the City has prepared a preliminary budget estimate of
$75,000 for Phase I of this work. Proposers are encouraged to identify where significant
cost savings could be achieved, but the City does not consider this to be a bidding process.
The City will select a consultant based on their combination of their understanding of
the work, professional qualifications, relevant experience, ability to meet schedule, and
proposed cost that best meets the City's needs and expectations.
Page 3
Scope of Work
Water Management Plan • City of Brooklyn Center
The City of Brooklyn Center, population 28,887, is located in the Minneapolis /St. Paul
metropolitan area in northern Hennepin County.
The City has previously undergone rapid growth and development. Stormwater from
Brooklyn Center flows to two main conveyors: the Mississippi River and Shingle Creek. In
addition, nutrients carried in the stormwater impacts the city's two main recreational lakes,
Palmer Lake and Twin Lakes. These water resources represent a major natural amenity of
the City.
The City requires a water management plan that incorporates analysis and
proposed management of both the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff. As part of this
plan, the City is also requiring the development of a comprehensive water quality public
education program. The City would like the plan to evaluate the potential for water quality
improvements and water level stabilization for Twin and Palmer lakes. This would include
an evaluation of all management practices that would have the potential for water quality
enhancement, such as public education and the use of detention /sedimentation basins.
The study area is defined as the corporate area of the City of Brooklyn Center and the
areas immediately upstream that are or have the potential to affect the water resources of
Brooklyn Center. The plan must to conform to the requirements set forth by the Shingle
Creek Watershed Management Commission and the West Mississippi Watershed Management
Commission, further clarified by the respective Commission's "Guidelines for Preparing
Local Water Management Plans".
The City requires that the plan be prepared in two phases. Phase I consists of a data
inventory, problem identification, priority ranking of problems, and Phase II scoping. Phase
II consists of planning to resolve problems, prioritizing improvements, and analyzing costs.
The consultant must organize the plan around these nine main topics:
1. Stormwater Management
2. Floodplain Management
3. Shoreland Management
4. Water Quality
5. Erosion and Sedimentation Control
6. Stormwater Treatment
7. Wetland Management
8. Groundwater Protection
9. Financing
Page 4
Phase I: Inventory and Problem Identification
A. Project Management
This task encompasses the steps necessary to ensure that the project is well - defined,
adequately staffed, and properly budgeted. It includes the following work:
1. Preparation of a detailed work plan for Phase I of the project, including a detailed
project schedule.
2. Meeting between the consultant project manager and City staff to review the work
plan and schedule.
3. Initial meeting between the consultant's project team with City staff to review the
planning process.
4. Preparation of monthly invoice and status reports, including a description of work
progress and associated budget and anticipated work in the upcoming month.
5. Monthly meetings between the consultant project manager and City staff.
B. Data Collection
This step involves the collection of existing available information. Information will be
gathered by three means: 1) a meeting with City staff to supply available City information;
2) independent contact with other agencies; and 3) two open forum /informational hearings
with the public, to solicit information on water management and planning. Types of
data to be collected include:
1. Stormwater Management
• Previous Stormwater studies of the City or significant portions of the City
• Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan
• Capital Improvement Program
• Existing and proposed land use maps
• Precipitation frequency- duration data
• Plans and applicable guidelines of the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Water
Management Commissions
• Soils maps of Hennepin County
• Miscellaneous Stormwater drainage studies
• Most recent topographic maps
Page 5
• USGS stream gaging data of water bodies affecting Brooklyn Center
• Relevant rules and policies of the City of Brooklyn Center, the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, the U.S. EPA, the St. Paul District Corps of
Engineers, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• As -built information and independent survey data from developments and storm
sewer projects as supplied by the City of Brooklyn Center
2. F000dplain Mana eg ment
• Federal flood insurance studies
• Delineation of any existing floodplain boundaries
• Listing of known floodprone structures
• City floodplain ordinance
• City policies regarding floodplain use and development
3. Shoreland Mana ement
• Minnesota DNR Management Classification of protected public waters
within the City
• Minnesota DNR shoreland zoning requirements, including frontage and lot sizes
• Existing City zoning ordinances, including frontage and lot sizes for development
typical within the potential shoreland areas of the City
• Inventory of existing lot sizes and frontage for major lakes in the City
4. Water Quality
• Existing water quality data collected within the City as well as water quality data
of immediately upstream water bodies for incorporation into water quality
modeling of the City
• Identified individuals, lake associations, and other organizations interested in water
quality and a description of data, if any, collected by these groups
• Information on the type and effectiveness of water quality education efforts
conducted in the City in the past
• City ordinances and policies regarding water quality impacts of projects
• Locations of discharges authorized by NPDES or SDS permit programs and recent
records of such discharges
• Locations of past and present landfills, dumps, and waste disposal sites identified
by the City or the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Page 6
5. Erosion and Sedimentation Control
• "Erosion and Sediment Control Manual" prepared by the Hennepin Conservation
District
• Existing rules and regulations of City of Brooklyn Center
• Inventory of existing system
6. Stormwater Treatment
• Plans of existing stormwater treatment basins and tributary watershed areas
7. Wetland Mana ement
• Relevant rules and policies of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the
U.S. EPA, the St. Paul District Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
• Minnesota DNR protected waters inventory
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory maps
• Other wetlands information and maps pertaining to the City
• City ordinances and policies regarding wetland use and development
8. Groundwater Protection
• Inventory of existing problems and groundwater resources
• Locations of City wells
• Location of MDNR- permitted withdrawals
9. Financing
• Existing sources of funding for water - related programs
• Review of past expenditures relating to water management
• Potential sources of revenue beyond those already in existence
Output from this task will be memoranda listing the data sources investigated and the
consultant's success in finding relevant data. In addition, the consultant should furnish the
City copies of the raw data collected during this project in an organized set of file folders,
clearly labeled, with an index to the file folders.
Page 7
C. Inventory of Water Resources Data
The consultant will tabulate the data collected previously to provide a summary of
possible information as to the present status and possible trends of water resources in the
City of Brooklyn Center area. This tabulation should generally be a compilation and
description of relevant data collected in Task B and should address each of the nine main
topics under consideration:
1. Stormwater Management
• A base map of the City, including all streets, highways, storm sewers, and major
watercourses
• Projection of probable development within the study area in the coming 20 years
based past comprehensive planning of the City
• A map of major past flooding problems within the City and identified floodprone
areas and homes, including a brief synopsis of flooding problems at each location
• Tabulation of types of existing data collected in Task B -1 and interpretation of
their impact on the City and the stormwater management plan
2. F000dplain Mana ement
• A base map of previously delineated floodplain boundaries in DXF format for
overlay with the City's storm sewer map
• Location of floodprone structures on the floodplain map
• Description of past floods in the City and damage associated with those events
3. Shoreland Mana eg ment
• A base map of DNR- protected and non - protected waters in DXF format for
overlay with the City's base map
• A discussion of the DNR shoreland zoning requirements, a tabulation of the areas
which would be regulated by the adoption of a shoreland zoning ordinance and a
discussion of the impacts of regulations on development in the City.
4. Water Quality
• Description of existing City policies and controls regarding water quality
• Tabulation of existing water quality of lakes, streams, and wetlands within the City
• Tabulation of existing uses of lakes, streams, and wetlands within the City and the
water quality parameters associated with each of these uses
Page 8
5. Erosion and Sedimentation Control
• Tabulation of existing erosion and sedimentation control practices
• A basemap of identified erosion and sedimentation problem areas, in DXF format
6. Stormwater Treatment
• Tabulation of existing water bodies as to their function in treatment of stormwater
7. Wetland Mana eg ment
• Tabulation of wildlife and aesthetic values of identified wetlands based upon "The
Minnesota Wetland Evaluation Methodology" prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
8. Groundwater Protection
•Tabulation of data collected in Task C -8
9. Financing
• Tabulation of data collected in Task C -9
Output from this phase will be a report containing the required items. This report will
be a draft form of the initial chapters of the final water management plan.
D. Modeling of Existing Conditions
Based on the data collected in the water resources inventory, the consultant will
construct hydrologic model(s) of water quality and quantity for stormwater conveyance and
lake systems within the City of Brooklyn Center. The model(s) will incorporate the
hydrologic characteristics of all water bodies identified in either U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service NWI maps or the MDNR Protected Waters Inventory, as well as any stormwater
ponds previously constructed as part of the City's stormwater management system.
The stormwater modeling must involve a recognized model(s) used in the
Minneapolis /St. Paul area for urban stormwater modeling and must examine a number of
storms to determine critical events and utilize natural storage and conveyance features
wherever feasible. Likewise, the water quality modeling must use a recognized model(s)
used in the Minneapolis /St. Paul area for urban water quality modeling. The water quality
is modeling must determine the effectiveness of the existing stormwater system to remove
nutrients and the corresponding response of Twin and Palmer lakes to stormwater treatment.
Page 9
The modeling process will involve the following activities:
1. Stormwater Management
• Delineation of subwatersheds for each water body
• Determination of subwatershed area and slope
• Identification of land use (including water bodies) within each subwatershed
(existing and ultimate)
• Determination of extent of impervious areas in each subwatershed
• Identification of storage areas and determination of the elevation /discharge /storage
relationships for each storage area
• Determination of existing storm water runoff rates and flood elevations (based
upon existing and ultimate land use) for the critical 2, 50- and 100 year frequency
events.
• Analysis of storm sewer systems to provide adequate capacity for the 5 year event
for laterals and analysis of retention basins and trunk storm sewers for the critical
100 year event.
• Determination of phosphorus and suspended sediment runoff and modeling of
removal efficiency of each wetland or stormwater basin
• Determination of annual pollutant loading to major lakes within the City.
• Determination of annual phosphorus budget of major lakes within the City
• Analysis of the effectiveness of existing stormwater treatment facilities to enhance
water quality
To the extent possible, models should be calibrated to existing data before use in the
remaining phases of this project. Where data are lacking for runoff calibration, additional
methods of runoff computation should be used to determine whether model results are
reasonable. Examples of check methods would be regional basin transfer of peak discharges
and regression relationships.
In addition, the consultant shall meet with City staff to determine where existing
development is not complete or where development plans indicate the possibility of future
re- development of an area. The models shall then be re -run to determine future conditions.
Such projections should extend at least to the year 2010.
Output from this task will be five copies of a technical report containing a narrative on
the modeling process. The report should include copies of maps of watershed divides and
storage areas with tabulation of existing and (where appropriate) future flood levels and flow
rates at every water body outlet and every subwatershed outlet. Locations where flooding of
property or other problems exist should be noted in the narrative. Correlation (or lack
thereof) of reported flood problems and model results should be noted.
Page 10
An annual phosphorus budget for major lakes in the City must be prepared using a
mass - balance approach. The relative sources of nutrients to these lakes must be estimated,
including atmospheric deposition, local surface water runoff, upstream lake or pond
outflows, possible releases from sediment, and other significant sources of nutrients. The
locations of possible water quality problems and the correlation of model results to observed
results should be noted.
E. Problem Identification and Prioritization
Based on the previous activities, the consultant will prepare a description of existing
water - related problems within the City of Brooklyn Center, including a prediction of the
extent of the problem in terms of financial losses and the number of persons affected.
Problems must be grouped according to the following categories:
1. Stormwater Management
2. Floodplain Management
3. Shoreland Management
4. Water Quality
5. Erosion and Sedimentation Control
6. Stormwater Treatment
7. Wetland Management
8. Groundwater Protection
9. Financing
Following preparation of this document, the City will review the problem description.
Following review, the consultant will provide copies of the problem identification document
to the City Council for review and discussion. The consultant will attend a meeting with the
staff and council for discussion of water - related problems and determine their priority for
resolution for the City.
Based on the results of the previous discussions, the consultant will provide a ranking
of the identified problems for review by City staff. After review, this ranking will be used
as input to the next task.
F. Scoping of Phase H
Based on the data gathered and the analysis completed, the consultant will review this
Scope of Work and identify issues to be added or deleted from the scope and the cost of such
deletions or additions. These suggestions will be provided in a letter report to the City. The
final scope of Phase II will be developed by the City based on the consultant's
recommendations and the City's priorities.
Page 11
In addition to the letter outlining issues to be added or deleted to the scope of work for
Phase II, at the completion of Phase I the consultant will submit, in a draft form, the first
three chapters of the Plan. Chapter One will be the tabulated and summarized results of the
Inventory of Water Resources Data. Chapter Two will be a narrative on the hydrologic
modeling process and a description of water quantity and water quality problems. Chapter
Three will consist of the description and grouping of water related problems by category and
a ranking of the problems for resolution by the City. The consultant will also submit copies
of the hydrologic model and input data on disk in a format that can be revised by the City if
needed. Copies of user's manuals for the model will also be furnished by the consultant.
G. 63rd /65th Avenue - Storm Sewer Analysis
City staff have previously identified the area between 63rd and 65th Avenue North, from
Brooklyn Boulevard to Perry Avenue North, as being prone to flooding during moderate
rainfall events. As part of Phase I services the consultant shall formulate a plan to address
the drainage problem in this area. The plan should include analysis of the model results, a
review of potential solutions including, but not limited to, storm sewer improvements, re-
directing flow, ponding and flood proofing. Potential solutions shall be evaluated according
to cost, effectiveness, reliability and political and legal implications. Output from this task
will be a summary document/report describing the findings and after review with City Staff,
ten copies will be furnished to the City.
Page 12
Phase II: Plan Formulation
The second phase will consist of preparing a plan to resolve water - related problems,
ranking of priority improvements, and cost estimation to implement those solutions.
A. Project Management
This task encompasses the steps necessary to ensure that the project is well - defined,
adequately staffed, and properly budgeted. It includes the following work:
1. Preparation of a detailed work plan for Phase II of the project, including a detailed
project schedule
2. Preparation of monthly invoice and status reports, including a description of work
progress and associated budget and anticipated work in the upcoming month.
3. Monthly meetings between the consultant project manager and City staff.
B. Review of Potential Solutions to Problems
For each of the problems identified in Phase I for further study, the consultant will
provide preliminary descriptions of alternatives for problems solution. For purposes of
scoping, it is assumed that five major priority problems will be identified, although this may
be revised in the Phase II scoping process identified above. For each problem, alternatives
will be identified that will include:
1. A no- action alternative.
2. A minimal action alternative that should include low -cost, low- impact solutions to the
problem. For example, flooding solutions might employ the use of flood insurance,
educational programs, and long -term attempts to remove floodprone structures.
3. A regulatory alternative that emphasizes planning and regulation, rather than
structural approaches. For example, flooding solutions might include stricter controls
on the use, development, or transfer of existing floodprone properties.
4. One or more structural approaches to problems. For flooding this might include
floodproofing of homes or manipulation of flood levels through alteration of
stormwater conveyance or stormwater storage facilities.
Page 13
Alternatives will be evaluated according to the following criteria:
1. Cost -- This should include City staff time, maintenance and operation costs. Costs
should be estimated using current unit prices.
2. Effectiveness -- This should describe the ability of the chosen solution to eliminate the
problem in both the short- and long -term.
3. Reliability -- The potential for failure of the solution through failure of long -term
maintenance or other requirements should be evaluated.
4. Political and Legal Implications -- The need for permits, variances, or extensive
public involvement to achieve the proposed solution should be evaluated.
Output from this task will be a summary document describing the findings of the
alternatives investigation. A draft copy of document describing the proposed solutions will
be forwarded to City staff for review and, upon modification and approval, ten copies will be
furnished to the City.
The consultant will attend a meeting with City staff and /or City Council to decide upon
the proposed solutions. The consultant will be notified of the City's preferences regarding
proposed solutions to the identified problems.
C. Analysis of Selected Remedies
Upon notification of the City's preferences, the consultant will prepare a final
hydrologic and water quality model of the City based on the proposed remedies. The cost of
the proposed remedies will be estimated in greater detail and a schedule for implementation
of these remedies will be suggested. The output from this task will be the final models of
the City. These will be supplied in two bound hard copies of the input and output of the
models as well as floppy disks containing the model input and the models themselves with
documentation of the model.
D. Water Management Plan
This step will require the preparation of a water management plan for guidance of
future water management in the City. Steps to prepare the final plan will include:
1. Stormwater Management
• Maps and tables of major and minor watersheds used in the hydrologic modeling
Page 14
• Graphic and narrative descriptions of existing and proposed future stormwater
facilities and subwatersheds
• Tabulation of data that identifies storage volumes, outflow rates, and type and size
of outlet for each stormwater detention /retention pond
• A narrative plan that defines recommended improvements, project costs, and
quantities
• Description of existing City policies, ordinances, and comprehensive plan
• Recommended City policies and ordinances and implementation plan that are
needed to assure implementation of the plan
2. Floodplain Mana eg ment
• A map outlining floodprone areas and structures
• A copy of the above - mentioned map in DXF format
• A statement of City policy for protecting floodprone structures
• Suggested improvements to reduce risk of flooding
• A map delineating areas under jurisdiction of Corps of Engineers and Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources
3. Shoreland Mann eg ment
• A description of existing and possible future shoreland zoning
• A map in DXF format outlining areas that would be protected by shoreland
ordinance
4. Water Quality
• A statement of water quality goals for all water bodies of 1 acre or greater
• A statement of water quality policies for the City, including the possible use of
changes in projected land use, increased retention and infiltration basins,
retrofitting of existing systems, and enhancement of wetland water quality
functions
• Recommendations for implementing the plan described above, including estimated
project costs
5. Erosion and Sedimentation Control
• A statement of City erosion and sedimentation control policies and rules
• Recommendations for implementing the policies and rules, including estimated
costs
Page 15
6. Stormwater Treatment
• Recommendations to the City as to feasibility of improvements to upgrade water
bodies to perform their required functions
• Recommendations to the City as to improvements needed in order to protect water
bodies in order for them to maintain their required functions
• Recommendations for modification of existing stormwater quality basins to
enhance their ability to improve water quality
• Recommended design criteria for future stormwater quality basins
7. Wetland Management
• Policies and implementation plan to maintain and upgrade existing wetlands in
order to improve their wildlife and aesthetic values
• Cost estimate to implement the plan
8. Groundwater Protection
• Management strategy to protect groundwater resources
E. Financial Analysis For Implementation of the Plan
The plan shall contain an analysis of the financial impact of implementation of the
proposed regulatory controls and programs generally described as follows:
1. Regulatory Controls
• Wetland Protection
• Erosion Control
• Permits
• Shoreland and Floodplain Ordinances
• Nuisance Controls
2. Stormwater & Drainage Design Performance Standards
3. Informational Programs
4. Data Collection Programs
5. Management Programs
6. Potential Structural Solutions to Problems
Page 16
The plan shall also contain a discussion of the City's ability to fund adoption of and
enforcement of local controls and standards, implementation of other specified programs and
capital improvements. The discussion will include:
• levy limit constraints
• effect on other City funding needs
• establishment of watershed management taxing districts
• utilization of the City's Storm Drainage Utility
• monetary impact against typical residence
• the impact on the City if Capital Improvements are funded via ad valorem financing
• a summary of grant funding that would be available to fund water management
projects and programs
Output from this phase will be the completed Water Management Plan. The plan will
include an Executive summary and appropriate Maps. The plan will be reviewed in two
steps. Initially, five copies of the plan will be submitted to City staff for review. The
consultant will meet with City staff to discuss the document and will make changes identified
by the City. Then 10 copies of the amended plan will be submitted to the City for review by
the two local watershed management organizations and City Council. The consultant will
meet with the two WMOs and the City Council and make changes required by City staff to
meet WMO and Council needs. The consultant will submit 30 copies of the final plan to the
City.
Page 17
DATE: October 25, 1991
TO: HRG Board
FROM: Julie Jones, HRG Administrator - -!
r'
SUBJECT: 1992 Recycling Service Rate
As I explained at the October 17, 1991 HRG meeting, recent
adjustments to the 1992 HRG Budget proposal show that it will not
be necessary to increase the recycling service fee on utility
billing to balance the 1992 HRG budget.
Recent discussions with Hennepin County staff and the District
Manager of Browning Ferris Industries (BFI) have resulted in
great changes to our cost estimates for curbside collection
service fees in 1992. This change is due largely to the fact
that Hennepin County is now predicting that it will not require
Hennepin County cities to add all rigid plastics and mixed paper
to their curbside recycling programs in 1992. This addition to
the program is now expected to not be feasible until some time in
1993 due to weak markets for these materials.
Kevin Tritz, the District Manager for BFI, is predicting that BFI
will have secure markets which will allow them to add magazines
to the curbside collection service as of January 1, 1992. Mr.
Tritz is estimating this cost to be an additional $.20 per
household per month. Adding the additional $.20 and an estimated
$.05 annual CPI increase to the existing $1.60 per household per
month fee gives the HRG an estimated $1.85 per household per
month cost, beginning January 1, 1992.
BFI is indicating that markets may be strong enough mid -year in
1992 to allow the addition of other mixed papers to the curbside
collection program. They are predicting the addition of this
item to the program to cost HRG an additional $.20 per household
per month also. Even though Hennepin County will likely not
require the addition of this material in 1992, HRG is interested
in adding it to the program to increase our abatement level, and
potentially increase our county funding level. Therefore, a
prediction is being made that the curbside collection service
fees will increase to $2.05 per household per month as of July 1,
1992. The attached, revised, HRG 1992 budget proposal reflects
these estimates.
Since the curbside collection fees in the revised budget proposal
are much less than previously estimated, it will not be necessary
for HRG cities to increase the recycling service utility bill
charge in 1992. As the attached proposal shows, HRG is expecting
to operate with a slight amount of operating capital at the
current billing rates. Therefore, it is not necessary for the
HRG cities to take any action towards changing the existing
utility bill service rate.
ko
1992 HENNEPIN RECYCLING GROUP BUDGET PROPOSAL
SEPTE.%0ER 16, 1991
1992 Recycling Budgetary Ex1penses to be Charged to HRG Account
Budget Item Staff Proposal
Labor
HRG Administrator @ $27.93/hr. @ 1,040 hrs $ 29,047
HRG Administrative Intern @ $15.79/hr. @ 1,040 hrs. 16,422
HRG Secretary @ $16.70 /hr. @ 390 hrs. 61513
Total $ 51,982
Transportation
Mileage 250
Parking 30
Total $ 280
Training
Dues & Subscriptions $ 250
Books & Publication 120
Conferences 900
Meeting Expenses 180
Total $ 1,450
Legal Fees
HRG Attorney Total $ 3,000
Equipment
Curbside Containers
25 containers
iners
stolen replacements) $ 210
Special Purpose Containers 2,000
Miscellaneous (signs, etc.) 300
Total $ 2,510
Contractual Services
Yardwaste Drop -off Fees 150,000
Liability Insurance
3.000
Office Supplies
Letterhead & Envelopes $ 500
Misc. Operating Supplies (computer, printer
cartridge, other paper) 450
Postage 500
Total $ 1,450
Promotional Activities
Recycling /Problem Waste Booklet Update
(@ $.45 ea.) $ 11,250
Multi family Recycling Flyers 1,000
Materials for School Programs 1,000
Goodwill ACD Brochure (@ $.21 ea.) 5,250
$50 Cash Incentive Drawings 7,800
Rigid Plastics /Mixed Paper Brochure (@ $.35 ea.) 8,750
Total $ 35,050
ERG EXPENSE TOTAL $248,722
1992 RECYCLING EXPENSES PAID BY INDIVIDUAL CITIES
BFI Curbside Service Fees - January 1 - June 30
(based on $1.85 /hh /mo. fee)
Brooklyn Center (8,306 hh) $ 92,197
Crystal (7,683 hh) 85,281
New Hope (5,061 hh) 56,177
BFI Curbside Service Fees - July 1 - December 31
(based on $2.05 /hh /mo. fee)
Brooklyn Center (8,306 hh) $ 102,164
Crystal (7,683 hh) 94,501
New Hope (5,061 hh) 62,250
Goodwill ADC Fees
Brooklyn Center (22 %) $ 5,579
Crystal (18 %) 4,564
New Hope (18 %) 4,564
HRG City Total: $ 755,999
1992 ERG PROJECTED REVENUE
County Reimbursement (70% of eligible expenses) $ 416,016
Utility Bill Service Fees
(based on existing charge of $1.05 /hh /mo.)
- Brooklyn Center (8,306 hh) $ 104,656
Crystal (7,683 hh) 96,806
New Hope (5,061 hh) 63,769
Yardwaste Rebate 77.246
TOTAL PROJECTED REVENUES: $ 758,493
LESS PROJECTED EXPENSES: 755,999
OPERATING CAPITAL: 2,494
10 -91
1992 HENNEPIN COUNTY FUNDING POLICY
Percent Residential Abatement Percent County Fundina
>18 80%
>16 70%
>14 60%
>12 50%
<12 0%
Amount of 1992 HRG expenses eligible for County funding:
$594,309 (79% of total budget)
Resulting HRG
Operating Capital
60% County Funding - $356,585 <$56,937>
70% County Funding - $416,016 $ 2,494
80% County Funding - $475,447 $61,925
HENNEPIN RECYCLING GROUP
1990 EXPENOITURES
PERSONNEL COSTS
CITY OF NEW }TOPE
WAGES 11,19201
LEAVE TIME ACCRUAL 1,2fl6.61
PENSION ACCRUAL 1,:57.57
INSURANCE EXPENW 2,326.75
CITY OF CRYSTAL
ADMIN CHARGES 18,747.41
34,830.35
PRINTING
CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK 161.50
INSTY PRINT 190.00
POST PUSUCATIONS 1,060,14
MN SUB PUBLISH 1,060.00
2,461.64
LEGAL .. _.._. —. –
HOLMES & GRAVEN 207.15
HOLMES & GRAVEN 240.60 Post-It brand fax transmittal memo 7671 s of vsy.. ► Z
HOLMES & GRAVEN 924.10 T. l� �.. c.osn f
HOLMES & GRAVEN 50278
HOLMES & GRAVEN 730.40
CORRICK & SONORALL 45.00 °ate Phone *r..7
Fax s
! � Fax 3 �3 � 5� 7 L•'
MAILING
SOZELL (4280)
INSURANCE
LMCIT 2.55300
LMCIT RE9ATE (471.00)
2.088.00
MILEAGE
TOM BUBLrrZ 36.00
TRAINING
NEIGHBORHOOD ENERGY 4,5,00
AMERICAN EXPRESS 45.27
CITY OF CRYSTAL 87.44
1.77.71
OFFICE EQUIPMENT
COPYING COSTS 58.25
CJTY OF CRYSTAL 277.00
BOZFw (7 67.50)
173.75
BFI - MULTI FAIMILY
BFI 671.50
BFI 309.12
BFI 1,009.62
BFI 1,009.62
2.999.86
LYNDE & MCLEOD 6,776.W
LYNDE & MCLEOD 5,000.00
LYNDE & MCLEOD 3,063.00
LYNDE & MCLEOD 5,000.00
LYNDE & MCLEOD 3,570.00
LYNDE & MCLEOD 5,000.00
LYNDE & MCLEOD 2,052.00
LYNDE & MCLEOD 5,000.00
LYNDE & MCLEOD 2,500,00
LYNDE & MCLEOD 2,046.00
LYNDE & MCLEOD 6,55&co
LYNDE & MCLEOD 5,000 00
LYNDE & MCLEOD 3,954.00
LYNDE & MCLEOD 2,379.00
57,898.00
REIMBURSEMENTS TO CITIES
BROOKLYN CENTER 131,308.34
CRYSTAL 122,362.39
NEW HOPE 85,951.98
339,822.71
TOTAL 442,395.25
SUMMARY
DEPARTMENT 80 -22 - RECYCUNG
.ilAAN.4GEET
ACTUAL ADOPTED AMENDED REOUES7ED f'R()Pp$Ei?
1990 1991 1991 1992 1992
Personal Services $33,730 $51,328 538,659 339,760 339T6Q
Supplies, Repaires and Maintenance 4 800 800
4.4 367
Other Services and Charges:
Professional Services 0 0 0 tQ00 ` >`' 000
Communications 602 1,685 1,685 3,300 3 3
i
'.
Transportation 95 400 300
Advertising 0 350 350 R'
Printing 114 620 620 7,080 > >.T,08Q
Insurance 0 0 0 1;000 " 1 OOQ
Utilities 0 0 0
Rentals 0 0 0 0
Miscellaneous 943 1,150 511 3,035
Contractual Services:
Repairs
0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance 0 0 0 0 Q
Other Contractual Services 109,617 147,457 147,457 217,364
x 8 346
Capital Outlay 0 0 0 869 869
Other 0 15,000 15,000 4,174 ,T 174
Total $145,545 $218,790 $205,382 $278,559 5248 541
CITY OF CRYSTAL - RECYCLING REVENUES
1989 1990 1991 1991 1992
ORIECT DESCRIPT70N ACTUAL ACTUAL ESTIMATED REMED ES77MATE'D
3330 County Grants $17,028 $122,362 $95,000 595 $133,182
3500 Misc Receipts (HRG Reimb) $21,854 $10,000 $10,000 $22,834
3510 Containers, Wheels & Lids $967 $408 $1,500 $1,500 5200
3780 Recycling Revenues (Billings) $55,193 595,657 $96,314 596,314 $96,806
3781 Penalties - Recycling Billings $781 $2,166 $1,200 $1,200 51,000
3782 Recycling Bin (Billings) $16,013 $11,510
3783 Penalties - Bin Billings $215 $353
Increase in Fund Balance $0 $0 $0 51,368 (55,481)
General Fund Subsidy $69,458 $14,776 $0
Total Recycling Revenues $159,654 $254,310 $218,790 $205,382 5248,541
CITY OF CRYSTAL — OPERATING BUDGET
FUND DEPARTMENT & DEPT: # FUNCT70N ACTTVTTY
AEC
80 RECYCLING - 80 -22 Health and Sanitation Recycling
ACCT. 1989 1990 1991 1991 DEPT: UWAGER
# REM ACTUAL ACTUAL ADOPTED AMENDED REOUE. T
CAPITAL OUTLAY wimd
4530 Other Improvements ""
4540 Machinery Equipment
4550 Furniture & Fixtures
4551 Office Furnishings & Equipment
M.
4552 Mobile Equipment
4553 Miscellaneous Capital Outlay $67,200 $869 $$
ITEM TOTAL $67,200 $0 $0 $0 $869 SSS9<
OTHER
4990 Contingency /Admin Charges $15,000 $15,000 $4;174' $7 tT4
ITEM TOTAL $0 $0 $15,000 $15,000 ! $4,174
GRAND TOTAL ALL ITEMS $159,652 $145,545 $218,790 $205,382 $278,559 $24$,5
CITY OF CRYSTAL - OPERATING BUDGET
FUND DEPARTMENT & DE T # FUNCT70N ACTIVITY
REC
80 RECYCLING - 80 -22 Health and Sanitation Recycling
ACCT. 1989 1990 1991 1991 DEPT. MANAGER
# ITEM ACTUAL ACTUAL ADOPTED AMENDED REQUEST PROPOsAL
REPAIR - CONTRACTUAL
4381 Automotive Equipment Repair
4382 Other Equipment Repair
4383 Buildings Repair
4384 Streets Repair
4385 Reservoir Repairs
4386 Water Line Repairs
4387 Sewer Repair - Contractual
4388 Lift Station Repairs - Contractual
ITEM TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0
MAINTENANCE -CONT RAC77JAL
4390 Service Contracts : ..
4391 Communication Systems Maintenance
4392 Traffic Signal Maintenance
ITEM TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0
RENTALS
4400 Miscellaneous Rentals ^•
4401 Ice Rental
4402 Machinery & Equipment Rental
4403 Office Equipment Rental
4404 Data Processing Equipment Rental
ITEM TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
MISCELLANEOUS
.......... . .
4410 Miscellaneous :
4411 Conference & Schools $340 $686 $750 $211 $300 5300!
4412 Meeting Expenses $250 $150 $10 $10
4413 Dues & Subscriptions - $97 $242 $100 $100 $85 585
4414 Licenses & Taxes
4415 Awards $2,600
4416 Senior Citizen Rebate
4417 Books & Publications $15 $50 $50 $40 $401
4418 Special Education Reimbursement
4419 Tree Disease
ITEM TOTAL $437 $943 $1,150 $511 $3,035 $5,035
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4420 Miscellaneous Contractual Services $78,347 $109,617 $147,457 $147,457 $217,364 $184,346:
4422 R.E. Tax Roll - County
4423 Assessment Roll - County
4425 Board of Prisoners
4427 Dog Control Cost
4428 Water Commission Payments
4429 Robbinsdale Water Payments
4430 New Hope Sewer
4437 Sewage Disposal Charges - MSB
ITEM TOTAL $78.347 $109,617 $147,457 $147,457 $217,364 $184,346'
CITY OF CRYSTAL — OPERATING BUDGET
FUND DEPARTMENT & DEFT. FUNC77ON ACTIVITY
REC
80 RECYCLING - 80 -22 Health and Sanitation Recycling
ACCT 1989 1990 1991
1991 DEPT.. Mit/VAGER
# ITEM ACTUAL ACTUAL ADOPTED AMENDED REQUEST PROPOSAL
PERSONAL SERVICES
4100 Salaries & Wages of Reg. Employees $10,694 $27,291 $42,443 $31,046 $31,349 X1,349
4111 Overtime - Regular Employees $82
4130 Salaries & Wages of Temp. Employees $960
4142 PERA - Coordinated $440 E$$2,071 1,269 $1,901 $1,500 $1,8471 847!!
4144 FICA $803 $3,246 $2,375 $3,154 $3,154:
4150 Dental Insurance $90
4151 Hospitalization Insurance $587 $1,936 $2,338 $2,338 :$2,500
4152 Life Insurance - Police $41
4153 Life Insurance - All Employees $31
4154 Worker's Comp. Insurance $1,200 $1,200 $814 $814
4155 Liability Insurance $200 $200 $55
4156 Unemployment Compensation
4157 Clothing Allowance
/TE1NTOTAL $12,524 $33,730 $51,328 $38,659 $39,760
SUPPLIES, REPAIRS & MAINTENANC
4210 Office Supplies $256 $200 $200 $50 $5}
4211 Duplicator Supplies &Paper $93 $179 $200 $200
4212 Printed Forms
4213 Stationery & Envelopes $252 $9 $300 $300 $167 $1E}?
4220 Misc. Operating Supplies $8 $100 $100 $100 $1pt}
4221 Motor Fuels
4222 Lubricants & Additives
4223 Cleaning Supplies
4225 Shop Materials
4226 Chemicals & Chemical Products
4227 Safety Supplies (OSHA)
4230 Repair & Maintenance Supplies
4231 Equipment Repair
4232 Tires & Recaps
4233 Building Repair
4234 Street Maintenance Materials
4235 Landscape Materials & Supplies
4236 Street Signs & Striping Materials
4237 Utility System Maint. Supplies
4238 Recreational Equipment Supplies
4239 Recreational Concession Supplies
4240 Small Tools
4243 Tissue & Toweling
4246 Lift Station Repairs
4247 Watermain Repairs
4248 Reservoir Charges
4249 Sewer Line Repairs
ITEM TOTAL $353 $444 $800 $800 $367 $367
CITY OF CRYSTAL — OPERATING BUDGET
FUND DEPARTMENT & DEPT. # FUNCTION
ACTIVITY
REC
80 RECYCLING - 80 -22 Health and Sanitation Recycling
ACCT. 1989 1990 1991 1991 DEPT. MANAGER
` ITEM ACTUAL ACTUAL ADOPTED AMENDED REQUEST P RO POSR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
4310 Miscellaneous Professional Services
4311 Personnel Testing & Recruitment
4312 Legal Professional Services $111 $1
4314 Medical Exams & Evaluation
ITEM TOTAL $111 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 St ;D00<
COMMUNICATIONS
4320 Miscellaneous Communications
4321 Postage $51 $602 $1,360 $1,360 $3,300 $3,304}:;
4322 Telephone & Telegraph
4323 FWdto Units
4324 Delivery Service $325 $325
17EMTOTAL $51 $602 $1,685 $1,685 $3,300
TRANSPORTATION
4330 Miscellaneous Transportation »> ..
4331 Travel Expense $16 $34 $200 $100 $10'
4334 Use of Personal Auto $109 $61 $200 $200 $100 31043>
ITE.fTOTAL $125 $95 $400 $300 $110 $E14}
ADVERTISING
4340 Miscellaneous Advertising $346 $350 $350
4341 Employment Advertising
ITEU TOTAL $346 $0 $350 $350
PRINTING
4350 Miscellaneous Printing $67 $114 $320 $320 $6,880
4351 Legal Notices Publishing $100 $100
4352 General Notices & Public Info.
4353 Ordinance Publication 91 $200 $200 $200 $200`i
17EN TOTAL $158 $114 $620 $620 $7;080 ST,08(3
INSURANCE
4361 General Liability Insurance $t 000 5,000
4364 Equipment Floaters Insurance
4365 Automotive Insurance
1TEW TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 St,00t3_
UTILITIES
:.
4371 Electric Service
>;
4372 Gas Service
4376 Rubbish Removal $500
ITEM TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $500 $5130
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER CA—il
AV-1. It.. AL2 ly
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION A Resolution to Approve an Increase in the Processing Fee Charged on
Applications for Tax Abatements by the Assessor's Office Due to Higher Costs.
DEPT. APPROV AT A Regt t a roval of the Resolution.
— �T ( Mark P. Parish, City Assessor
k * �kkk kkkKkkkkkkkK> Kkkkkkkk> k> kkkkkkkk> kk >kkkkk &k>kkkk >k xae . * *xxxx *xaca',cycx�'cyeXcXC�cXc
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report X � Comments below /attached
kkk> k> kkk> k> kkKl= kkkk> K* �k> k�kk> kkkk> kk��x��c�yckk> kkk* kk�k> kk> kkkkkKk> k> k> kxkk�> k> k> k>! cycyc�c; ck�M >kkxxxxxx�ac>;c��c!e>;c$c
• SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )
A taxpayer who wishes to apply for an abatement of property tax must begin at the local level. In
Brooklyn Center, the Assessor's Office initiates the process by providing, explaining, and processing the
application. Before the application can be forwarded to Hennepin County for further consideration, we
must provide a recommendation. This requires an appraisal for Value abatements and an investigation to
determine eligibility on Classification abatements.
Typically, the processing and review of these abatements requires in excess of two hours staff time, often
considerably more. As we cannot bill for actual time after the fact, we have calculated average costs at
$44.00 for Classification Abatements and $51.00 on Value abatements. Therefore, I recommend
adoption of a fee of $45.00 for processing these forms.
While this represents a significant increase from our present fee of $15.00, it is necessary in order to cover
our costs. If the abatement is due to our error, we will, of course, continue to waive the fee. Most of the
abatements are caused by property owners neglecting notices or waiting to appeal after the informal
deadlines. As an option to the abatement process, an owner can file an appeal with the Tax Court; the
current fee is $58.00.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Approval of the attached Resolution.
•
4
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION TO INCREASE THE PROCESSING FEE
CHARGED ON APPLICATIONS FOR TAX ABATEMENTS
BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
WHEREAS, all applications for abatement of property tax
must be initiated at the local level; and
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center Assessor's Office
has experienced an increase in the cost of processing these
applications; and
WHEREAS, the current fee of $15.00 per application is
insufficient to cover the City's cost; and
WHEREAS, the City Assessor has recommended that the
amount of $45.00 per application would be a reasonable estimate of
the costs of processing an application for abatement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Brooklyn Center that the City Assessor is hereby authorized
to establish a $45.00 per application fee for the processing of
applications for abatements in the City.
Date Todd Paulson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member , and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
iab
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTI COMMENDING STATE REPRESENTATIVE PHIL CARRU
WHEREAS, State Representative Phil Carruthers represents
District 47B which encompasses the city of Brooklyn Center; and
WHEREAS, since Representative Carruthers was elected in 1986
he has served on many committees and subcommittees; and
WHEREAS, during the 1992 session he was the chief author of
a law that now provides for a felony offense for disarming a peace
officer and he was the chief author of the Peace Officer Discipline
Procedures Act; and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association
has named Representative Carruthers as "Legislator of the Year" for
1991.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the
City of Brooklyn Center that State Representative Phil Carruthers is
hereby commended for his efforts and dedication toward law enforcement
issues.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council hereby extends
congratulations to State Representative Phil Carruthers for being
named as 1992 Legislator of the Year by the Minnesota Police and Peace
officers Association.
Date Todd Paulson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member , and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same: -
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
0 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 11/18/91
Agenda Item Number 2 c—
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT WITH SEH INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES RELATING TO 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10, PHASE I
IMPROVEMENTS
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Sy Knapp,,, irector of ublic Works
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
v � e
RO 4
No comments to supplement ement this report pp epo t Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes
On April 22, 1991 the City Council adopted a resolution approving an agreement
with SEH Inc. to prepare plans and specifications and to provide construction
engineering services relating to "Phase I construction" of the 69th Avenue
project (i.e. - soil corrections in the Palmer Lake segment of 69th Avenue,
compensating storage and wetland mitigation). Under that agreement, the total
costs for services were estimated as follows:
Phase I -A - Preparation of Plans and Specifications
SEH's costs $25,064
Charges by STS (geotechnical subconsultant
to SEH) 3,736
Total Not -to- Exceed $28,800
Phase I -B - _Construction Engineering Services
SEH's cost (estimate) $23,341
Charges by STS (estimated) $37,859
Estimated Total 61 200
• Estimated Total Costs Under This Contract $90,000
. This estimate of costs was based on an analysis by STS which indicated that the
soil correction process for the Palmer Lake segment of 69th Avenue would follow a
pattern which could be monitored by the use of a process which (greatly
simplified) measures the "pore pressure" in the peat which results from placement
of fill on top of the peat. This information regarding pore pressures is then
translated to determine how much water has drained out of the peat to allow the
peat to stabilize. STS advises that, on at least 9 out of 10 projects, this
procedure is adequate to assure reliable results, and allows the project to
proceed on a predictable schedule.
On August 12, 1991 the City Council awarded a contract for construction of Phase
I improvement to Ames Construction, Inc., based on their low bid of $614,937.30
(vs. SEH's estimate of $953,800). Since then, Ames has installed the required
geotextile and has placed three "lifts" totalling 72 to 8 feet of granular
material on top of the geotextile. Monitoring has shown settlement to be much
slower than expected (only 2 feet so far, vs. predicted total settlement of 10 to
12 feet). At the same time, the failure of excess pore pressures to dissipate
indicates the potential for an overall "bearing capacity failure" with placement
of additional fill.
Under this condition and without additional testing, it will be necessary to
proceed very slowly, with additional caution, to avoid catastrophic failure of
the filling process. Under this scenario, the soil correction process would
extend beyond September, 1992, making it impractical to proceed with roadway
improvements on this segment of 69th Avenue until the summer of 1993.
• STS advises that, with additional testing called "field vane shear testing ", it
may be possible to safely accelerate the rate of fill placement, so as to allow
completion in time for roadway improvements to be completed in 1992. However,
there are no guarantees(!) ....i.e., additional testing may confirm the need to
proceed slowly.
The estimated cost for the additional testing is in the range of $7300 to $17,000
(depending on the number of tests which are determined to be necessary as the
process proceeds). In addition, SEH and STS estimate that the additional time
requirements to monitor placement of the fill materials by the contractor, and to
continue to monitor pore pressures will increase the costs of the originally -
contemplated construction services by $6,000 to $10,000.
Additional Considerations
Based on the current performance of the Palmer Lake surcharge area, it is
expected that Ames Construction contract may underrun by $10,000 to $20,000
because we are experiencing less consolidation than predicted.
If it becomes necessary to delay roadway construction through the Palmer Lake
area until 1993, it will become necessary for the City to decide between two
options, i.e.:
Option A - Construct all roadway improvements west of Palmer Lake under
one contract in 1992, then award a separate contract for
roadway construction in Palmer Lake in 1993; or
• Option B - Delay all roadway construction until 1993.
It is staff's opinion that Option A would be preferable to Option B, because it
would assure early completion of the project through the neighborhood west of
Palmer Lake. Hopefully, additional testing will make it unnecessary to choose
between these options.
However, if we wish to proceed with any roadway construction in 1992, it will be
necessary for SEH to know on what basis they can proceed with the required plans
and specifications by early February, 1992, so that they may complete the plans
and specifications, obtain required approvals, receive bids and award a contract
for construction to start in early spring.
If the additional testing proposed by STS is approved now, it should be possible
to know, by early February, whether we can proceed with the complete roadway
construction project.
If, alternatively, the additional testing shows the need to continue cautiously,
with filling extending through 1992, we will then know that 1992 roadway
construction needs to be limited as described in Option A. At the same time, the
additional testing will still give us better controls on the soil correction
process, with an improved ability to forecast the ultimate success of the
project.
Staff Recommendation -
• Staff recommends approval of an amendment to the City's contract with SEH Inc.,
providing for the additional testing and additional construction services as
described above, with additional costs estimated in the range of $7300 to $17,000
for testing plus $6000 to $10,000 for additional construction engineering
services.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council.
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT WITH SEH INC. FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATING TO 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 1990 -10, PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, on April 22, 1991 the City of Brooklyn Center entered into a
agreement with SEH Inc. to provide professional services relating to 69th
Avenue
Improvement Project No. 1990 -10, Phase I Improvements, at an estimated
total cost o _
f 90 000 Phase -
$ I costs not to
t exceed $28,800 and Phase II costs
estimated at $61,200); and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has advised the City Council
that additional soil testing and other construction monitoring services are
necessary to assure proper control of the soil correction phase of
construction in the Palmer Lake area; and
WHEREAS, SEH. Inc. has submitted a proposed amendment to the April 22,
1991 agreement, wherein they describe the additional services required at an
estimated cost of $27,000, and the Director of Public Works has advised the
Council that he believes this proposal to be fair and proper.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The proposed amendment as submitted by SEH Inc. is hereby
approved.
2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to
execute said amendment to the April 22, 1991 agreement.
Date Todd Paulson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
AMENDMENT TO ACRE NT
BETWEEN
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
AND
SHORT ELLIOTT- HENDRICKSON, INC.
FOR
PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES
69TH AVENUE - PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS
04 BANFMNT AND WETLAND MITIGATION CONSTRUCTION
CITY IMPROVEMENT NO. 19901 -10
SEH FILE NO: 90277
The Agreement made and entered into by and between the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota and Short - Elliott- Hendrickson, Inc.
dated April 22, 1991 is hereby amended as set forth and is
annexed and made part of the original contract.
I. EXHIBIT A -- SCOPE OF WORK
112- BASIC SERVICES OF THE ENGINEER
D. Construction Services
The scope of work for the construction services as
identified in Exhibit A, Section III, Basic
Services of the Engineer, Article B, shall be
increased to include additional testing and
monitoring services performed by STS Consultants,
Ltd. as SEH's subcontractor, Their additional
scope of work is attached. STS's scope of
additional work required for this project is
Summarized as follows:
1. Additional field vane shear testing in order
to determine the in -situ undrained shear
strength of the peat.
2. Laboratory triaxial testing with pore
Pressure measurements easurements to
i 'n
provide de dray ed
strength parameters of the peat used to
evaluate stability based on drained or
effective stress analysis.
3• Subsequent phases of field vane shear testing
and effective Stress stability analysis
repeated as necessary to evaluate safety
factors relative to bearing capacity as
filling proceeds.
4. Additional field construction services
consisting of observation of fill placement,
settlement plate instrumentation and moni-
toring necessary as required by the increased
time needed for construction of the
reinforced embankment.
5. Additional geotechnical engineering eval-
uation of the additional information
collected and the reporting of results.
The scope of work for SEH proposed in the original
.contract to provide construction services
identified under section I, C.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and
b.l and b.2 of the Standard Agreement and also
under Ili of Exhibit A, Basic Services of the
Engineer, Articles D, Construction Services, shall
also be increased under this amendment to provide
for additional observation and resident project
representative time correlating to the additional
testing and time required by the consolidation of
the reinforced embankment and procedure change for
the construction of the reinforced embankment.
II. SCHEDULE A -
PAYMEN
TS TO THE CONSULTANTS
The total payments to the consultants for services described
in Exhibit -
A Scope of Work, under Section IV, Phase in -
Construction Engineering Services, shall be increased from
$61,200 to 588,200 which includes reimbursable expenses and
equipment utilization. This compensation includes an
estimated amount of $17,000 for additional field testing and
laboratory works erform .
p ed by STS with additional $10,000 for
additional observation and resident project representative
costs necessary because of the change in the project
construction procedure and time for consolidation of the
reinforced embankment. The total increase in the project is
estimated to be $27,000.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the partyes hereto have caused this amendment
to be executed and approved on the day of P 1991
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SHORT- ELLIOTT- HENt7RICKSON, INC.
Mayor Department Manager
City Manager
�1
October 24. 1991
Ms. Susan M. Mason. P.E.
Short - Elliott- Hendrickson. Inc.
3535 Vadnais Center Drive
St. Paul. N /1N 551 10 STS Project 95132 -A
Re: Estimated Costs for Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation During the 69th Avenue
Phase 1 Construction in Brooklvn Center. Minnesota
Dear Ms. Mason:
This letter presents our estimate of costs for supplemental testing and engineering ser-
vices on the ahove- referenced project. as discussed in our letter dated October 7. 1991 and
during our follow -tip telephone conversation on October S. 1991.
The pore pressure cells which we have installed on the project are used to measure the
excess pore pressure in the peat which results from fill placement. When the excess pore
pressures are limited to some fraction of the added fill weight. it is known that the shear
strength of the peat is increasing during the consolidation process, although the actual
shear strength values cannot be determined. Because the excess pore pressures on this
project have not peen dissipating to the desired levels. supplemental analyses may be
required to assess shear strength gain and embankment stability during construction.
We recommend that the supplemental analyses include additional field vane shear testing in
order to determine the in -situ undrained shear strength of the peat. Two phases of this
testing were included in our original proposal (P -3452 dated April 16. 1991). The in -situ,
undrained shear strength of the peat would he determined at Stations 143 +00, 144 +00 and
145 +00 as was done during our original geotechnical evaluation for the project. The un-
drained shear strent_ would he used to evaluate the safety factors relative to bearing
capacity and slope stability based on undrained. or total stress, analyses. The disad-
vantage of' this method is that should a given phase of field testing identify insufficient
strength for further fill placement. another phase of testing would need to be completed to
once again check for adequate strength gain before filling could proceed.
In order to provide a secondary method of analysis, and possibly limit the amount of field
vane shear testing required. we recommend that the first phase of field testing include the
acquisition of peat samples for laboratory triaxial testing. A series of three consoli-
dated. undrained triaxial tests with pore pressure measurements will provide the drained
strength parameters of the peat which could he used to evaluate stability based on drained,
or effective stress. analyses. These analyses would be based on the effective stresses in
STS Consultants Ltd.
Consulting Engineers
3650 Annapolis Lane
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447
612.559.1900/Fax 612 559.4507 For"',
Short- Elliott - Hendrickson. Inc.
STS Project #05 I ?2 -A
October 24. 1 ( I' l l
Page 2
i
the peat as a function of the actual water pressures ,measured in the pore pressure cells.
Once the initial laboratory testing is completed. 'these analyses could be repeated as
necessary using new sets of pore pressure cell readings.
We estimate the lollowing costs for the supplemental work discussed herein:
Initial field vane shear testing and sample acquisition.
laboratory triaxial testing. total stress and effective
stress stability analvses $6.200
Subsequent phases of field vane shear testing. total stress
and effective stress stability analvses $4.300
Subsequent effective stress stability analyses (without field
vane shear testing) $1.100
All work will he performed on a time and materials basis consistent with the unit and
hourly rates from the Fee Schedule included in STS Proposal P -3452 dated April 16. 1991.
We would keep you apprised of the amount of' work completed. and the anticipated further
work which is necessary.. to properly evaluate stability during the course of construction.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions regarding the proposed evaluation
methods or estimaled costs.
Respectfully.
STS CONSULT'AN'TS. LTD.
Melvin B. Smith. P.E.
Senior Project Engineer
• ` I C
Stephan M. Gale. P.E.
Principal Engineer
MBS /dn
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 11/18/
Agenda hem Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission
Application No. 91018 Submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc.
DEPT. APPRO L:
��.
-A Llt�
Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:�%`°'° w
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X )
i
The City Council on November 4, 1991, after a prolonged and
exhaustive review, directed the staff to prepare a resolution
denying Planning Commission Application No. 91018 submitted by PDQ
Food Stores, Inc.- on the basis that the standards for a special use
permit were not met in that the plans submitted were not in
conformance with applicable ordinance regulations pertaining to the
property.
Such a resolution has been drafted and is offered to the City
Council for approval as a means of disposing of this Planning
Commission Application.
•
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION G
RE ARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING
COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 91018 SUBMITTED BY
PDO FOOD STORES, INC.
WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 91018 was
submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc. seeking site and building plan
and special use permit approval to build a gas station/ convenience
store /car wash at the southwest quadrant of T. H. 252 and 66th
Avenue North; and
WHEREAS, Section 35 -220, Subdivision 2 of the Zoning
Ordinance states that a special use permit may be granted by the
City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the five
standards for special use permits listed in said section of the
ordinance are met; and
WHEREAS, this application was considered by the Planning
Commission at its September 12, 1991 regular meeting during which
a public hearing was held and testimony regarding the request was
received; and
WHEREAS, the majority of the Planning Commission believed
it was necessary to revise the plans submitted by PDQ Food Stores,
Inc. as a means of meeting the standards for special use permits;
and
WHEREAS, the applicant, during the public hearing,
indicated it was not willing to revise the site and building plans
in accordance with the Planning Commission's recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission directed the City staff
to prepare a resolution recommending to the City Council the denial
of Planning Commission Application No. 91018 on the grounds that
the standards for special use permits were not met; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at a duly called meeting
held on September 26, 1991 adopted Planning Commission Resolution
No. 91 -5 recommending the denial of Planning Commission Application
No. 91018 submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center
first considered said application at a duly called City Council
meeting on October 7, 1991; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed all of the materials
submitted, the record of the Planning Commission's review of this
matter, and information supplied and testimony presented by the
applicants and their representatives, as well as information and
testimony presented by other interested parties; and
RESOLUTION NO.
WHEREAS, the City received 'a letter from the Minnesota
Department of Transportation reviewing the PDQ plan as it relates
to T. H. 252 indicating traffic congestion concerns and the need to
keep the first entrance from the frontage road set back from 66th
Avenue North as far as possible; and
WHEREAS, the City Council on October 7, 1991, determined
the applicant's plans that were then being considered could not
meet the standards for special use permits without various
revisions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council on October 7, 1991 directed the
staff to prepare a resolution denying this application on the
grounds that the standards for special use permits were not met in
this situation for their consideration at the next City Council
meeting; and
WHEREAS, a resolution denying Planning Commission
Application No. 91018 was prepared and presented to the City
Council for consideration on October 21, 1991; and
WHEREAS, the applicant on October 21, 1991 submitted a
letter and a sketch of a revised plan indicating some willingness
to revise their plan although it still did not meet all of the site
plan concerns previously expressed to the applicants; and
WHEREAS, at the October 21, 1991 City Council meeting Mr.
Shelton, President of PDQ, indicated that they wished the Council
to table consideration of the denial of this application for
another two weeks so that a revised plan could be pursued; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did table further consideration
of this application for two weeks and directed the staff to notify
neighboring property owners of the Council's reconsideration to be
held on November 4, 1991; and
WHEREAS, on November 4, 1991 the City Council considered
• revised sketch plan submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc. along with
• report from the staff regarding this plan's compliance with the
zoning ordinance provisions and the standards for special use
permits; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the plans
before them were not consistent with all of the provisions of the
City's Zoning Ordinance and, therefore, also not consistent with
the standards for special use permits contained in Section 35 -220,
Subdivision 2 of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
RESOLUTION NO.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the pity Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center to deny Planning commission Application No. 91018
submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc. on the grounds that the plans
submitted do not demonstrate that the standards for special use
permits contained in Section 35 -220, Subdivision 2 of the City
Ordinances have been met. Specifically, the City Council finds
that standard (e) regarding conformance to applicable regulations
of the district in which a use is located is not met on the basis
of the following:
1. The northerly driveway accessing the site exceeds
30' in width and has a separation of less than 50'
from the southerly access to the site. This is at
variance with Section 35 -414, Subdivision 4 of the
City Ordinances which states that the maximum right
angle width of any driveway shall be 30' at the
property line, and that no driveway shall be
located within 50' of another driveway at the
property line on the same use site and also Section
35 -703 which states that access to off - street areas
shall be restricted to driveways 30' or less in
width, and no two driveways on any single parcel of
land in a business or industrial district shall be
less than 50' apart.
2. The plans showing dropped lighting in the canopy
for the service station are not consistent and are
at variance with Section 35 -414, Subdivision 7 and
Section 35 -712 of the City Ordinances which states
that all exterior lighting shall be provided with
lenses, reflectors, or shades, so as to concentrate
illumination on the property of the owner or
operator of said illumination devices, and that no
glare shall emanate from or be visible beyond the
boundaries of the illuminated premises.
3. The plans submitted thus far for screening,
lighting, land elevations, drainage and landscaping
are not complete and consistent with the
requirements for site and building plan approval
contained in Section 35 -230, Subdivision 2 of the
City's Zoning Ordinance.
4. The 6 illuminated lexon band proposed on the
canopy is inconsistent and at variance with
provisions in the City's Sign Ordinance regarding
canopy signs and attention attracting devices.
RESOLUTION NO.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the ;City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that any future revisions or modifications to the
proposed plans shall be subject to the resubmission of a new
Planning Commission Application consistent with the provisions of
Sections 350 -220 and 35 -230 of the City Ordinances regarding
Special use Permits and Plan Approval.
Date Todd Paulson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by , 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 November 18, 1991
—
Agenda Item Number Z,% �
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
******************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF HEARING
PROTECTION SYSTEMS FOR FIRE PUMPERS
DEPT. APPROVAL:
0 prxe
Patricia A. P ge, Deputy City Clerk
MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOPMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )
An appropriation of $8,470 was approved in the 1991 Fire Department budget for the purchase of
hearing protection systems for the fire department pumpers. Two quotations were received for this
equipment.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
I recommend approval of the attached resolution which authorizes the purchase from Fire Com.
i
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE
PR OF HEARING
WHEREAS, NFPA standard 1500 dictates the allowable noise
levels inside fire pumpers and other equipment; and
WHEREAS, an appropriation was approved in the 1991 budget
for the purchase of hearing protection systems for the fire
pumpers; and
WHEREAS, two quotations were received as follows:
Company Ouote
Fire Com $ 8,392.00
David Clark Corp. $10,428.00
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of
the City of Brooklyn Center that the purchase of hearing protection
systems from Fire Com, in the amount of $8,392.00 is hereby
approved.
Date Todd Paulson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member , and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 1I /I8 /91
Agenda Item Number �a
i
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR SEWER REPLACEMENT AT BROOKLYN
DRIVE, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -23
DEPT. APPROVAL:
,1
Sy Knapp, Virector of Public Works---- -
MANAGER'S REVIEW/ RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
On October 21 the City Council approved plans and specifications and authorized
advertisement for bids for Sewer replacement at Brooklyn Drive, Improvement
•
Project 1991 -23. Bids for
J this work were received and opened on November 14,
1991. The bids submitted were as follows:
J. P. Norex, Inc. $ 58,371.00
Glendale Contracting $ 60,504.00
Northdale Construction Co. Inc. $ 65,322.50
FCCI (Ford Construction Co. Inc.) $ 68,999.00
Barbarossa & Sons, Inc. $ 86,153.00
Thomas & Sons Construction $ 131,086.00
Of the six bids received, the low bid of $ 58,371.80 was submitted by J.P. Norex
Inc. Because Norex hasn't reviousl been awarded an cons P y y ns ction contracts in
Brooklyn Center, staff is working to verify the history of the contractor and is
contacting references at the time of this report. We expect be able to make a
recommendation and present a resolution for consideration at the Council meeting.
The Engineer's Estimate of contract costs previously reported was $ 43,125. That
estimate included special consideration of: (1) high mobilization costs on a
small project, (2) dewatering requirements, and (3) late season construction. It
appears that staff underestimated those factors and that the heavy, late - October
snow fall has had a dramatic impact on the bids.
Analysis of the bids indicates a very cautious approach taken by the bidders, and
it appears that the weather has had a significant effect on the prices. We
® estimate that if this work was bid (and performed) during normal weather
conditions, and in conjunction with other sewer work, the prices would be
substantially lower, perhaps in the $ 40,000 to $ 45,000 range.
The following options are available to the Council at this time:
1. Reject all bids, combine this project with other sewer project(s) and
re- advertise in the Spring of 1992.
2. Accept the low bid.
City Staff's analysis of the above options consist of the following:
1. As previously mentioned, it appears that there could be a potential
savings of between $ 13,000 and $ 18,000 by bidding the work next
spring, in conjunction with other sewer work. However, it must be
considered that if this segment of the sewer collapses in the interim,
requiring an emergency repair similar to the one experienced in May,
the costs of those repairs will easily exceed the low bid of
$ 58,371.80. Also, in May the cave -in near the lift station occurred
during daylight hours and was immediately visible, and fortunately,
reported by a resident. This allowed City forces to get a head start
on by -pass pumping and, consequently, no residences were affected by
backed -up sewage. Without the benefit of immediate notification, staff
estimates that up to 200 residential basements could be affected by
another failure, before by -pass pumps could be operational. The
potential costs of claims from the sewer backup would be substantial.
• For this reason, staff recommends replacement of this pipe in a
non - emergency situation.
2. The low bid, while being higher than the Engineer's Estimate, appears
to have been submitted in good faith and is indicative of a competitive
bidding process.
Staff will be prepared to make a recommendation and present a resolution for
consideration at the time of the Council meeting.
Member Dave Rosene introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -268 1
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR SEWER
REPLACEMENT AT BROOKLYN DRIVE, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -23
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement
Project No. 1991 -23, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk
and Engineer, on the 14th day of November, 1991. Said bids were as follows:
Bidder Bid Amount
J.P. Norex, Inc. $ 58,371.80
Glendale Contracting Inc. $ 60,504.00
Northdale Construction Co., Inc. $ 65,322.50
Ford Construction Co., Inc. $ 68,999.98
Barbarossa & Sons $ 86,153.00
Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc. $131,086.00
WHEREAS, all bids substantially exceed the City Engineer's estimate
of $43,125; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has recommended that the
Council accept the low bid received because (1) this segment of sewer is in
imminent danger of collapse, and that such a collapse could result in major
damage to private properties and additional costs; and (2) he believes these bids
to be competitive and it is his opinion that the City could not receive lower
bids for this work at this time; and
WHEREAS, it appears that J.P. Norex, Inc. of Chanhassen, Minnesota,
is the lowest responsible bidder.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to
enter into a contract, in the amount of $58,371.80, with J.P.
Norex, Inc. of Chanhassen, Minnesota in the name of the City of
Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1991 -23 according to
the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and on
file in the office of the Deputy City Clerk. -
2. The Deputy City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return
forthwith to all the bidders the deposits made with their bids,
except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next
lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that:
1. The estimated cost of Improvement Project No. 1991 -23 is hereby
amended according to the following schedule:
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -268
As Amended Per
As Established Low Bid
Construction Cost $ 43,125 $ 58,371.80
Easement Acquisition 1,000 -0-
Staff Engineering (8 %) 3,450 4,670.00
Admin. & Legal (2 %) 860 1.167.20
Total Est. Project Cost $ 48,435 $ 64,209.00
2. All costs relating to this project shall be charged to the
Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund.
r
November 18, 1991
Date Todd Paulson, Mayor
ATTEST:
i
Deputy Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Philip Cohen and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
Todd Paulson, Celia Scott, Jerry Pedlar, Dave Rosene, and Philip Cohen;
and the following voted against the same: none,
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
it
Licenses to be approved by the City Council on November 18, 1991:
CHRISTMAS TREE SALES LOT
Builder's Square 3600 - 63rd� Ave . N.
City Clerk tr�C
NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES
Minnesota Vikings Food Service 5200 West 74th St. }}
Group Health 6845 Lee Ave. N.
Sanitarian
PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES
Minnesota Vikings Food Service 5200 West 74th St.
Group Health 6845 Lee Ave. N.
Sanitarian
RENTAL DWELLINGS
Initial:
TCF Bank fsb River Glen
Renewal:
George Lucht 5105 Brooklyn Blvd.
J. G. Strand 5329 Penn Ave. N.
Gary and Danae Morrison 5104 E. Twin Lake Blvd. )
Peter S. Kelly 3900 - 56th Ave. N.
Director of Planning r
and Inspection
TOBACCO RELATED PRODUCT
Centerbrook Golf Course 5500 North Lilac Drive
City Clerk 1L
GENERAL APPROVAL:
P. Page, Depu y Clerk