Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1990 08-13 CCP Regular Session
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AUGUST 13, 1990 7 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Invocation 4. Open Forum 5. Approval of Consent Agenda -All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. 6. Approval of Minutes: *a. July 23, 1990 - Regular Session b. August 7, 1990 - Special Session 7. Mayoral Appointments: *a. Election Judges for September 11, 1990, Primary Election 8. Final Plat Approval - Richardson Park 2nd Addition (Olive Garden Restaurant) *a. Subdivision Agreement Approval *b. Final Plat Approval 9. Resolutions: *a. Accepting Work Performed under Contract 1989 -E - North Lilac Drive Trail Construction *b. Approving Plans and Specifications and Directing Advertisement for Bids, Improvement Project No. 1990- 16, Contract 1990 -G, Construction of Well House No. 10 C. Approving Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. 1990 -A, Sealcoating Project No. 1990 -08 -This change order approves the re- sealing of 10 blocks of streets in the 1989 sealcoat improvement area. This is in response to a petition received by the City Council at its July 23, 1990, meeting. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- August 13, 1990 *d. Approving Amendment to Contract with SEH, Inc. for Professional Services Relating to 69th Avenue Street Improvement Project No. 1990 -10 -The proposed amendment relates to the subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering evaluation services to be performed on the 69th Avenue project *e. Relating to MNDOT Study of I -94 between Brooklyn Boulevard and I -494 *f. Accepting Work Performed for Improvement Project 1990- 18, Well No. 5 Repairs *g. Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Diseased Shade Trees (Order No. DST 8/13/90) h. Establishing Retirement Health Insurance Program *i. Approving Purchase of a DOT Matrix Printer - Finance Department *j. Declaring Surplus Property *k. Authorizing Execution of a Subrecepient Agreement between Hennepin Count and p y the City of Brooklyn Center for the Year XVI Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program 1. Approving Purchase of Fax Machine and Computer Workstation and Authorizing Transfer of Funds from Drug Forfeiture Monies 10. Ordinance: a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 3 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Minnesota State Building Code -This item is offered this evening for a first reading. 11. Planning Commission Application: (7:45 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 90015 submitted by Teasdale & Associates requesting variance approval to allow more than 10% of the Garden City Court apartment project to be three - bedroom units following a conversion of 24 two - bedroom units to 16 three - bedroom units -This item was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission.at its July 26, 1990, meeting. 12. Discussion Items: a. Communications Audit b. City Hall Study CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- August 13, 1990 c. Evaluation Report Regarding Lift Station No. 2 -SEH, Inc. has prepared a report which describes three alternates for upgrading or replacing this lift station, which is located at Lyndale Avenue and 55th Avenue North. d. Alternate Funding Sources for Storm Drainage System Costs e. T.H. 100 Reconstruction - Status report on MNDOT study. f. 1991 Preliminary Budget Review *13. Licenses 14. Adjournment , MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JULY 23, 1990 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:01 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Todd Paulson, Jerry Pedlar, and Philip Cohen. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, EDA Assistant Coordinator Tom Bublitz, and Administrative Aide Patti Page. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Councilmember Scott. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist recognized Jim Bussa, 6718 Regent Avenue North. Mr. Bussa stated he had appeared before the Council at an open forum session in the spring of this year. He stated he is appearing again to present a petition which has been signed by the entire neighborhood regarding the conditions of the streets in the area of 68th Avenue and Quail Avenue, Regent Avenue, and Scott Avenue. He explained the streets were sealcoated in the fall of 1989 with a very coarse, sharp rock. He explained the rock is being thrown up into residents' yards, it is coming off the streets in large sections, and children and adults are being injured by the sharp rock. He stated the neighborhood has been patiently waiting for a solution from the City. He inquired who would be responsible for the medical bills being incurred if the street is not fixed. Mr. Bussa stated the parking lot at Willow Lane School was also sealcoated last year, but a different type material was used. He pointed out the sealcoating in the parking lot seems to be holding up real well, yet the parking lot receives more abuse than the City streets. The Director of Public Works stated he reviewed the situation very carefully after Mr. Bussa's last appearance at the City Council meeting. He noted a recommendation was forwarded to the City Council to use a different type of rock in 1990 and upcoming years for sealcoating. He noted he believes the peeling in this area is more pronounced than in other neighborhoods within the City. He agreed the size rock which was used in 1989 is larger than what is being used this year but noted the 1989 rock is commonly used throughout the metro area. He added the street does have a good oil seal on it but noted he could order the streets to be swept more frequently to remove the loose rock. He explained it would be very expensive to reseal or resurface this area. Councilmember Pedlar inquired why this area could be experiencing more peeling than other areas in the City. The Director of Public Works stated it could be 7/23/90 -1- due to a number of variables. Councilmember Pedlar inquired if there are other alternatives to resurfacing these streets. The Director of Public Works stated additional sweeping of the streets could provide more control of the loose rock or the sharpness of the existing rock could be covered up by repeating the sealcoating process. Councilmember Pedlar inquired when this neighborhood would be due for sealcoating again. The Director of Public Works stated it would be due in six years. The City Manager stated he felt it would be best to determine why the sealcoating process did not work well on the streets in this neighborhood when it is working well in other areas of the City. Mayor Nyquist inquired if the contractor has reviewed this issue. The Director of Public Works stated the contractor has been to the neighborhood and looked at the streets. He noted the sealcoating was applied in the latter half of August which is usually the best time to do sealcoating. He stated the contractor is not willing to admit any liability for the peeling and loose rock. Councilmember Cohen stated there seems to be a problem here that needs to be solved. He noted the City should fix the area if it is a faulty job. He noted he did not think it would be fair to expect the neighborhood to wait the normal rotation schedule to have the streets repaired. Councilmember Scott stated she did go up to this area, and she walked along the streets. She stated it is difficult to walk along the streets because of the sharp and uneven stones. She added she feels it is a disgrace to allow the neighborhood to look so poorly. She added she did walk on the surrounding streets and they are fine. She stated she feels the City owes it to these people to repair the streets, and this neighborhood deserves streets that are safe to be used. Mayor Nyquist stated he was also in the neighborhood after Mr. Bussa's last appearance at a Council meeting. He agreed with Councilmember Scott the streets did not look good. 0 There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar directing staff to correct the situation as soon as possible. The motion died for lack of a second. Mayor Nyquist stated he still believes there is some responsibility on the part of the contractor. Councilmember Cohen stated the City Manager is correct in noting staff must determine why the sealcoating is peeling in this area and not in other areas of the City. Mayor Nyquist recognized Vernon MacNamara, 6725 Quail Avenue North. Mr. MacNamara stated he watched the entire sealcoating process along his street. He noted less than 1/4" of oil was applied to the streets. He noted the rocks were larger than the quantity of oil laid down. He stated as the roller went over, it did not actually compress the stones into the prepared surface. He stated he asked one of the workers how much oil is usually used for that size of rock, and the worker told him generally 1" of oil is laid down. Mr. MacNamara added he has a 3' wide puddle in front of his driveway, and he feels the grading should be checked in this area. Mayor Nyquist noted a second open forum registration had been received from John Schumacher. He noted Mr. Schumacher had inquired whether Brooklyn Center had community development block grant funds and how they are used. The EDA Assistant Coordinator stated the majority of Community Development Block Grant 7/23/90 -2- (CDBG) funds are used for the housing rehabilitation grant program. He noted this program rehabilitates homes for low- income individuals and families. He noted some of the CDBG funding also goes towards acquisition of single- family homes which are beyond repair. He noted in this instance, the City would purchase the property, demolish the existing home, and resell the property for future development. He added in the past, CDBG funding has been used for updating park facilities and handicapped accessibility. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from the consent agenda. No requests were made. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 25 1990 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the minutes of the June 25, 1990, City Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -140 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolutions and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND PROVIDING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -08 (ALLEY PAVING, FREMONT /GIRARD, 55TH TO 57TH) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -141 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND PROVIDING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -15 (ALLEY PAVING, GIRARD /HUMBOLDT, 54TH TO 55TH) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -142 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND PROVIDING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -16 (ALLEY PAVING, EMERSON / FREMONT, 53RD TO 54TH) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -143 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND PROVIDING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT N0. 1989 -17 (ALLEY PAVING, LAKEVIEW /TWIN 7/23/90 -3- LAKE, LAKEBREEZE TO LAKESIDE) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -144 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 1988 -24 (BROOKDALE SQUARE TRAFFIC SIGNALS) AND 1989 -19 (BROOKDALE SQUARE ENTRANCE ON- SITE IMPROVEMENTS) AND CERTIFYING LEVIES TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -145 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND PROVIDING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -18 (WEST RIVER ROAD FROM 66TH TO 73RD AVENUES) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -146 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND PROVIDING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 1989 -26 (FREEWAY BOULEVARD /65TH /66TH AVENUES) AND 1989 -27 (HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH FROM 65TH TO 69TH AVENUES) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -147 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL COSTS, PUBLIC UTILITY HOOKUP CHARGES, DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY ACCOUNTS, AND DELINQUENT WEED REMOVAL COSTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -148 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED SHADE TREES (ORDER NO. DST 07/23/90) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by 7/23/90 -4- member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -149 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF MARY JANE SOKOLOWSKI - GUSTAFSON The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -150 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE OF A COMPUTER WORKSTATION AND ALLOCATING FUNDS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -151 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING SICK LEAVE AND VACATION BENEFITS FOR THE NEW APPRAISER II The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the following list of licenses: FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Price Candy Company 1200 Brookdale Center Trim 4 Life 6080 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Brooklyn Center Fire Dept. 6301 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Brooklyn Center Park & Rec. Dept. 6301 Shingle Ck. Pkwy._ RENTAL DWELLINGS Initial: Gregory M. Olson 4006 65th Ave. N. Hazel & Ivan Vetterick 4010 65th Ave. N. Jagdish Trivedi /Bruce Kruger 5500 Bryant Ave. N. Alan Joslin 5700 Colfax Ave. N. Virginia Larson 7216 Riverdale Road Renewal: Richard T. Stallman 1215 54th Ave. N. Tim & Wendy Romashko 3300 64th Ave. N. ROI Properties, Inc. 7109, 7113 Unity Ave. N. SIGN HANGER 7/23/90 -5- Attracta Sign Company 7420 West Lake Street The motion passed unanimously. PRESENTATION - BROOKLYN CENTER HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The EDA Assistant Coordinator explained the Housing Commission has spent many months on a housing study. He then recognized Nick Eoloff, chairperson for the Housing Commission. Mr. Eoloff briefly introduced each of the Housing Commission members to the City Council. The EDA Assistant Coordinator stated he was aware the City Council had reviewed the full report prior to this evening's meeting. He noted implementation of this plan will require coordination of a number of people. He stated he would recommend further review of the plan at the staff level so a work plan can be developed. Councilmember Cohen noted the Housing Commission is committed to the Maxfield Report recommendations and the implementation plan is prepared by Mr. Gene Ranieri. He noted the study gives the City and the Housing Commission a blueprint for future use. Councilmember Paulson questioned why the additional paragraph had been added regarding review of the zoning ordinance as it pertains to the maximum limits for three -and four - bedroom units, The EDA Assistant Coordinator stated this additional paragraph had recently been discussed and added. Councilmember Paulson stated he did not feel it should be a part of the implementation plan. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to delete the paragraph pertaining to the ordinance provisions for the maximum number of three -and four - bedroom units within multifamily developments. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -152 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER HOUSING COMMISSION AND ADOPTING THE BROOKLYN CENTER HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. MAYORAL APPOINTMENT - DRUG AWARENESS COMMISSION There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to appoint Jody Brandvold to the Drug Awareness Commission. The motion passed unanimously. a MAYORAL APPOINTMENT — HOUSING COMMISSION There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to appoint Jon Perkins to the Brooklyn Center Housing Commission. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 9 1990 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to approve the minutes of the July 9, 1990, City Council meeting. The motion passed. Councilmember Pedlar abstained from the vote as he was not present at this meeting. _ 7/23/90 _ / 6 PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO 90017 SUBMITTED BY L A BEISNER REQUESTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO RESUBDIVIDE TWO LOTS SOUTH OF JAMES CIRCLE NORTH AND WEST OF HIGHWAY 100 /HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH TO ALLOW FOR A LARGER SITE FOR THE PROPOSED OLIVE GARDEN RESTAURANT AND PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 90018 SUBMITTED BY GENERAL MILLS RESTAURANT INC. REQUESTING SITE AND BUILDING PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 9,100 SQUARE FOOT 330 SEAT OLIVE GARDEN RESTAURANT ON VACANT C2 ZONED LAND SOUTH OF JAMES CIRCLE NORTH, SOUTHWEST OF THE DAYS INN The City Manager noted both applications were recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its July 12, 1990, meeting. The Director of Planning and Inspection referred the Mayor and Councilmembers to pages one through four of the July 12, 1990, minutes and the information sheet. He noted a public hearing has been scheduled for Planning Commission Application No. 90017, but a public hearing is not required for Planning Commission Application No. 90018. He noted the first application would enlarge the site for the proposed Olive Garden Restaurant. He then went on to briefly review the site and landscape plans for the restaurant. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Planning Commission Application No, 90017 subject to three conditions which he briefly reviewed for the Council. He noted the Planning Commission also recommended approval of Planning Commission Application No. 90018 subject to 12 conditions which he reviewed for the Council. Councilmember Scott noted on the site plan it appears there is not a lot of room for driving lanes in the parking lot. The Director of Planning and Inspection reviewed the site plan again and noted there is a minimum of 24' required for two -way traffic. He noted this site plan comprehends two -way traffic. Councilmember Cohen inquired about the maximum depth of the storm water retention pond. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated it would be 9'. The Director of Public Works stated the storm water retention pond has a 3 to 1 slope which would prevent people from slipping or falling into the pond. Councilmember Cohen stated he is concerned the Council is approving an attractive nuisance for children. He inquired if the City could require a fence for this area. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained the Planning Commission did discuss this factor and noted by developing the storm water retention pond as proposed, it would be doing it as aesthetically pleasing and safely as possible. He noted years ago staff did investigate these retention ponds and noted the staff report found fencing is not necessary in these areas. The City Manager stated he once worked in a community where a fence around a retention pond actually caused the death of a child because rescue personnel and other people could not get into the area fast enough to save the child. Councilmember Cohen inquired who would pay for the retention pond. The City Manager stated either the property owner or developer pays for the pond, Councilmember Cohen stated he believes this is an issue that should be discussed at a future date. Councilmember Paulson inquired if it would be possible to have outdoor seating 7/23/90 -7- at this restaurant. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated additional seating would require additional parking. He noted the area would also need to be screened and staff would have to review a new set of plans for outdoor seating. He explained basically City ordinances prohibit outdoor seating of any type because of the screening policy. Councilmember Paulson stated he would like to see a review of this policy. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 90017. He noted there was a typographical error in the legal publication but he would rule it was not significant. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. There being none, he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 90017. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve Planning Commission Application No. 90017 subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The applicant shall dedicate a 20' wide drainage and utility easement over the City watermain under the northeast corner of Lot 2 prior to release of the final plat for filing at the County. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to approve Planning Commission Application No. 90018 subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central 7/23/90 -8- monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 9. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the performance guarantee. 10. The property owner shall enter into an Easement and Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems prior to the issuance of permits. 11. A fire hydrant shall be provided to serve the site as required by the Fire Chief. 12. The replat of the property shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to the issuance of permits. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:45 p.m. and reconvened at 8:53 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO 90019 SUBMITTED BY JOE KORMAN REQUESTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE INTO TWO LOTS THE PROPERTY AT 5321 MORGAN AVENUE NORTH AND PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO 90020 SUBMITTED BY JOE KORMAN REQUESTING VARIANCE APPROVAL TO ALLOW TWO SINGLE - FAMILY LOTS IN THE R2 ZONE WITH A WIDTH OF APPROXIMATELY 57.5' AT THE PROPERTY OF 5321 MORGAN AVENUE NORTH The City Manager noted both applications were recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at the July 12, 1990, meeting. The Director of Planning and Inspection referred the Mayor and Councilmembers to pages five through seven of the July 12, 1990, minutes and information sheet. He briefly reviewed each application and noted a public hearing has been scheduled for both applications. He noted the Planning Commission recommended approval of Planning Commission Application No. 90019 subject to seven conditions which he reviewed for the Council. He added the Planning Commission also recommended approval of Planning Commission Application No. 90020 subject to five conditions which he then reviewed for the Council. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning 7/23/90 -9- Commission Application Nos. 90019 and 90020. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. No one appeared to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application Nos. 90019 and 90020. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Cohen inquired if it was necessary to note in the findings that the standards for a variance have been met. The City Attorney stated after review of the case, the courts would infer the Council did, in fact, review the request and make the appropriate findings. Councilmember Cohen stated he would be more comfortable if the language contained in the findings and conditions were changed. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve Planning Commission Application No. 90020 based on the following findings and conditions: 1. The standards for a variance as set forth in Section 35 -240 and Section 15- 112 have been met. 2. Two of three (depth and area) lot requirements are met in this case. 3. No setback deficiencies will result from the proposed subdivision. 4. The proposal is reasonable and creates no unorthodoxed arrangements. 5. The existing detached garage on the proposed southerly lot shall be relocated off the southerly lot prior to the release of the final plat for filing at the County. 6. No other variances are implied by the granting of this variance. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve Planning Commission Application No. 90019 subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The existing garage shall be relocated off the proposed Lot 2 prior to release of the plat for filing at the County. 4. The applicant shall enter into an agreement for the payment of utility hook -up charges to be assessed to Lot 2 prior to release of the plat for filing. 7/23/90 -10- 5. Approval of the subdivision is subject to approval of variance Application No. 90020. 6. The plat shall be modified, prior to final plat approval to indicate a 5' wide drainage and utility easement along the rear of both Lots 1 and 2. 7. No building permit for a new dwelling or garage on the proposed Lot 2 shall be issued until the plat has received final approval and been filed at the County. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances Regarding Political Signs. He noted this item is offered this evening for a first reading. He added this ordinance amendment will eliminate the conflict between the City's ordinances and the current State law. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances Regarding Political Signs and scheduling a public hearing for August 27, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF SPECIFIED LICENSE - 6525 27 29 WILLOW LANE The Director of Planning and Inspection stated the housing inspector reports the complex is in substantial compliance with the housing maintenance and occupancy ordinance particularly as it relates to the common areas at the complex. He stated he is recommending the rental license be renewed for the two -year period beginning August 1, 1990, to expire on July 31, 1992, with the condition the remaining unoccupied dwelling units be allowed to be occupied only after an inspection by the housing inspector of each of these units. Councilmember Pedlar inquired if the fire alarms have been certified by the fire chief. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated he has talked with the fire chief regarding this issue. Councilmember Paulson inquired if all the units have been inspected. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated all the empty units have been inspected. Councilmember Pedlar asked if the City could continue to monitor this establishment and pull the rental dwelling license-if the need arises. The City Manager responded affirmatively. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Cohen approving the rental dwelling license for the properties located at 6525, 27, 29, Willow Lane for a two -year period beginning August 1, 1990, and expiring on July 31, 1992. The motion passed unanimously. TEMPORARY ON -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE - ST ALPHONSUS CHURCH The City Manager noted this application is for the church's annual fun fair. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve a three -day temporary on -sale intoxicating liquor license for St. Alphonsus Catholic Church. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS 7/23/90 -11- INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALK ON 73RD AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN HUMBOLDT AVENUE AND T.H. 252 The City Manager stated last summer the City received a number of requests for installation of a sidewalk on 73rd Avenue between Humboldt Avenue and T.H. 252. He stated after discussions with Brooklyn Park city administrators, a questionnaire was developed and copies were sent to the 52 property owners in Brooklyn Park and the 181 properties owners in Brooklyn Center. The Director of Public Works stated there is substantial support of the property owners for this sidewalk. He stated the recommendation is to install the sidewalk on the north side of 73rd Avenue. He noted there are less obstructions in this area and by installing the sidewalk on the north side of the street, it would stay dryer during the winter because the sun would be able to melt the snow and ice away. He stated staff is asking the Council to tentatively approve an agreement with the City of Brooklyn Park noting under this agreement Brooklyn Center would install the sidewalk and Brooklyn Park would maintain it and eventually replace the sidewalk. He noted Brooklyn Center does not have any indication of what the Brooklyn Park City Council is willing to do. Councilmember Paulson asked the Director of Public Works to review the breakdown of the Brooklyn Center residents who are in favor of sidewalk installation in Brooklyn Park. The Director of Public Works briefly reviewed the summary of responses which was prepared from the questionnaire. Councilmember Paulson inquired if the City has ever installed a sidewalk or any other improvement in another city. The Director of Public Works responded negatively. The City Manager stated he has seen this type of project completed in other communities. The Director of Public Works stated the major reason for making this recommendation is to make the installation more palatable to the residents of Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Paulson stated he felt the costs should be more equitable, and it should be split between the two cities. Councilmember Pedlar stated he does not understand why Brooklyn Center would want to pay for a sidewalk that would be within another city's limits. Councilmember Cohen stated it appears it is either going to be installed as recommended or it will not be done at all. Councilmember Paulson inquired if it would be possible to put a maximum dollar figure on the cost the City would be willing to pay. The City Manager stated this agreement is authorizing the City staff to make an offer to the City of Brooklyn Park and execute the agreement if Brooklyn Park approves. The Director of Public Works stated he would agree to putting a dollar limit on the improvement. Councilmember Paulson inquired if the City could pay three quarters of the estimate, and Brooklyn Park could pay the rest. The City Manager stated Brooklyn Park does not have the funding to install this improvement. He noted either Brooklyn Center installs and pays for this improvement or it will not be done. Councilmember Paulson stated he would like to put a maximum dollar amount of $35,000 on the improvement. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -153 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -22, ON 73RD AVENUE NORTH FROM HUMBOLDT AVENUE TO T.H. 252, AND PROPOSING COST SHARING AGREEMENT TO 7/23/90 -12- THE CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed. Councilmembers Paulson and Pedlar were opposed. REPORT REGARDING MALFUNCTIONS AT WELL NO 5 AND AT WELL NO 8 The City Manager stated within the past two weeks well No. 5 and well No. 8 have both experienced serious malfunctions. The Director of Public Works explained at well No. 5 the pump shaft was sheared off near the pump and the pump mechanism fell into the bottom of the well cavity. He noted in order to investigate the problem, it was necessary to hire a contractor on an emergency basis to disassemble the well and examine the damage. He stated it is estimated this well can be returned to service by August 1, 1990. He added this well was scheduled for routine inspection and maintenance in 1991, in accordance with the City's established six -year operating and maintenance program. He stated staff authorized the work to be completed for this routine inspection and maintenance as long as other work was already being done on this well. The Director of Public Works noted during 1988 well No. 8 experienced serious problems. noted P the types yp of problems that have been experienced at this well are very are y and the correct solution is very unclear at this time. He noted there is also some uestion as to whether there is a cost q effective solution for this well. He stated staff would like to take the time to fully analyze e th i s well and to evaluate luate all alternatives. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -154 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -18, REPAIRS TO WELL NO. 5, AND APPROVING CONTRACT FOR EMERGENCY REPAIRS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 9:46 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 7/23/90 -13- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL SESSION AUGUST 7, 1990 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in special session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 11:30 a.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Todd Paulson, and Philip Cohen. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, and Administrative Aide Patti Page. Mayor Nyquist noted Councilmember Pedlar would not be present at the meeting. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -155 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING POLLING LOCATION CHANGE FOR PRECINCT 1 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT , . There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 11:34 a.m. City Clerk Mayor 8/7/90 -1- I �Lv The following persons are reccmmended for appointment as election judges for the September 11, 1990, Primary Election: Precinct 1 Precinct 6 Chair R -Donna Bennett Chair R- Catherine Wetzel D- Arlene Groves D -John Mandrich R- Marian Smith R -Jo Swart D- Clarice Johnson D -Grace Kalleberg R- Mildred Egnell R- Gloria Weinebarger D -Mary Gwen Stein D -Beth Rygh R -Grace Freund R -Lora Jefferson D- Joanne Goddard D- Phyllis Waite Precinct 2 - Precinct 7 Chair R- Beverly Madden Chair D -Mona Hintzman D- Esther Kelsey R- Imelda Mayleben R -John Freund D -Helen Julkowski D- McKevha Thomas R -Donna Jones R- Gretchen Jackson D -Viola Peterson D -Donna Jennrich D -Carol Benkofske R -Doris Boyum R -Ruth Clark D- Coletta Anderson R- Angeline Olson Precinct 3 Precinct 8 Chair D- Debbie Hensel Chair R -Trudi Ann Gores R -Ann Bystrom D -Ethel Pettman D- Dorothy Nyberg R -Susan Heisler R -Joyce Shudy D- Eileen Hannan D- Elizabeth Beadles R -Diane Kosloske R -Ethel Demaree D -Anne Bergquist D -Donna Wiggins R- Joseph Clark R- Christine Polis Precinct 9 Precinct 4 Chair D -Rosie Teas Chair D- Luella Torrence R -Joann Reavely R- Virginia Johnson D -Tracy Tyler, Jr. D -Mary Lou Beecher R -Mary VanDerWerf R- Thelma Jacobson D -Doris Chapman D -Helen Bolier R- Margaret Hurd R -L. Darlene Rosholt R -Ardis Fairchild D -E. Margaret Trautwein Absentee Ballot Jud7es Precinct 5 D- Marilyn Tyler Chair D -Kay Brosseau R- Barbara Sexton R- Gladys Leerhoff D -Judy Keranen D- Gloria Voeltz I R -Ruth Johnson R- Arlene Kemp D- Lorraine Halter Standbv R -Cloie McCann D- Clarence Beadles D- Beverly Hovde R -Geri Ostman R -Lois Froebel R -Ethel Demaree R- Manfred Davidson �I CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/13/9 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT APPROVAL - RICHARDSON PARK 2ND ADDITION ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP, P�AECTOR"017 PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes ) The attached Subdivision Agreement between the Shingle Creek Land Company and the City of Brooklyn Center specifies: • the reapplication of the unpaid portions of special assessments levied against Richardson Park 2nd Addition; • the utility connections and hookup charges; and • the other responsibilities of the owner: installation of survey monumentation; execution of a utility maintenance and inspection agreement; a performance guarantee; and limitations upon development. This agreement has been reviewed b all p arties and ac It is in g y p is ac the process of execution. Staff Recommendation I recommend approval of this Subdivision Agreement. I SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into the day and year set forth hereinafter, by and between Shingle Creek Land Company, a Minnesota General Partnership, hereinafter called the "Owner ", and the CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, a municipal corporation in the State of Minnesota, hereinafter called the "City ", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Owner of Richardson Park Block 2, Lots 2 and 3, which are located in Section 35, Township 119, Range 21, in the City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, wishes to resubdivide the property as part of a new plat, hereinafter called the "Subdivision "; and WHEREAS, Section 15 -109 of the Brooklyn Center City Ordinances requires the Owner to enter into agreement with the City to provide for the construction and maintenance of improvements required to provide service to the Subdivision, and to provide for a method of payment for such improvements: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: DIVISION 1 - APPLICATION OF THIS AGREEMENT 1.1 That the provisions of this agreement shall apply to all portions of the Subdivision. All references to portions or tracts within the Subdivision shall be deemed to apply to all portions or tracts of the Subdivision, unless the context in which such reference is used clearly indicates it applies to only specified portions or tracts. 1.2 The provisions of this agreement shall run with the land and shall bind the Owner, its heirs, executors, successors and assigns. DIVISION 2 - UNPAID CURRENT ASSESSMENTS 2.1 That Exhibit A, attached hereto, summarizes the unpaid portions of current special assessments which have been levied against the Subdivision for improvement projects previously completed by the City and the pending special assessments for improvement projects not yet complete or for other City services. That the Owner hereby acknowledges the benefits received from these projects. That these assessments will be apportioned to the various tracts of the Subdivision as summarized in the attached Exhibit A. DIVISION 3 - ADVANCE PAYMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT 3.1 That advance payment of all special assessments on the Owner's property shall be made at the time the Owner sells said property, unless the City Council approves assumption of the special assessments by the purchaser at the time of sale. 3.2 That upon such sale of said property, the Owner shall pay to the City CASH, in an amount equal to one and one -half times (1 -1/2 x) the estimated total of all assessments for said property if the assessment roll has not been adopted by the City Council. 3.3 That in the event the payment made in advance of the adoption of the assessment roll is greater than the actual assessment levied, the City will return such excess to the Owner within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment roll. 3.4 That in the event the payment made in advance of the adoption of the assessment roll is less than the actual assessment levied, the Owner shall make payment in the amount of the difference within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment roll. DIVISION 4 - FUTURE UTILITIES CONNECTIONS AND HOOKUP CHARGES 4.1 That Exhibit B, attached hereto, summarizes the utility connections and hookup charges which will be made to the various tracts within the Subdivision as they are developed. That the Owner hereby acknowledges the benefits received from these connections and hookups and that the Owner will be responsible for the payment thereof in accordance with established City policies. DIVISION 5 - OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE OWNER 5.1 Limitations upon Development. The following limitations and restrictions are placed upon the development of the proposed Subdivision: (a) All development shall be in conformity with the subdivision plan, or any modification thereto approved by the City. (b) The use and occupancy load of the property known as Block 1, Lots 1 and 2, Richardson Park and Block 1, Lots 1 and 2, Richardson Park 2nd Addition shall be planned so as to limit the discharge into the public sanitary sewer system to a maximum (peak) flow rate of 185 gallons per minute. The Owner agrees that should any development of the property result in an actual peak rate of discharge in excess of that amount, it will immediately take such steps as are necessary to reduce the peak discharge to or below that amount. In the event that the Owner shall fail to take such action within 60 days of the occurrence of such excess discharge, the City shall have the right to take one or both of the following actions: 1) Take whatever actions are necessary to restrict the flow accepted into the sanitary sewer system. 2) Increase the capacity of the sanitary sewer system to handle the excess discharge and assess 100 percent of the cost of such improvement against the property. The Owner specifically consents to such improvement, agrees to petition its construction and waives any right to challenge the regularity of the proceedings or the amount of the assessment. 5.2 That the Owner shall provide for installation of survey monuments as comprehended under Chapter 15 of the Brooklyn Center City Ordinances. Said monumentation shall consist of installation of durable iron monuments at all block corners, all interior lot corners, points of deflection of block lines, points of deflection of lot lines and witness corners. The Owner shall provide a financial guarantee in the amount of $2,500.00 to guarantee said monumentation shall be installed within 30 days of approval of the final plat by the Brooklyn Center City Council. Said financial guarantee shall be provided in conjunction with those improvements considered necessary under paragraph 5.5. 5.3 That the Owner shall install the water main and services, the sanitary sewer main and services and the storm drainage system shown on attached Exhibit C. 5.4 That, upon installation of lateral water mains, lateral sanitary sewer mains and storm water drainage system within the Subdivision, the Owner shall provide an as -built survey, accurately depicting the location of said utilities. In addition, the Owner shall execute an Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems, included herewith as Exhibit D. 5.5 That the Owner will also be required to enter into a performance agreement included herewith as Exhibit E, and provide a financial performance guarantee to assure that all improvements within the Subdivision will be constructed, developed, and maintained in conformance with the plans, specifications, and standards as required by the City's zoning and platting ordinances. That the Owner, in executing said financial performance agreement, acknowledges the conditions under which said guarantee has been provided and will be released. DIVISION 6 - MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 6.1 That the Owner agrees to pay to the City reasonable legal, engineering, and administrative fees, to be fixed by the court, in the event that suit or action is brought to enforce the terms of this agreement. 6.2 That the following exhibit, attached hereto, is made a part hereof by this reference: Exhibit F - proposed plat of Richardson Park 2nd Addition (P.C. Application No. 90017) This document was drafted by: Engineering Department, City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota I IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Owner has caused these presents to be executed the day and year first above written. SHINGLE CREEK LAND COMPANY By: Lombard Properties Company, a general partnership A General Partner By: Brooklyn Development Company, a general partnership A General Partner By: Richardson Properties, Inc. a Delaware Corporation A General Partner By: L. A. Beisner Authorized Representative STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1990, by L. A. Beisner, authorized representative of Richardson Properties, Inc., a Delaware corporation, of Brooklyn Development Company, a Minnesota general partnership, of Lombard Properties Company, a Minnesota general partnership, of Shingle Creek Land Company, a Minnesota general partnership. Notary Public My commission expires CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER BY Its Mayor BY Its City Manager WITNESSED: STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) On this day of before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared and to me personally known who, being by me duly sworn they did say that they are respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Brooklyn Center, and that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of said City, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center by the authority of its City Council and said Mayor and City Manager acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of the City of Brooklyn Center. Notary Public My commission expires e EXHIBIT A UNPAID CURRENT ASSESSMENTS AND PENDING ASSESSMENTS The following is a summary of the portions of current assessments to Block 2, Lots 2 and 3, Richardson Park which were unpaid as of August 3, 1990, and the assessments that are pending. These parcels will be subdivided into Block 1 Lots 1 and 2, Richardson Park 2nd Addition. Block 2, Lots 2 and 3 are known by Hennepin County Property Identification Numbers 35- 119 -21 -41 -0016 and -0017. The assessments for the new parcels will be apportioned based on area. S.A.# Assessment Description Yr Yrs Rate Total Lot 1 Lot 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 06193A Bridge 75A -15 76 15 8% 2,402.98 1,216.80 1,186.18 06196A Grad /Base /Surf 75A -15 76 15 8% 1,515.29 767.30 747.99 06197A Base & Surfacing 75A 76 15 8% 283.23 143.42 139.81 06198A Curb & Gutter 75A -15 76 15 8% 364.00 184.32 179.68 06798A Grading /Base &Surf 77 78 15 8% 213.66 108.19 105.47 06799A Curb & Gutter 77A15 78 15 8% 52.71 26.69 26.02 07427A Curb and Gutter 80 15 8% 102.81 52.06 50.75 07787A Street Surfacing 81 15 8% 401.51 203.31 198.20 08184A Street 81 -15 82 15 8% 21,511.00 10,892.51 10,618.49 ---------------------------------- $26,847.19 $13,594.60 $13,252.59 PENDING ASSESSMENTS S.A.# Assessment Description Yr Yrs Rate Total Lot 1 Lot 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- * *092P Weeds 90 &91 pay92 92 1 400.00 202.55 197.45 * *A90P Freeway Blvd -A 91 20 19,880.64 10,066.95 9,813.69 ---------------------------------- $20,280.64 $10,269.50 $10,011.14 EXHIBIT B UTILITY CONNECTIONS AND HOOKUP CHARGES Responsibility for Utility Service Connections The Subdivider shall be responsible for installation of all water service connections, sanitary sewer service connections, and storm sewer connections to existing utility mains and service stubs as may be required to provide service to the lots in the subdivision. Hookup Charges Utility hookup charges are levied against properties which have not been assessed a portion of the cost of bringing public utility service to the area. The cost represents a portion of the cost of providing wells, water towers, mains, lift stations, sanitary sewer interceptors, etc. 1. The parcel previously known as Block 2, Lot 2, Richardson Park, now to be known as Block 1, Lot 1, Richardson Park 2nd Addition, is assessed the following hookup charges: WATER The water hookup charge is based on parcel area, and is composed of two parts: a frontage charge based on the front 135 feet, and a charge for the area outside the front 135 feet. Total frontage subject to assessment 261.67 ft. 1990 frontage rate x $29.33 Total frontage charge $7 - Total parcel area 105,192.00 s.f. Credit for Levy #4689 - 69,504.00 s.f. Less front feet (261.67'x135 - 35,235.00 s.f. Total area subject to area charge 453.00 s.f. 1990 area rate $9.10 /100 s.f. Total area rate $41.22 TOTAL WATER HOOKUP CHARGE $72716.00 B -2 SEWER The sewer hookup charge is based on parcel frontage. Total frontage subject to assessment 261.67 ft. 1990 frontage rate x $17.06 /ft. Total frontage charge $4,464.09 CREDIT FOR LEVY #2418, 3139, 4935 $2,001.72 TOTAL SEWER HOOKUP CHARGE $2,462.37 2. The parcel previously known as Block 2, Lot 3, Richardson Park, now to be known as Block 1, Lot 2, Richardson Park 2nd Addition, will be assessed water and sewer hookup charges at the time of development. WATER Total frontage subject to assessment 205.00 ft. 1990 frontage rate x $29.33 /ft. Total frontage charge $6,012.65 Total effective P arcel area 67 518.00 s.f. Credit for Levy #4689 - 24,300.00 s.f. Less front feet (205' *135 - 27,675.00 s.f. Total area subject to area charge 15,543.00 s.f. 1990 area rate $9.10 /100s.f. Total area rate $1,414.41 TOTAL WATER HOOKUP CHARGE $7,427.06 SEWER Total frontage subject to assessment 205.00 ft. 1990 frontage rate x $17.06 /ft. Total frontage charge $3,497.30 CREDIT FOR LEVY #2418, 3139, 4935 $699.84 TOTAL SEWER HOOKUP CHARGE $2,797.46 B -3 3. The hookup charge may be levied as a special assessment for a period of 10 years at an annual interest rate determined by the City Council when the levy is adopted. 4. The hookup charges are based on the rates for 1990. The rates may be increased in 1991. The actual amount of the hookup charges will be established at the time the hookup agreement is executed by the owner. 3Y PLAT OF RICHARDSON PARK 2ND ADDITION I fi t I i •so it DAYS INN - 1501 Freeway Blvd. O • 1 R s4s u J I Rim a+5�s r :.: �> __ /. �lrn tea • +0 s I l,' fbi L ... I.__�_�'i = /' =i 5 =_ q 94L - - r I`V l a I �T �_ �_ Is.,.xm.rL "' "^ Gau \� �.� 48N 3L - -8"• +4 •t % 1`y �(/ / 1-8 {841 - `IN d.nl ie..•sa »' 320 I / , , / v•a o � $ - . ss -- - .6 � _, , .. - , ..� s.vvc zrs r r+.• n+ ego f — - FE. 855 b1 - I I l +� 184+95 u w � gg5.41 ..- \ / / 14J -bs001 s "• o• I n n e r , x a \ - 34 j4 2' , g e10' 0.9 -i 464.67 c! .S1 G,° G. S 1 Qa P= / r� JI } W, 261 e we - fi¢ts I / �O� 9 / •� J 6r /y y O ry wbasi IL �� daG — ^ -E ` `\ 1 /"r // � m I R + e1 >ron9 Areu i N I — 1..-"q I ��lf .'� rqe sna ule�ly eaae ent I I I / Fx's q 20 a'ama91 and ul slily easement r4° ssl s i / - l0 umacx line til� � 41muo // s mama9e and aioir easement -344 ^ y 'I �`.r'/ / / / b aaemem �tco� / u.nnq e.ama9e wd• \ / / / Id v \ (/j ? � •, sna \\ o C1� . - � IN g�27- 0jE�155.02 _ °reacx r,n� �9 + </ — 94 i 0 H " 01 4— �•" / /` / / G td Inv 947.30 H H :_ _� _. 10 :emau one t1 ` S 2,21 ,� „nny z ` o _-- w / / d / >�•i / / / ��I n nF d /a. H 1 1j . , 9e a unAr DLO V H / �1� / / l y � / .% J H 796.i4 _ 4 /1� c N `1_069 ssz 4 2' 6 _ eds «,� �� •+' �1 6 8.0 - 9 - a9ea , \ � q � 4U/ 1 =7 / 1 11 ` LEGAL DESCRIPTION j '.J ,r ��\\\ �'— �'' - 8 8=5 60 5- =66 $•69 _. A_rm . ( / / / / / / / /Lot. and 3. I +l o: k fill ,(, . __ 2 _ - o 2. p / / / / / t blot tlr, -.. a .( cn flle �eq.•�' ��._ ��-•a� % %ij, =.� /� C.BRG. 9.7 _g - - ''o ^ o.i'z r 7 8'$2' $6,E _ 1 I 1 I I '' / / / l I / Rocn rrlc r. Ilr unr•p lu Co un ly, 1111 84339 — 04Z AlIEV, o UGNUT FS IKON lloNI111EN1 81t do Lol. I. 131—k 1 = 105, 192 Square Feet . . 0 UrOO'rrS MAIM LE Lit 131—k t = 102,739 Square Feet ■ D6:NOTFS CA'1'Cll DASIN . L,I,1 - 2.87,931 Sri—re Fret + - NFNOTF.S FENCE LINE e °Y I)EN(Yr F.S CATF VALYF ', '^ ""'— OM:IVITFS "'011 AND cmmlt EXHIBIT D AGREEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION OF UTILITY AND STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , between the City of Brooklyn Center, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the CITY, and Shingle Creek Land Company, a Minnesota General Partnership, hereinafter called the "OWNER ". It is intended that the term OWNER shall apply to subsequent or part owners. WHEREAS, the OWNER holds title to certain property within the City of Brooklyn Center, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Owner is subdividing the property described in Exhibit A so that it will become Richardson Park 2nd Addition, described on Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the property described in Exhibit A, is served by a water system which may include but not be limited to lateral mains, valves, fire hydrants and other appurtenant facilities; some or all of which system is shown on Exhibit C and attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the OWNER is responsible for the inspection, maintenance, repair and proper operation of said water system services; and WHEREAS, failure to inspect, maintain, repair or properly operate said water system could result in loss of water, contamination or damage to this or other CITY systems or to other private properties; and WHEREAS, the above described property is served by a sanitary sewer system which may include but not be limited to lateral mains, manholes, D-2 cleanouts and other appurtenant facilities; some or all of which system is 0 constructed upon said private property described above and shown on said attached Exhibit C; and WHEREAS, the OWNER is responsible for the inspection, maintenance, repair and proper operation of said sanitary sewer system; and WHEREAS, failure to inspect, maintain, repair or properly operate said sanitary sewer system could result in infiltration, flooding, pollution or damage to this or other CITY systems, or to other private properties; and WHEREAS, the above described property is served by a storm drainage system which may include but not be limited to storm sewer mains, storm water retention ponds, and other appurtenant facilities; some or all of which system is constructed upon said private property and shown on said attached Exhibit C; and WHEREAS, the OWNER is responsible for the inspection, maintenance, repair and proper operation of said storm drainage system in compliance with the standards established by the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission and with CITY standards; and WHEREAS, failure to inspect, maintain, repair or properly operate said storm drainage system in accordance with said standards could result in flooding, pollution or damage to this or other City systems, or to other private properties; and WHEREAS, it is necessary that the CITY have control over and access to any specified system above for purposes of inspection, maintenance, repair and proper operation. D -3 THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED between the parties hereto: 1. The CITY shall have access to each of the above - described systems, shown in said attached Exhibit C, for the purpose of inspection, maintenance, repair and proper operation whenever the Director of Public Works, in the exercise of reasonable discretion, shall determine that such access is necessary. 2. Whenever inspection, maintenance, repair or proper operation is necessary, the CITY may, upon request of the OWNER, or on its own volition after reasonable (under the circumstances) notice to the OWNER, perform such work as is necessary, and the OWNER shall reimburse the CITY for the cost of labor, materials and equipment used in the work, plus a fixed charge of forty percent (40 %) of said costs as reimbursement for the proportionate cost of insurance, PERA contributions, vacations, sick leave, clerical, and other miscellaneous costs. In the case of reimbursement for the cost of labor, materials and equipment used in work on the storm water detention bond referred to in paragraph 4 hereof, the obligation to reimburse shall be prorated among the lots in Richardson Park, on the basis of the area, in square feet, of all lots in the subdivision. In the case of reimbursement for the cost of labor, materials and equipment used in any other work described in this paragraph 2, the obligation to reimburse shall apply to the Owners of the lot on which such work is necessary. 3. The OWNER agrees to indemnify and hold the CITY harmless from any claim for damages or other relief arising out of or in connection with any work done by the CITY on any of the above - described systems, unless arising out of the negligence or wrongful act of the CITY or its agents. D -4 4. Notwithstanding anything in this agreement to the contrary, the terms of paragraph 4 of the Easement and Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems executed by the Owner and the City on behalf of Richardson Park Addition, as recorded as document number 5529233 in the office of the Hennepin County Recorder, are hereby adopted by reference. 5. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, this Agreement shall only be applicable to those lines, pipes, and other parts of the water system, sanitary sewer system, and storm drainage system described in this Agreement and shown on Exhibit B that are located solely on the property owned by the OWNER and legally described on the attached Exhibit A and that are used solely and exclusively by the OWNER. This document was drafted by: Engineering Department, City of Brooklyn Center D -5 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Owner has caused these presents to be executed the day and year first above written. SHINGLE CREEK LAND COMPANY By: Lombard Properties Company, a general partnership A General Partner By: Brooklyn Development Company, a general partnership A General Partner By: Richardson Properties, Inc. a Delaware Corporation A General Partner By: L. A. Beisner Authorized Representative STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1990, by L. A. Beisner, authorized representative of Richardson Properties, Inc., a Delaware corporation, of Brooklyn Development Company, a Minnesota general partnership, of Lombard Properties Company, a Minnesota general partnership, of Shingle Creek Land Company, a Minnesota general partnership. Notary Public My commission expires D -6 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER BY Its Mayor BY Its City Manager WITNESSED: STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared and , to me personally known who, being by me duly sworn they did say that they are respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Brooklyn Center, and that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of said City, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center by the authority of its City Council and said Mayor and City Manager acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of the City of Brooklyn Center. Notary Public My commission expires I e. D -A EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Block 2, Lots 2 and 3, Richardson Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota. r 3Y PLAT OF RICHARDSON PARK 2ND ADDITION 0.B49as 1 - i - I Rellb I' I I ri BK 45 DAYS INN - 1501 Freeway Blvd. ` I Ins 44 °.1,I �._> J /InJ r 1 ..1`tc`c -' _ � _ _ �_, — • .. IE �- 659 t4 1 L - .� / 9 S 1— B4 i t ' _ . _ , i �V I _ ' LT `_ le..dm.rL g a..\ I E e e. 14a ei / T / / 842 4 bcb I II Y a t . 1 In�l a 'n� — 3 20 35" S.89 s. o5 ° _ d li 5 N eK 449 OI 885 84S V at O O InV 1101P R i - _HIII -In HI:I� 5�� 0 � �L 454E 4J16� 14 \ > /T� Inu. 85005 1 342. 1 "Yd• '�r G' 10' _ 9 -1 tv ^iesai. _^— '•.._8b- '17r6�"V�- 46.67 +_,.., _ - \ a •�C✓BR 5'46�8f\ 205: o, a ° 3� 8 0 C ��_(� �-3 3lfu '• S Iva Baf s, Rea9 of rr•�•� A ' \ i'I•. .rll �4 / .-.� �'� -J I ��1e4 / — 844 — c � p -In s rl lino } I W.V n ry of mem / Li R et.nln9 Area' Lv � sl' ^g to /�'f`na gr and VIItY e e I I E4V. BS15 ' �� / / { E. 9 20 d—nage -d 01111Y _ I—A 1 to feloau ene a+l 4nvuo / to r [ ". b �- %/ ' �f E.,f lin 5 d, a�nage d olil,lY eaae menl ' ' LL ' / C E.�slinq d,ainage easeme 1 ( 1 110 / i /� R 841 L, / g ` o /�� / P. o O _ •*MW..d. 1`? � e4t =/ ��/ He Ina W az/ e i /� / 4q/ / / / � rt (t b7 ees sl 0 / 6 IN 6a2 FO jE' ! 155.04 842 I t e { i \: � .L - . _ - , I IU' — b.ch one �EasN "9 2a ' "- I �� • � /� / /��`� /y/ / `// � /' /Jr ,to g• 1l .. ^ age a uror e ; O afem Eii fr , n9 r 84t 4� 12, o 6 Bra ,age r / • / / / l r /// / / / 4 6 / II '.. 7- __ 4'� '� / / / 6� _ a: LEGAL DESCRIPTION g R_g6pe Sg - _ r e enr � sa 1 e,e4 r,ne `/ � � 665 _ 9 / I,ot. 1 3. I+lo ;ok 2, RICNAit 1+! 6 C.B - 2yy 3 J ra�a u,�r.•f,I r s cue RG.;S 03.03' I I 1 ( / « oc the Rrul -tr,i oc 31 1 1 1.., �g 52 56" i> ° I 1 l ! / 1 I I Rrcorrlrr, Ilrunrplu C.,upt.y, Mil 0 IICNEI'FI; lu IRON MONUMENT 'L_'-- 6 Lot. 1. Blxk I _ 105,192 Square Feet M "O BIIRomr. HAIIIIOLJi L nl. 111 —k I = 102,739 Squ—e Fect Tn = 207,991 S quare Feet • I)iNOMS CATCH BASIN +— •-- -'+'- UEIIOTF:S FENCE LINE e Y BFNOTES GATE: VALVE. d ••.�:^'BFaInTF'.S P AND CUTTER to RICHARDSON PARK 2ND ADDITION 4 R.T. DOC. NO. (` C-lsl , % C.R. DOC. No. ,�RK .. ......... Ll Z 32.10 't - S89 20 __- - - - - - ~ - -- --- ------ - J____ ` - - - - - ... 1., 1. sl- F,-fi ... OB 09�W. 466.67 sl S.86-27' c.as oo 4", q 17 .53 E T I.o D-l- 1/2 -h b, 14 i-h i P 2 , I --) . ........ Fl H td OCK W j 9.5, �68, C Tll* Th.t -.,j. C clTy cou"cil, o .—l- T1. , 1-11TI Ptjp' IC RE-Dr ---T, n,FIIM r, Thar. part of 1.11 2 -1 1. ... ..... ..... 6urvev Ha. 19p2 ! .... ... .... nee ce�aaJ tl era praacnt, to be .... .. ... ... .... . REGISIRAF OF TITLY- �IP A� 1TT of Til-. G. "'y ... ...... ........ ... that tie • IIJ DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AP1D INSPECT-10:1 EXHIBIT E CITY OF BROOKLYN-CENTER PERFOR',ANCE AGREEi`11T File No.___ This Agreement is entered into by called the Developer and the City of Brooklyn Cencer, a 1tunlc� pal Corporation, unaer the n laws r of the State of Minnesota, hereafter called the City. THE IIORK - The Developer has received approval of its Development Plans by the City Council of the City (pursuant to City Ordinances), ), Subject to the execution of this Performance Agreement. Pursuant to the Li ty Council approval or Development Plans all of which are and in a r . accordance Kith saig pprovai, the Developer, its successors and a does covenant and cerf work as sot forth in the Development Plans, or-n the aforesaid Approval, and as hereinafter set forth, upon the real estate described in the afor as follows: The Work shall consist of the improvements described in the Development Plans, in the aforesaid Approval (to include any approved subsequent amendments) and shall be in comeliance with ail applicable Statutes, Codes and Ordinances of the City. CO.1PLE71C.1 DA c The undersigned Developer agrees that the said 'Work shall be compieted in its entirety on or before the day of less the same shall be approved in writinggby and of time be valid whether ap snail proved by the City Manager before or after the completion date and failure Of the City to extend the time ror completion or to exercise other remedies hereunder snail in no way work a forfeiture of the City's rights hereunder, nor shall any extension of time actually granted by the City Manager work any forfeiture of the City's rights hereunder. It shall be the duty of the Develooer to notify the City of Completion of the ldork at least 10 days prior to the Completion Date and to call .for final inspection by employees of the City, MAI,TFNANCE The Performance o rma nc e A r ge ement, in its entirety, shall remain in full period of one year a force and effect for a after ac jai c0mniari� of the :Work to determine that the useful life of all Work performed hereunder ree u m e average standard for the particular industr , be material used in the performance . Any work not meeting such standard shall not be deemed complete here ! profession, under. notic of the worke of the date of Actual Completion shall be given to the Developer by the Director of Planning and Inspection of the City. y - FIC1AtiCIAL GUARANTEE The Developer agrees to furnish the City with a Financial Guarantee in the form of a cash escrow, a bond issued -by an approved corporate surety licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota and executed by the Developer as by the City Managerof the City, in the amount1ofipal, or other Financial Guarantee as approved continue in full force and effect until the City Councii snail have by Financial aporovedeandall accepted all of the Work undertaken to be done, and shall thereby have released the Surety and /or Developer from any further liability; provided however. that the City Council may by motion reduce the amount of the Financial Guarantee upon partial completion of the work, as certified. by the City Manager. Such Financial Guarantee shall be conditioned upon the full and faithful performance of ail elements of this Agreement and upon compliance with all applicable Statutes, Codes, and Ordinances of the City, and shall further be subject to the following provisions which shall be deemed to be incorporated in Such Financial Guarantee and made a part thereof. NOTIC" The City shall be required to give prior notice to the corporate surety and the Developer of any default hereunder before proceeding to enforce such Financial Guarantee or before the City undertakes any work for xhich the City will be reimbursed through the Financial Guarantee. Within 10 days after such notice to it, the surety shall notify the City in writing of its in- tention to enforce any rights it might have under this Performance Agreement or any Performance j Bond by stating in writing the wanner in which the default will be cured and the time within which such default will be cured. said time not to exceed 60 days unless approved by the City. (over please) RE' ?EDITS FOR SREACH E -2 At any time after the Completion date and any extensions thereof, or during the Maintenance Period, if any of the work is deemed incomplete, the City Council may proceed in any one or mor Of the following ways to enforce the undertakings herein set forth, and to collect any and all overhead expenses incurred by the City in connection therewith, including but not limited to engineering, legal, planning and litigation expenses, but the enumeration of the remedies here- under shall be in addition to any other remedies available to the City. i) C gmoie *_ion by the City The City, after notice, may proceed to have the ;fork one either by contract, by day labor, or by regular City forces, and neither the Developer nor the Corporate Surety may question the manner of doing such work or the letting of any such contracts for the doing any v Upon completion work. U P •pletion of such Work the Surety and /or the pay the City the full cost thereof as of eloper shall promptly aforesaid. esaid. In the event that ' form Financial in of a Performance Bond, it shall be no defense by the Surety that the City has not first made demand upon the Developer, nor pursued its rights against the Developer. 2) Specific Performance. The City may in writing direct the Surety or the Developer to cause t:ie Work to be undertaken and completed within a specified reasonable time. if the Surety and /or the Developer fails to cause the Work to be done and Completed in a manner and time acceptable to the City, the City may proceed in an action for Specific Performance to require such work to be undertaken. 3) Ceoosit of Finacial Guarantee. In the event that the Financial Guarantee has been suomitted in the form of a Performance Bond, the City may demand that the Surety deposit with the City a sum equal to the estimated cost of completing the work, plus the City's estimated overnead expenses as defined herein, in- cluding any other costs and damaces far which the Surety may be liable hereunder, but not exceeding the amount set forth on the face of the Performance Bond, Which money shall be deemed to be held by the City for the purpose of reimbursing the City for any costs incurred in completing the Work as hereinbefore specified, and the balance shall be returned to the Surety. This money shall be deposited with the City within 10 days after written demand therefor, and if the Surety fails to make the required deposit within 10 days, the City shall have the right to proceed against the Surety with whatever legal action is required to obtain the deposit of such sum. 4) Funds on ^eoosit In the event that the Financial Guarantee is in the form of casn, certified check, or other arrangement making the Financial Guarantee im- mediately accessible to the City, the City may, after notice to the Developer, deposit the Financial Guarantee in its General Account. The City may then pro- ceed to complete the Work, reimburse itself for the cost of completion as de- fined hereunder, and return the balance to the Developer. - PROCEDURES A copy of this Performance Agreement shall be attached to the Corporate Surety Bond, if any, and reference to this Performance Agreement shall be made in any such bond, but no corporate surety shall assert as a defense to performance hereunder, any lack of reference in the bond to this Performance Agreement. The original and two copies of this Agreement, properly executed, together with the appropriate Financial Guarantee shall be submitted to the City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Developer and the City have executed this Agreement this day of 1 Witness Witness Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of lg Zoning Official P/I Form no. 23 Rev. 6 -77 n a., +a, xa a Y1n53xNlx 'A1Nf10] NId3xN3N 'tl3xtl0�3tl A1NN0� 'a°rt>...:: pvv, •e. ++v F v ......... ANtlJUn, iN3Ndo1]n'ix Nn'INOOx0 )° aav,+ea _.. __ Ffl sai,ty ,° +ea,si Yatl 'uociav - °i a 1 a JAY': Sao, vvJ ANV iv+°uaS v N L Ji4 saa,„lavd ,ocauu Sx v A _— ANVd 33tl N P „1 - N,l li luv xxz Natld NnsNtlVx]Itl so , [ IViI Ya 1 co�aav v147 ut -- -- -' - -"-_ - -- i auan v �oNIN v, 3I, va.,a , w == + a i s , as cu Axvauo] X3dv e e a vyos3Nxru 'Aaxxo =° +a a +a,.a ,,,, • � NI d3NN3N 'S3'i113 is avtl1SIS3tl - � ] gNlxs i x3N:ns , ] c a °oe .•, N P +ay - a o v ] v d i Pie ava ° +p ,° xn, s,aav xxz Suva Nosaevnord as °' "+ "SP°P wa a + aa °p „ � °; a.ea aa,vaia w a pa.a„ +.,a a °, awaa ava v P °. vaos3xNru xtlNnoa xia3xxvt 'xolsrnla A3ntlns -.. -_ . - _ ^ „ �� „,a,,.�w ° Fx ae oa a,.e J,vvv� amavva, av✓slod tl 3]va +Inau av, av a „ ,° ejnn v u l+a -- S iV ea ca v, , 4,aG3S'1+aa Puv, + , Sx . ..... f P z c, ,, :dxNix A1x110] N[J3NN3x 1 N3u1ava3a v 5xa0�3tl �[]a ld xxY XV1 Altl3dOtld ' 4 i I „ o P , I + vl ocp:.Vaitl d u ° V Ix P . Z , 1 AB aotvN •— .. + a +o a, Yu av ' +v .ro ue s o� Aa ' tlL053NNIN N31N3] NA'IXOOtl9 3D 11 dNf10] A31> ”" i ° „ 'W , .......... Aue P-q yae+]va,pu�ygayuyli O OS1N3S3x3 3 35]1 i. N.Ix + xONM n.r V. v v , +.. >aa P P ° +aaa a xoluuav axi io .o — - _ _ D �� ` "� %,`i <� „ vtos3xxtu aa>.xxn xAlrooaa C / - _ HS a 69'9y9_� Bf.BOyf_b DO'DDD )t �� •lttt+ °xL 'n, 8 , i i o r epy 'Y �al�a8 . • � , � � u oo a , H H H w 1331 Ni 31v08 °u.. °i lo, Nuaa�a,ve nva YIP:» v ., 10, s V v, 1 y � ' >v• �� - '.0 00.0£�� 0° Y'0 =� -- uo c / r o.e,- �� -o ° _ � : I - - -- ,ox au,i laa.,. � C / a � �' Oyv£ US'a y0• ♦• O 19'99v .a> °, .N, a..IS _- )r;_____ _____-____``___-__--- /L6 G� •"M.SE.OZ °68'S -I -- _ _ ovzc i w �� ' f ��, I I 'ON 'OOO WO °" Houiciav GNZ )iand NosaanHDIU CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/13/90 Agenda Rem Number F�) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - RICHARDSON PARK 2ND ADDITION DEPT. APPROVAL: /1 y 2 ./ SY KNAPP IREECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes ) The Shingle Creek Land Company seeks approval of the final plat of Richardson Park 2nd Addition. Previous Council Action The Council on July 23, 1990, approved the preliminary plat, subject to the conditions outlined on the attached memorandum. As noted in the memo, all conditions pertaining to final plat approval have been met. Staff Recommendation This plat is recommended for approval. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF I:BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE C ENTER 911 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: August 10, 1990 SUBJ: Final Plat - Richardson Park 2nd Addition Conditions for release of this plat, as adopted by the City Council at its July 23, 1990 meeting, are as follows: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City 0 Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The applicant shall dedicate a 20' wide drainage and utility easement over the City watermain under the northeast corner of Lot 2 prior to release of the final plat for filing at the County. All conditions have been met, and I recommend approval of the final plat. Respectfully submitted, �J Sy Knapp Director of Public Works cc: Richardson Park 2nd Addition e as ,aaa e , Nnt.ti eeV do d.P vl ltl ao[l3o viVP v{ a n�� — _— .vavN .. _ P y 4Pv avv vi aq -y -H ' ONN NNVd Hilt Io fei L4PIn 4a gv41 Alit'aa 9 1 I _ — — - -- — �- -� - -- 9 a, tlt09:INNIH A1NN0� NI d3NN3N N3H N09Xtl AtNn03 - 'r _ ! 'x ANYdHO� J,N3Hd0'1 dtl N'Ie r .. - 3n aoANYdgooi ae e rtin,l e,! •v p. cv. Y.+oI a v Os'Nxry Jo l..v..r e 'ai4 c.ao ,iced 1. sNIJ,NadOtl3 N3[,L N3a N0 9HNV f0[N I9 NYeX 7 D o zauvaee { 4 Io .evaV• {aa •voatav� very tl ANYdN001H00 4N3Hd0�3nd0 XA4NO0tl0 .tq N °N viV'1 • +i u[ aJ1 .N eNYA N '. p+ J N01 J.IONV fIN[. Nt Vd N xONNNV iOIU 3o aep — DJO • ;qP .vv i .,avp Lviv .aa a aS la+euaaad 9 I° a au�ave ivavaaq vaova u[y a dOUa tltlVeuO] tq Ia vtvSin e4Y ASi'lavv al4 vav„�avd ie+auap v,°vvuu[H v ANUdun] 0NV'1 N33N9 3'15X! M9 S � Dv4t A4 as e4 1 '03N5IS tlJ.OS]NN(H A.LNN05 Nid3NN3N 'S3]tIt 30 NVN19153tl , 4P q° +°,to. i, nos v vuaryv0a+a4 H PT..I.a i avaa t a vtX e i 1aai5 vi 49 p. 3 1 cca [i I - t °J v L [la felGil SBS OCOf 'lY1N NXIII v auvnv d ' [ ' ! +` !� p �� t P p �" n . [ i J. ++ i ! [ t a4a +ana,o; aen ai l4�a a0J ai[gne 0 i P P eavulvaP a of viuwaaea n Nctl tt UeV lIN2 NOStIUVN51tl se Ni 0a aia'[puP pua aievo +qea e4 ap Puv v,LO ^,3NNtu 'AtxnOJ N1.13Xx311 'NOi Si AIN AlnNns - ----- ��- - "a +!U V:.I �' °i au,��v. rtN NNUd paVivie pve Pv,evnanv aq oY w�vv vv� pocnv:. a.eii to aeaaviYeN a4a D° 3v v4i °D P • vi -- _ — —_. 'Ie • + °iipvV .tavn°5 v[eauvvi OYlq'103 3— a�x3 v _5 3 t.d v° ;oeaeF; r l,. -.... ei9eRae v14 v Pagiiaao puv{ aa; 1 4 01 3 1 2 1 t0 E P va E +p a i vl vav gava 4 aa4 _ v Ito1 v P v ,c'a.,aev�e a qa S ° a c41 x 1nI x1.1 1. 3Htt vJ1N 9Htl00itl el'10Nd NNY xYL AJ.N N., ^ V q j. e papaooaa IT of aua pa0aav e gaad P Vattl 3 1H C p 't v'3a a °V rt a :, ui pa a vn'1 ac 65aaao+a p Y 10.,. uNIN N31N85 NA'INOOttB d0 'I(ONf100 Ad10 ! r ^' ! " ! a I vd. vwv.INN X . , ..vv..n etova u ,evea 0 puv� e�0 cle i49 aeyylo 3 'o' Sava v le�aeoe 1 J 3�]Il �AS N3H 'I'lv XONN 1 III, I ! ! a,eaa ae xoi ll �ur�ex z ° i 'r [a� j, _ 3.9S,LS ✓ '1 1 :'!i . D Ytosaxxtu N31N3� xx4N000n 4 �a �� � _ tla 3 BO'99` A ., .:�ul]IUa W,�B U I b/ U^O1� r H . y Ld as 'r °r iH 4a 0 Pie [ s i °q Jo eSaaq +v4J. oat_ o ��� A�� ,�4 / � � % I ( I I I: / °'.••� m �i I ,� p,...a r,ia °�. ep °. °, °�r for a e`el r/ ', •' °e or _ /�'p0.0£ °4 Op 4 £05� a it .. as-,'- _e a arYV__.__- .,;� \o �- g9 ,y BO'` S<aJdS �•�.9 ,,ba0�•y�0 oe aaea L9'99V 'M,00.LL.98'S s ! a N f '� n \' \ \- p60 'M.LO A .I , Ly£ i41 r,lfi', �•— _ _ _ _ _ _ - i - - _+ ea ........ aae�, ,! r rn , p ! 'ON'o00'8'o a -iti a, , ' O N ' ° ° °'1'a N011laGV aNZ )IHVd NOSaanHDla CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/13/80 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1989 -E - NORTH LILAC DRIVE TRAIL CONSTRUCTION DEPT. APPROVAL: i SY KNAPP, D[R CTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) Contract 1989 -E, North Lilac Drive Trail (Improvement Project No. 1988 -19) has been completed by Alber Construction, Inc. The City Council awarded the bid as per Resolution No. 89 -142 and a contract was subsequently executed in the amount of $119,853.40. As a result of two change orders and a supplemental agreement, the final contract amount exceeds the original contract by $5,893.39. These contract amendments were necessary to include work for extending the Keystone retaining wall, relocating a portion of steel guard rail and construction of an irregular shaped catch basin. It is requested that the Council approve final payment in the amount of- $125,746.79. Note Alber Construction, Inc. may perform resodding /reseeding in areas of the project if necessary, and any such work shall be considered as "warranty work "; i.e., at no additional compensation. City Council Action Required Adopt the attached resolution. and Member introduced the following resolution moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1989 -E - NORTH LILAC DRIVE TRAIL CONSTRUCTION WHEREAS, pursuant to written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Alber Construction, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: TRAIL CONSTRUCTION ON NORTH LILAC DRIVE, FROM CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE TO CSAH 57 (57TH AVE. NO.) IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1988 -19 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: As Approved Final Amount Original Contract $119,853.40 $125,746.79 2. The value of work performed exceeds the original contract value by $5,893.39, as a result of Change Order No. 1, No. 2 and Supplement Agreement No. 1. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $125,746.79. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. There is appropriated the sum of $5,893.39 for additional costs. 2. The appropriation will be financed by MSA Fund #2611. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: RESOLUTION N0, Project 1988 -19 is final and is accepted and approved according to the following schedules: Project Costs As Approved As Final Contract 119,853.40 125,746.79 Professional Services 3,900.00 2,315.59 Staff Engineering (10 %) 11,985.34 12,574.68 Administration (1 %) 1,198.53 1,257.47 Legal (11) 1.198.53 1.257.47 Total 138,135.80 143,152.00 Project Revenues Local MSA Fund #2611 138,135.80 143,152.00 Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8 /13/90 Agenda hem Number g �j REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION IT DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -16, CONTRACT 1990 -G, CONSTRUCTION OF WELL HOUSE NO. 10 ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP, DIR CTOR OFPUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) Black and Veatch, the City's well consultant, has completed plans and specifications for Well House No. 10, Improvement Project No. 1990 -16. This is in conjunction with the well drilling contract, which the City Council awarded on July 9, 1990. It is being proposed that Well House No. 10 be constructed similar to No. 9 (1982 -30), with the major difference being the type of chlorine feeding system. The proposed well house will be located just west of T.H. 252 and approximately 400 feet north of 70th Avenue North. The estimated construction cost for the proposed well house, piping, pumps and site work is $555,000. It is recommended that the plans and specifications be approved and ad for bids authorized at this time so the proposed well could be in service by May 16, 1991, which, historically, is the beginning of the summer demand. City Council Action Required A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -16, CONTRACT 1990 -G, CONSTRUCTION OF WELL HOUSE NO. 10 WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 90 -12, adopted January 8, 1990, Black and Veatch, consulting engineers, have prepared plans and specifications for the construction of Well House No. 10, Improvement Project No. 1990 -16, Contract 1990 -G and have submitted said plans and specifications to the City Council for review and approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Said plans and specifications as prepared by Black and Veatch, consulting engineers, are hereby approved. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of such improvement in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, shall specify the work to be done and shall state the time and location at which bids will be opened by the City Clerk and the City Manager or their designees. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bids will be given an opportunity to address the Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the clerk for 5 per cent of the amount of such bid. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8 / 11 3/90 Agenda Item Number 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. 1990 -A, SEALCOATING PROJECT NO. 1990 -08. DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP IRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached y ,, } On July 23, 1990 the City Council received a petition signed by approximately 120 property owners from the area between Noble Avenue and Vera Cruz Avenue and between I -94 and 69th Avenue requesting the Council ... "to resurface our streets for the following reasons..." (see Map 1 attached for area covered and petition signers). 1. "Repeated injuries to our children from falling on the severely abrasive surface." 2. "Danger to walkers (especially seniors) from turning their ankles and /or falling because of loose rock and large abrasive pieces underfoot." 3. "Damage to our lawns from the loose rock continually sloughing off." 4. "Poor grading at the stop signs on 69th at the ends of our streets. A large rink of ice forms at both corners making it impossible to stop and start when conditions exist." 5. "Poor condition of the street is not only ascetic unpleasing but effects real estate values." 6. "Continual driving over the abrasive surface causes undo wear and tear to the tires of our vehicles." Since that time City staff has reviewed conditions in that area in substantial detail, and it is our opinion that: • o all streets in that area have been sealcoated so as to provide functional protection for the existing bituminous streets i o there are ten blocks of streets within this area where the percentage of sealcoat rock which has come loose from the street is so high that resealing of those streets is justified to prevent further loss of the sealcoat rock and to improve their appearance. Those 10 blocks are listed as follows, and are shown on the attached Map 2: Quail Avenue from 67th to 69th Avenue Regent Avenue from 67th to 69th Avenue Scott Avenue from 67th to 69th Avenue 67th Avenue from Quail Avenue to Regent Avenue 68th Avenue from Quail Avenue to Scott Avenue 67th Avenue from Toledo Avenue to Vera Cruz Avenue It is recommended that these 10 blocks of street be re- sealed using a "trap rock" which is the same material used as a cover aggregate last year, but which is much smaller in size. The estimated total cost for resealing those 10 blocks of streets is $9,500, and a "Change Order No. 1" has been negotiated with Allied Blacktop Inc. to complete this work at the same unit price which they bid for this material under the 1990 sealcoat contract. • regarding the alleged safety problems resulting from the size, the sharpness and the hardness rdness of the rock used in this area it is our opinion that this material is not so hazardous as to be unacceptable. This material does meet specifications which are regularly used by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and by many counties and cities under similar conditions. • Rather, we believe that, if a danger does exist, it is primarily with loose rocks which tend to roll out from underfoot or from under bicycle tires. If a walker or cyclist loses control due to loose rocks, injuries can result regardless of which type of surface is on the street. Accordingly, we propose to monitor all streets within the total area covered by the petition, and to sweep those streets as often as necessary to pick up any buildup of loose sealcoat rocks which exceeds amounts of rock normally found on city streets. In addition, we propose to monitor those streets for the balance of this year and next year, so that if additional stripping of the sealcoat rock occurs we can develop a plan to deal with those problems. • the concern cited in the petition regarding loose sealcoat rocks on the lawns is inherent to all sealcoat operations. • the concern regarding undo wear and tear on tires is, we believe, unfounded • the drainage problems noted in the petition are ones which have existed in this area for many years and which cannot be corrected without extensive regrading of the streets and /or installation of expensive storm drainage facilities. Cost Estimates for Alternates Considered • Three alternatives to the above - recommended program were considered, and the costs of these alternatives were evaluated, i.e.: Alternative 1 - resealing the entire area covered by the petition as shown on Map 1 Estimated cost = $27,000 Alternative 2 - resealing all streets which were sealcoated (with the same materials as used in this area) in 1989 (See Map 3) Estimated cost = $145,000 Alternative 3 - resealing all streets which were sealcoated in 1989, and those which were sealcoated in 1988 (See Map 4), using materials similar to those used in 1989 Estimated cost = $275,000 It is the belief of City staff that none of these alternatives are necessary, nor can they be justified. City Council Action Required • Adoption of the attached resolution which approves "Change Order No. 1" to the City's contract with Allied Blacktop Inc., to reseal the 10 blocks as recommended above at a cost of $9,500. • . Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. 1990 -A, SEALCOATING PROJECT NO. 1990 -08 WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has advised the Council that a portion of the streets sealcoated in 1989 need to be re- sealcoated to eliminate problems with loss of the cover aggregate: and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared Change Order No. 1 to Contract 1990 -A, increasing the quantities of the contract in the amounts as shown, so as to make the corrections recommended by the Director of Public Works. Construction Cost $ 9,500.00 5% Contingency 475.00 Subtotal Construction $ 9,975.00 Engineering (8%) 798.00 Administration (1 %) 99.75 Legal (1 %) 99.75 Total Funds $10,972.50 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Change Order No. 1, Contract 1990 -A, as prepared by the City Engineer, is hereby approved. 2. There is appropriated the sum of $10,972.50 for the addi- tional cost. This appropriation will be financed from the General Fund, Street Maintenance Division No. 42. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 6 69TH AV N (HCSAH NO 1 1W, PLAT 27) 1 1 �, 1 , j I I III 6842 6843 III 6892 III 6845 III 6836 -Z 6837 i 6843 11111 5109 6893 i ' I i i i i l 6837 11111 11 111 1 1 1, 1; 68'3 I' 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �1 1 1 1 1 tit 1 6837 6836 6837 1 11 6836 1 1 6839 111111 48/ l 6830 I I I i 6831 11 t l 6837 1111 6836 �,IIII 1 6831 '1111 111111 i I l i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — 1 1 1 1 III I I I I I 1 1 6831 � 1 i 11 6830 6831 1 1 1 6830 1 1 1 6833 t 11111 6830 j 6825 1 i 1 1 6&3 / 1 5830 11111 1 i 1 i 1 6825 1 I I I ' 6830 11111 t 6829 > 6825 II II III Ilt II d Z 1 1 I I I i t 1 1 1 6827 11111 6824 1 . 1 , l i l t 6825 1 I 1 6824 6825 1 111 I 6824 1, 1 , 1 , , I I i, I I I I 6819 6825 j i 1 1 i t l 6818 I 6819 I'IIII 6824 68/9 i 6818 6819 i b818 6819 dill 6818 6821 11111 68/8 11i1i w J 09 68/9 lilt 6818 11111 — 1i1i1 6813 jlili 11111 6812 !1 � 1 ' 68/3 141 X, J . I , I - , i 1 I I 1111 1 6812 68/5 1111 6812 W ° 6812 68 13 1 1 1 6812 1 6813 1 6812 1 1 6811 _ 11 01 6806 L 6807 m 6813 1 1 1 — 11111 11111 6807 I n t l 11111 6806 v o ° p 1 1 1 1 6807 6806 6807 1 I 1 I I 6806 i i i i i 6806 6809 r 11 6806 cr 6807 I �, 6800 6801 i i i i , 6800 680/ �i t i I 6800 680 / i � I i i 6800 6803 i 1 1 iti i , 681)0 6800 ' - 6801 4700 ', tltl _ X1111 - - - - - -- I I - - - - - - - - - -- --- - - - - -- . - -_ _ t 1 - ---- - - - -_� 1 -1 1 1 1 F - -- _ __ -_ -_= �I� � - A VE == _ = = = = =_ - --------- - - - - -- l i t 1 67. 1 6742 6743 y 6742 1 i I i 1 4909 6T 95 1 j tl j 1 6742 4701 54 / 54 / 540 540 531 531 5306 6801 1 1 1 1 6736 �' 1 t 1 6737 i 1 �' I Z 6736 6737 1 i 11 1 1 6736 1 i i i 6736 1 I l t 6736 6739 .1.1. - : -'-'AVE-- 6737 •t 1 I,l.i 6731 W > -- - =68TH =- VN_ __ _- 1 , t - = w 6730 11 i I I I > 6730 Q 6730 6733 Q 6730 > - -- - - -- J 6731 !I!I!i 6730 6731 Q �1., 6725 o t 1 1 III 1 530 v-- 6724 6725 Q 6725 1 I i 1 6729 6725 i ; i 1 i 6724 6727 1 �t 5724 541 540 540 53/ 53/ 6724 6719 1 6718 '1'1' 67/9 I,IJ } 67 1 1 1 1 1 j 6719 1 i 1 i I 67/6 6719 a 6718 Q 67/8 6721 6710 5412 540 540 53/ 531 530 6713 1111 6712 i! I! I 6713 tit 6713 W 6712 6715 67/2 C3 n 6712 6713 6712 cr:: 11111 > - -_ - -- - -- - - -- t�� 67TH =_AVE __N = _=' ^% o 11 6707 1 1 1 1 I I'1 1 6706 6706 6707 v 6706 6707 III 6706 1 1 1 i c "7C6 6709 1 C!1 , I�1 1 6701 I � I I i 1 6700 6701 1 i i i 6700 6701 1 1 1 11 6TC0 6703 t i 1 i 1 6700 541 541 540 540 531 530 5301 6700 530 11,1 = = == =67TH= = = =� = =AVE ___= N -- - --= -- -- - - - - -- STREETS SEALCOATED IN 1989 MAP 1 69TH AVE N (HCSAH NO 130, PLAT 27) 5109 6893 ' 1,11 , i 6842 6843 + i 11 6842 67 i i i i; 6845 1 c , Z 683 CD 6843 6&,3 37 1 i 1 i t 6836 6837 I i 1 + 1, 1 , 6836 1,' i i 6�9 683! 6836 ' 1 i t i 1 6831 6&30 6831 , i i 6830 683 / 1'�111, 6830 ' ' l 6830 6�'3 W 6825 6825 cr 6825 1 1, 6824 11 i i i 6824 6825 l l l 6824 i l i i 6827 W 5 1 I , , 1 1 6819 + 11 6819 68/9 11 6818 6819 i i 6818 t i I i 68/8 682 / t 09 6818 ilili 6813 11,1 68/3 , 1 , 1 681 6815 3 1 2 681 1 1 1 1 1 6812 t i, I, c� 681 681 I itl d 6807 i �,' + 6806 6809 6 v 680 6807 t I + 6806 6807 i,+,+ 6806 t I t i i � Z 6806 1 1 1 1,1 il+ ri 680 / 1 I 11 i 1 + 6803 0 6801 4700 6807 w 6800 i +'lll11 t 6800 6801 t l l i 6800 680 1' 1' 1 t - - 1 - 6800 7 i t ---- - - - - -- 11,1, - - -- L 1 � 1 68TH = AVE N _ = = =_ �',1'I'I I 1,1, 743 1 +' 1 674?_ 674.3 1,Z 6742 4909 6745 6742 4701 531 531 530 6801 6736 1 '' 1 6737 541 541 540 540 z 6736 6737 1 1 i +' 6736 1 1 t! I 67.36 6739 6736 68TH AVE N o 6730 6737 I 1 1 +} 6731 ¢ 6730 6733 d 6730 J 673 6731 d 6730 d I 672.5 C 6725 ' I'l l r-1 541 5401 590 531 531 530 I 6729 6725 672 6725 t l i l 672 i i i i i 6729 6727 6724 d ltl 6719 ++. � 6719 6718 1 F - -1 6718 672 / � 6718 6719 I, t i 1 671 6719 67! F + 6710 LLJ w 5412 54C 540 53/ 531 530 6713 6712 6713 1'� 6712 6713 � 6712 67/3 i d 6712 6715 c- 6712 t - t AVE - - N =-- _ _= 6TO6 6707 6706 670 1 �i 6706 6707 1 j i j i 6706 6709 6706 _ ,111+ ;1 � t,.,. 6700 6701 111 6700 6703 6700 1, 6700 670 ! 1, 541 541 540 540 531 530 530 5301 6700 - - - - - - - - - - - -------- ------ 67TH =_ AVE N (p��o RESIDENTS WHO SIGNED PETITION O MAP =_ __ STREETS TO BE RESEALED IN 1990 N - YAH� _ VI NA E »u( Avt N IIM / _, �.— 1 r o r y �_ 01� u(ll1 111U[ Y c 1U111U1 �•uurl \ � Y AV( No �_. ul - (((QQilh . nunrr n _ _ - -. �'�� � ' IuiLDD Avl N n 1 1 Y I 1 K + Yell 1 7j {111 +1 L - G Ha " fn llJ - ` \ a �(N. Ali N y l u l .l , I I yj ti Wo 111111111 -- _ � � ;(NNY Av[,M _ S —' � • 11 .7 � '� �E l�ll .... ......... ONC11A M0 AVC.N ( 1 9L 1 11J 1(P Iva ______�__ y ...•.._.j:• 1;I VIN r 1, �r v l �f. 7ti'?r � [IlT[l[Il' IT JI, cn 914 AV( N :.JUN AV[ M �'�I'. : , X' • 1 l` • .••`• .s,. - - -�-' _ � � � \._.�. uLVsE AvE.N � 1 1�' II E�, I fill 1A 1 - - - - INDIANA AVE N / $,AI IIAN AVE N �u1l �U)) _ GNIN AVl N —I INANE( AVLN 1 uitll!�11 - _� f � 1 Illll[�•!� r',L�IIIlI11IlIIIIII _ I.. y ������7�� - - - L WNIQ AV[. N �[IIlI11fIi[I11 T A li' ".'1' ` � i�% r .•, w AvI » n RM] 1- � + � ' r �� ��.- -111 "'U.'04,441 N D I trw I L AVL. N m FAN ... � IE>rU ,J� ,3111111: _ � _ � j � ++�+• i � .. �� E;WIIII .YL N t� Ii -I-A AV( N I�II�!�!1!�l1�11111 _ "l ■EJAVEN I11MIT 11.]I11111 a/W � WU..OIIAN AVl N �1ITrr 1111[] r y I1IMN 1 111111' ,�r► �.:.. - _ _ ._tea as �'r ' ter,: _. -.•�• y O IIIDNA[AVL y } Wr � x ..,� i( /, . �.... 1 ENL NIUAN AVL N X .• ��" ��,' N� �, y. �: •''•• w 1 a Nu1EE1L AVE N ''^ *� y �• ` • 1 � AVE N �. %• l^ M, �^ !l: , +\ �h� (:L..l.l IMNrI All N. • YY ' ' �� � 11� ��S�11I1 • UIITrIT111117' .. rarI'M VE N KU � _ - f 111111T1T1�1l fd l llll l �l]11I�� <, /1I IInAN AV E N " - _�,�.l::.lt�i lllllll�lll]I�nI�fJIG!]11I1]1_ 11. .. IM••11 �.. II " � _ ''1 1 1 1 � _ m � ' NEE ' 1i1111L.17 f T �'� 1 •- ...':_;�� �M( {AVLN mn p. ±1 ► ► 1 ► i ► i i + ► � eN, 1U NrNrne A)70,b� _ ����.•FF" -_—� I � ,,, �( `' I) �' I N;�s;,•_"_"�:. ' `��" i d d i s s'• ' = ��_= ��_ , "�, � . , r . r rr ,,.nr.n I ��I I ( r:. 1�.� ' - s �- :"r .,:�r'z *•lt r„ r z '�• t •�' ••JV r,. I l Iw ��. 71 w. ' I - • .. d' �� - . - 'C.� Q." - c•• 1 I'1J "' iu1 ifft �_(" �C:1111���' �11ti �' - . �3 ►1 L�1�� [tncm lill]li�l � r ,.• v,a�.t - �. ►fr,., � t ! �H�'_. . . ��� sr�J[iL�I1JP�r13.���Llt�rlt��� 7 W111 It uli�t , [�C �, = rI�II�CIIIE I ��, 11 i i'C .N. iIJ(+ Iill [lll .,.. , .. t- n I , �,.� t � f1IIIrJM[III iI1m �� Ci; , ,, r 511_IIIIL11ff [1I 1I,�[IIIIIl EIII�II �l I lei [ f , l SIC itt S T , i , 1 00 r ,.. r�lr,w, x , - ff ■ Jj I - ! 1 , C I_S1CC 00 ! E� � ,h� ln• e. — _ ,*.'J"IHtt.' 1L I_ WIT I �4 Tr I At 1., .A:: �_ Cil]'11II C l�[lllllll W ... 11M lual j y + � rA I , (, INC,[ C,[ J Vq Ntnr ,.Howl � A , 1 11 +� rr.•w ..r.r'�' r _ 1 = i A( 1F 1 r:tt1 M F wwwww N 1•r,)rrl 1 1 I Mi�*l /rn, f f - - - _ �It 1 �i �. r I.r A= ......... -. cn Cut Y ;:� « li�,l�l F . �P tl,��.�,tlr,rctts►ss >r�,sysi rt..•r.':,, �Q ,'[�"'.,1r' "Ill(I.LIJ.rr,' (�U 11 � � I � I t fi � ( i� =Iz;. r 1..'3 i 3 ` [lIII11Il[IlI'tIID tt C �g1L1 ' g t.. r:: - � r . 1 �j (} ' i� ar 1 _ [I.ilIII�CIII[1II1[I 1 11fli�1•.'I �•� �� J� tl „i'tl'tff1I71(TTrrT��YYt jP.l. n ~r'I 1, �I /•• ��� CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date g 1 -t /qn Agenda Item Number qd REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT WITH SEH, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATING TO 69TH AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached YeS ) On Jul 9, 1990 the City Council approved a contract with SEH July y pp Inc. to provide professional services relating to the 69th Avenue street improvement project. One portion of that contract provides that "SEH will coordinate and request a proposal from a selected geotechnical consulting firm to perform soil borings, calculate R- values, resistivity and perform other necessary laboratory tests." The contract anticipates that the fees for these subcontractor services will be paid for by SEH, Inc. and that these fees are within the $195,000 estimated total costs for "Stage 1" of final plan development. The contract also provides that SEH (as a part of their contract responsibilities) will stake the boring locations for the geotechnical consulting firm, and will be responsible for interpreting the boring logs, investigating alternative designs and preparing costs estimates for those alternatives. Accordingly, SEH has now obtained a proposal from STS Consultants Ltd. to provide the needed services and have requested the City's approval of an amendment to their contract, to provide for this service at an estimated cost of $20,425 to $22,325. STS has provided satisfactory service on numerous projects within Brooklyn Center, and they are generally regarded as having good expertise in dealing with unstable soils such as those which will be encountered on the segment of this s project which traverses the southwesterly corner of the Palmer Lake basin. Staff recommends approval of this amendment to our contract with SEH, Inc., which simply approves SEH's selection of STS as its subcontractor. ® City Council Action Required Adoption of the attached resolution. 9� 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 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 90 -139 as adopted on July 9, 1990, the City has entered into a contract with SEH, Inc. to provide professional services relating to the 69th Avenue Street Improvement Project No. 1990 -10; and WHEREAS, SEH, Inc., in accordance with the terms of said contract, proposes to employ STS Consultants Ltd. as its subcontractor to conduct subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering evaluation services relating to said project, and SEH, Inc. has prepared a proposed amendment to its agreement with the City which approves the use of that firm to provide those services; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has advised the Council that, in his opinion, STS Consultants Ltd. is a reputable and professional firm with expertise in these areas, and he recommends approval of the amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that said amendment, providing for approval of STS Consultants Ltd. as a subcontractor to SEH, Inc., is hereby approved. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute such amendment on behalf of the City. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA AND SHORT - ELLIOTT- HENDRICKSON, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES ON 69TH AVENUE FROM NOBLE AVENUE TO SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY CITY IMPROVEMENT NO. 1990 -10 The agreement made and entered into by and between the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota and Short - Elliott- Hendrickson, Inc., dated July 9, 1990, is hereby amended as set forth, and is annexed and made a part of the original contract. II. SCOPE OF SERVICES B. SOIL BORINGS 1. Attached hereto and made a part of this agreement, is the contract between SEH and it's subcontractor STS Consultants Ltd.; for Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation dated July 9, 1990. The costs of STS's services are included within the $195,000 project budget estimate. In witness whereof, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed and approved on the day of CONSULTANT CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SHORT - ELLIOTT- HENDRICKSON, INC. Mayor President Manager Richard E. Moore, Manager Municipal Engineering Department WITNESSETH: -'N Geotechnical Group i STS Consultants Ltd. Consulting Engineers Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Reconstruction of 69th Avenue Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Short - Elliott- Hendrickson, Inc. 0 July 9, 1990 Ms. Sue Mason, P.E. Short - Elliott - Hendrickson. Inc. 3535 Vadnais Center Drive St. Paul. MN 55110 STS Proposal P- 3054 -A Re: Proposal for Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation for the Reconstruction of 69th Avenue in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Dear Ms. Mason: We are pleased to provide you with an estimate of costs for the above - referenced project. Enclosed please find a brief description of our understanding of the project, a scope of services we will provide, and an estimate of costs for those services. We have also enclosed publications and promotional material representing our experiences with roadway embankments over peat, such as will probably be required within the Palmer Lake Basin. If you have any questions concerning this proposal, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully, STS CONSULTANTS, LTD. ��4 ( M. Gale, P.E. Director of Engineering SMG /dj Encs.: STS General Conditions STS Fee Schedule Articles for Reinforced Embankment Design ACCEPTED: DATE FIRM AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE TITLE Copyright P -3054, STS Consultants, Ltd., July 1990 STS Consultants Ltd. Consulting Engineers 3650 Annapolis Lane Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447 612.559.1900/Fax 512.559.4507 Proposal Project Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation for the Reconstruction of 69th Avenue in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Client Ms. Sue Mason, P.E. Short- Elliott- Hendrickson, Inc. 3535 Vadnais Center Drive St. Paul, Minnesota 55110 Proposal # P- 3054 -A Date July 9, 1990 l� STS Consultants Ltd. Consulting Engineers 3650 Annapolis Lane Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559 -1900 s Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation for the Reconstruction of 69th Avenue in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota INTRODUCTION 69th Avenue North will be upgraded from Noble Avenue to Shingle Creek Parkway. The project will include watermain and storm sewer installation. Sanitary sewer is already in- place. The utilities will be installed at a depth of between 8 and 10 feet below the surface. A portion of the alignment, approximately 1,200 feet, will extend into the Palmer Lake Basin. It is anticipated that this proposed roadway alignment will be overlying peat and organic soils. One of the alternatives if 69th Avenue is "floated" over the Palmer Lake Basin area is to install utilities in a utility corridor beneath present 69th Avenue which will be a frontage road south of the new road. The roadway is a planned State aid road. Roadway construction is proposed in 1992. Scope of Services As a result of the anticipated peat soils within the Palmer Lake Basin, a two phase drilling /exploration and evaluation program is recommended. Phase I would evaluate the entire alignment while Phase 11 would concentrate on the evaluation of a reinforced em- bankment over the Palmer Lake Basin area. Phase I - As we discussed, we would intend to drill 15 -foot depth borings at a spacing of approximately 300 feet along the roadway construction project alignment. In the Palmer Lake Basin alignment area, borings with a closer spacing would be drilled. For estimating purposes, nineteen borings would be drilled to a depth of 15 feet for the roadway supported over mineral soils and six borings would be drilled to a depth estimated to range between 15 and 40 feet within the Palmer Lake Basin area. Two additional borings would be drilled to a depth of 15 feet through the existing 69th Avenue that is proposed to become a utility corridor /frontage road. The soil borings within the existing street would be drilled with a truck- mounted drill rig; the borings in the Palmer Lake Basin would be drilled with a -1- Short- Elliott- Hendrickson, Inc. STS Proposal #P- 3054 -A drill rig on Bombardier tracks. Borings drilled through the existing street would he near the center of the street so traffic could travel on both sides of the drill rig during drilling. We would provide road signs in order to divert traffic. At this time, we have not included any costs for flagmen. The layout of soil borings would be by a Short- Elliott - Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) survey crew. The SEH survey crew would also obtain elevations at boring locations. We anticipate that borings can be staked at the same time that the centerline is staked for the proposed roadway. If you so desire, we would be pleased to discuss boring locations with you. Otherwise. the locations could be selected based on existing terrain, taking into con - sideration the 300 -foot spacing. Soil samples would be collected by both the split - barrel sampling procedure in sand -type soils and the Shelby tube sampling procedure in clay soils. Our firm does not have any additional charge for obtaining 2 -inch diameter Shelby tube samples. All soils will be backfilled upon completion. Bituminous patches would be provided in areas through existing pavements, though settlement of the patches with time may occur. STS will not be re- sponsible for settlement of the patches. Upon completion of the exploration, soil samples will be returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. We have estimated a laboratory testing program which includes moisture content, unit dry density and penetrometer testing. This testing is included in order to define general characteristics of the peat soils in the Palmer Lake Basin and to define moisture content and in -place density for recompaction of cohesive soils that will be required for utility trench work. We have also included a budget to perform two R -value tests which are required for State aid roads and two series of resistivity tests which include Miller soil box resistivity, pH, sulfides and chlorides. -2- S' Short - Elliott- Hendrickson, Inc. STS Proposal #P- 3054 -A After completion of the exploration and laboratory testing, we would prepare a geotechnical engineering report. This report will be comprehensive, discussing both pavement and utility construction concerns. The report will provide a discussion of soil conditions at the invert of the proposed utilities and will discuss excavation and backfilling require- ments based on the properties of the in -place soil. Based on resistivity testing, the report will comment on the necessity for wrapping ductile iron pipe. With regard to pave- ments, comments will be provided in reference to the pavement section. We will comment on the need for a geotextile separation laver and any additional granular or cohesive subcuts. If subcuts or a geotextile are required, we will provide guidelines for specification of these items. With regard to the roadway section over the Palmer Lake Basin area where peat is antici- pated, we would provide general comments regarding the feasibility of constructing a reinforced embankment over the peat, surcharging that embankment and then removing the surcharge and completing the bituminous pavement. Based on our experiences. we have identified that where the peat is in excess of 7 to 8 feet in depth, that a substantial cost savings can result for constructing over the peat rather than removing it. Phase II - An additional field testing program would be conducted in order to evaluate and design a reinforced embankment and surcharge for the roadway over Palmer Lake Basin soils, if appropriate. The program that has been generally accepted by the industry includes a vane shear testing program, obtaining Shelby tube samples for additional classification tests of the peat and for performing consolidation tests. The consolidation testing would provide you with a peat loading sensitivity evaluation which could be used to define actual surcharge requirements as they relate to total compressibility of the peat. The geotechnical report would include a slope stability evaluation of the embankment over the organic soils. A computer, program is used in order to assess the geosynthetic strength necessary for stability of the embankment. The report that is issued would include guideline specifications and design information regarding the type of soil and geotextile required for the embankment. Geotextile design would include specifications for tensile -3- Short -El liott- Hendrickson. Inc. STS Proposal #P- 3054 -A strength and just as importantly. mono filament versus slit -film requirements. permittivity requirements and thread and seam requirements. In many cases. an adequate fabric is specified. however. a seam fails which leads to failure. -4- Short -El liott- Hendrickson. Inc. STS Proposal #P- 3054 -A ESTIMATE OF COSTS Based on the above scope of work, we have estimated that the following costs will be appropriate for this project. You will, however, be billed based on actual units /hourly costs extended at the Fee Schedule amounts. Based on the fees estimated below, we will not exceed $13,800.00 unless given specific written approval to extend additional monies. When we approach 95% of the total estimated fee, we will notify you. We estimate that the following fees will be applicable with regard to the above - referenced work. I. Mobilization /demobiliation of truck- and track - mounted drill rigs and drilling and sampling to a depth of 15 feet in non - organic areas and 15 to 40 ft. in the Palmer Lake Basin area $ 7,100.00 - $ 9.050.00 2. Laboratory testing including soil classification, approximately 25 moisture content, 25 unit dry density, 100 penetrometer, 2 R -value tests and 2 resistivity series tests $ 1,600.00 - $ 1.600.00 3. Boring log preparation $ 800.00 - $ 800.00 4. Engineering evaluation and report $ 2,400.00 - $ 2.400.00 TOTAL $11,900.00 - $13,800.00 If a Phase II investigation is warranted as a result of the potential for constructing an embankment over the peat, then the following additional costs will be required: I. Additional drilling and sampling in order to more fully categorize the peat $1,275.00 2. In -situ vane shear testing and data reduction $2.800.00 - 5 - Short- Elliott - Hendrickson, Inc. STS Proposal #P- 3054 -A 3. Routine lahoraton testing including specific gravity, moisture content. unit dry density and organic content $ 500.00 4. Consolidometer testing $ 750.00 5. Engineering evaluation and reinforced embankment report with specification guidelines $3.200.00 TOTAL $8,525.00 Our intention is to provide you with the necessary information in order to prepare plans and specifications for this project. -6- Short- Elliott - Hendrickson. Inc. STS Proposal #P- 3054 -A SUMMARY We look forward to the opportunity to be of service to Short- Elliott - Hendrickson. Inc. and the City of Brooklyn Center on this project. When this proposal is accepted. please have an authorized representative of the party responsible for payment sign and return one copy to act as our authorization to proceed. If you have any questions regarding this proposal. please do not hesitate to contact us. We have attached to this Proposal our General Conditions and Fee Schedule which are ex- pressly incorporated into. and are an integral part of, our contract for professional services. Please indicate your acceptance of this Proposal by having an authorized re- presentative of your firm execute one copy and return it to the undersigned. If we are given verbal or written notification to proceed, without first receiving a signed copy of our Proposal, it will be mutually understood that both of us will, nonetheless, be con- tractually bound by the Proposal, even in the absence of written acceptance by you. In any event, a signed copy of this Proposal will need to be returned to STS before a written report can be submitted. Your acceptance of our Proposal confirms that the terms and conditions are understood, including payment to STS Consultants, Ltd. upon receipt of the invoice, unless specifically arranged otherwise in writing. Of course. should you wish to discuss the terms, condi- tions, and provisions of our Proposal, we would be pleased to do so at your earliest con- venience. -7- STS CONSULTANTS, LTD. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF SERVICE ADDENDUM Section 3: Billings and Payment a. Unless otherwise specifically provided in the proposal or agreement, billing will be based on actual units used at the standard rates shown on the attached Fee Schedules. travel costs and other expenses. The client understands and agrees that the estimates of total. incremental or phased project costs are reasonable projections provided for informational purposes in the proposal, and are not a representation or warranty of the actual costs which will be incurred in the performance of STS's services. STS has identified a not to exceed fee for a specific scope of work, unless written authorization is received by the client. STS shall submit invoices monthly for services performed and expenses incurred and not previously billed or included on any preceding invoice. Payment is due upon receipt of payment from the City of Brooklyn Center. The billing rates described in this Agreement may be increased on the anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement, if this portion of the project extends beyond the year. Section 4: Right of Access a, The services to be provided under this Agreement require agents, employees or contractors of STS to enter onto the project site. Client shall contact the City of Brooklyn Center in order to provide right -of- access to the site to STS, its employees. agents and contractors. to conduct the planned field observations or services. STS shall take reasonable precautions to minimize damage to the site due to its operations. but has not included in its fee the' cost of restoration for any damage resulting from its operations, except for bituminous patches to be applied over boreholes. b. The client will furnish STS with a diagram(s) indicating the location of the street alignment through h which the borings will g be drilled. filled g STS reserves the right to deviate a reasonable i' c stance from an previously y p e iousl agreed upon boring locations. i Y g P g ations. At client's request and cost. STS will restore the site to the conditions existing prior to ST S's g p S s o P erations. STS shall contact the Gopher State One Call system so that this system can contact the necessary utilities for underground clearance. STS shall be responsible for contacting the Gopher State One Call system and meeting with designated utilities. STS shall not be responsible for, and assumes no liability on account of, damage to subsurface structures. or injury or loss arising from damage to subsurface structures, which are incorrectly located. STS shall indemnify the client with regard to damage to existing underground utilities caused by drilling operations. STS General Conditions 1OWPOW STS CONSULTANTS, LTD. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF SERVICE These General Conditions of Service, including any Supplemental Conditions of Service which are or may become applicable to the services described in STS's Proposal, are incorporatedby reference into the foregoing Proposal and shall, if said Proposal is acceptedby Client, be part of the Agreement under which services are to be performedby STS for Client. SECTION 1: SCOPE OF WORE a. It is understood that the scope of work and the time schedules defined in the Proposal are based on the information provided by the Client. If this information is incomplete or inaccurate, or if site conditions are encountered which materially vary from those indicated by the Client, or if the Client directs STS to change the original scope of work established by the Proposal, a written amendment to the Agreement equitably a4justing the costs and/or performance time thereunder, shall be executed by the Client and STS as soon as practicable. Consent to amendments shall not be unreasonably withheld. b. STS shall perform all services, specified in the Proposal, which are reasonablynecessary and appropriate for the effective and prompt fulfillment of STS's obligations under the Agreement. The relationship between the Client and STS created under this Agreement is that of principal and independent contractor. All of the services provided by STS shall be subject to the provisions of the Agreement, including these General Conditions, any supplemental conditions incorporated herein, and any written amendments as referenced above. STS shall Invoice its costs, and Client shall provide payment for all services provided in accordance with Section 3 below. SECTION 2: CLIENT DISCLOSURES a. It shall be the duty of the Client to notify STS of any known or suspected hazardous substances which are or may be related to the services to be provided. Such hazardous substances shall include but not be limited to any substance which poses or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health or the environment whether Contained in a product, material, by- product, waste or sample and whether it exists in a solid, liquid, semi -solid or gaseous form. This duty shall also apply to any of the foregoing substances which STS may be provided or obtain or which exist or may exist on or near any premises upon which services are to be performed by STS's employees, agents or contractors. The Client shall notify STS of all such hazardous substances of which it has knowledge or which it reasonably suspects exist upon entering into this Agreement. Thereafter, disclosure and notification to STS shall be required immediately upon discovery of any other hazardous substances or upon discovery of increased concentrations of previously disclosed substances where the increased concentration makes them hazardous. b. Following any disclosure as set forth in the preceding paragraph, or if any hazardous substances are discovered or reasonably suspectedby STS after its services are undertaken, STS may, at its discretion, suspend its services. Whether or not STS suspends its services in whole or in part, the Client and STS agree that the scope of services, terms and conditions, schedule and the estimated fee or budget shall be adjusted in accordance with the disclosed information or condition, and STS may, at its discretion, terminate the Agreement. In the event that the Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the Client shall pay STS for services and all termination expenses as set forth in Section 11 of this Agreement. C. If all or any part of the scope of work is to be performed in the general vicinity of a facility or in an area where dust, fumes, gas, noise, vibrations or other particulate or nonparticulate matter is in the atmosphere where it raises a potential health hazard or nuisance to those working in the area of such conditions, Client shall notify STS of such conditions, potential health hazard or nuisance and thereafter STS shall take all necessary and reasonable measures to protect its employees against such possible health hazards or nuisances. The reasonable direct cost of such measures shall be borne by the Client. SECTION 3: BILLINGS AND PAYMENTS a. Unless othert!SQ specifically provided in the Proposal or ement, billings will be based on actual units used at the standard rate own on the attached fee edules, travel costs and other expenses. The Cli understands and agrees tha estimates o tal, incremental, or phase project costs are reason projections provided for informatio ses in the Proposal, and are not a representation or warranty of 'F u Ahe actual costs which will be incurre ' the performance of STS's services. STS shall submit invoices monthly u X for services performed and exp es incurred and notgreviously billed or included on any preceding invoice. Payment is due upon recei . or all amounts unpaid after days from the invoice date, asset forth on STS's invoice form, t agrees to pay STS a finance charge of one an e -half percent (1-1/2%) per month, eighteen perce 18 %) annually. The billing rates described in this Agre ent may be increased on the anniver f the effective date of this Agreement. b. The Client shall provide STS with a clear, written statement within fifteen (15) days after receipt of the invoice of any objections to the invoice or any portion or element thereof. Failure to provide such a written statement shall constitute acceptance of the invoice as submitted. c. The Client has ation to pay for the services pe ed under this Agreement. Client shall not off -set any amounts due to STS beta Client's ' to obtain financing, zoning, approval of governmental or regulatory agencies, or any! t other cause , or contingency. No deduction shall be made from any invoice on account of penalty or liquidate es nor er sums be withheld from payments to STS. Client further agrees to pay ST and all expenses incurred in rec any delinquent amounts due, including reasonable atto fees and court costs. SECTION 4: RIGHT OF ACCESS a. If services to be providedl er this Agreement a the agents, employees, or contractors of STS to enter onto the Project site, Client shall f- access to the site to STS, its employees, agents and contractors, to conduct the planned field rvatio services. STS shall take reasonable precautions to minimiz damage to the site du operations, but has n laded in its fee the cost of restoration for any d resulting from ' operations. b. If the scope of services inclu Ee orma nce of so' rings or test pit excavations by STS, it is understood that the Client will furnish STS with agrasn(s dicating the location and boundaries of the site, subsurface structures (pipes, tanks, cables, sewer , r utilities, etc.) and boring /test pit location(s). STS reserves the right to deviate a reasonable distance boring /test pit location(s). At Client's request and cost, STS will restore the site to the conditions a prior S's operations. STS shall notbe responsible for, and assumes no liability on account of, to subsurface stru s, or injury or loss arising from damage to subsurface structures, which are inc ctly located or not indicate n the diagram(s) provided SECTION 8: SAMPLES a. All samples of soil and rock will be discarded sixty (60) days after submission of the report unless the Client advises STS in writing to the contrary. Upon request, the samples will be delivered, shipping charges collected, or stored at the rate indicated in the fee schedule attached. SECTION 6: REPORTS AND OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS a. STS shall furnish six (6) copies of each report to Client. Additional copies shall be furnished at the rates specified in the fee schedule. With the exception of STS reports to Client, all documents, including original boring logs, field data, field notes, laboratory test data, calculations and estimates are and remain the property of STS. Client agrees that all reports and other work furnished to the Client not paid for in full will be returned upon demand and will not be used for design., construction, permits or licensing. SECTION 7: STANDA'EtD OF CARE a. STS represents that it will perform its services under this Agreement in conformance with the care and ordinarily exercised by reputable members of the professional engineering community practicing un similar conditions at the same time in the same or similar locality. b. NO OTHER WARRAN'T'Y OFANY KIND, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, AT COMMON LAW OR CREATED BY STATUTE, IS EXTENDED, MADE, OR INTENDED BY THE RENDITION OF CONSULTING SERVICES OR BY FURNISHING ORAL OR WRITTEN REPORTS OF THE FINDINGS MADE. c. Any exploration, testing, surveys and analysis associated with the work will be performedby STS for the Client's sole use to fulfill the purpose of this Agreement and STS is not responsible for interpretation by others of the information developed. The Client recognizes that subsurface conditions beneath the Project site mayvaryfrom those encountered inborings, surveys or explorations and the information and recommendations developedby STS are based solely on the information available. d. The services of STS's field personnel neither include responsibility for the superintendence of the construction project nor direction or control of the actual work of the contractor, its subcontractors, or other materialmen or service providers not engaged by STS. It is further agreed that STS is not responsible for, nor is it to review, the adequacy of job safety on the Project. SECTION 8: LIMXTATI OF PROFESSIONAL L ABIL=Y a. IT IS AGREED THAT THE CLIENT'S MAXIMUM RECOVERYAGAINST STS FOR THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PERFORMED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, IS $50,000 OR THE AMOUNT OF STS'S FEE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. IT IS EXPRESSLYAGREED THAT THE CLIENT'S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDYAGAINST STS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PERFORMED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, WHETHER BASED IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, IS THE AWARD OF DAMAGES NOT TO EXCEED THE STIPULATED $50,000 FIGURE, OR THE AMOUNT OF STS'S FEE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. IN NO EVENT SHALL STS BE LIABLE, WHETHER, IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, FOR CLIENT'S LOSS OF PROFITS, DELAY DAMAGES, OR FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL LOSS OR DAMAGE OF ANY NATURE ARISING AT ANYTIME OR FROM ANY CAUSE WHATSOEVER. b. The Client further agrees to notify any contractor or subcontractor who may perform work in connection with any design, report or study prepared by STS of such limitation of professional liability for design defects, breach of contract, errors, omissions or professional negligence and require as a condition precedent to their Performing their work a like limitation of liability on their part as against STS. c. Documents, including but not limited to, technical reports, original boring logs, field data, field notes, laboratory test data, calculations and estimates furnished to the Client or its agents pursuant to this Agreement are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse b the Client or others on extensions f y ns o the Project or on an other project. Any reuse without STS's written consent will be at Client's sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to STS or to STS's contractor(s) and Client shall indemnify and hold harmless STS and STS's contractor(s) from all claims, damages, losses and expenses including attorney's fees arising out of or resulting therefrom. d. Under no circumstances shall STS be liable for extra work or other consequences due to changed conditions or for costs related to failure of the construction contractor or materialmen or service providers to install work in accordance with the plans and specifications. e. NOTWITHSTANDING THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY OF SECTION 8a ABOVE, IT IS FURTHER AGREED THAT IF STS'S SERVICES UNDER THIS AGREEMENT CONSIST OF LABORATORY TESTING AND /OR CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS OR OTHER MATE WITHOUT ENGINEERING EVALUATION OR STUDY, THE CLIENT'S MAXIMUM RECOVERY FOR SUCH SERVICES WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE SHALL NOT EXCEED STS'S FEES FOR THIS ENGAGEMENT. IT IS EXPRESSLY AGREED THAT THE CLIENT'S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY AGAINST STS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WHETHER BASED IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE IS THE AWARD OF DAMAGES NOT TO EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF STS'S FEES. IN NO EVENT SHALL STS BE LIABLE, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, FOR CLIENT'S LOSS OF PROFITS, DELAY DAMAGES, OR FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL LOSS OR DAMAGE OF ANY NATURE ARISING AT ANY'T'IME OR FROM ANY CAUSE WHATSOEVER. I I Oki � STS Consultants Ltd. Consulting Engineers SECTION 9: T.TARn.rry a9URANCE a. STS represents that it and its agents, and consultants employed by it, is and are protected by Worker's Compensation insurance and that STS has coverage under liability insurance policies which STS deems reasonable and adequate. Upon request, STS shall furnish certificates of insurance to the Client evidencing the risks insured against, and the limits of liability thereunder. In the event the Client requires specific inclusions of coverage in addition to that obtained by STS, or increased limits of liability in STS's liability policies, the cost of such inclusions or increased limits shall be borne by the Client. The Client agrees to limit the liability of STS to the limits of STS's insurance. STS shall notbe responsible for claims, damages, losses and expenses arising out of or resulting from acts and/or omissions of the Client, its employees, agents, staff, consultants, contractors or subcontractors employed by it or by any other entity. SECTION 10: MEDIATION- APRrrR ATION OF DISPUTES a. All claims, disputes or controversies arising out of, or in relation to the interpretation, application or enforcement of this Agreement or any breach thereof, including, but not limited to, disputes arising out of alleged design defects, breaches of contract, errors, omissions, or acts of professional negligence, or the arbitrability of such disputes, shall be decided by a final and binding arbitration decision by the mediator - arbitrator in accordance with the procedures set forth in the re maining paragraphs of this section. This mediation - arbitration procedure shall not apply to disputes arising out of death or bodily injury. b. For the purposes of this section; PROJECT means the total construction to be built by the Client, including, but not limited to, all tests, professional services, and labor necessary to produce the construction and all materials and equipment incorporated or to be incorporated in such construction; DISPUTE means any claim, controversy, or other matter in question between the Client and STS arising out of or relating to this Agreement for the provision of professional services or breach thereof; and PARTY means the Client or STS, or their respective insurers or sureties. c. The parties agree that the authority of the mediator - arbitrator shall extend to disputes arising on or after the date of STS's contract concerning the Project. Any party shall request, in writing, mediation - arbitration of any dispute within seven (7) calendar days of the date that it knew or should reasonably have known of the dispute. In no event shall the demand for mediation - arbitration be made more than six (6) years from the date of substantial completion of STS's participation in the Project. d. In the event that shall request mediation -arbitration PAY glle - arbitration of any dispute as set forth in this section the Client and STS shall select by mutual agreement a neutral mediator - arbitrator within seven (7) calendar days of the date of receipt by the other party of the written request for mediation - arbitration. In the event of failure to reach such agreement, or in any instance when the selected mediator - arbitrator is unable or unwilling to serve and a replacement cannot be agreed upon by the Client and STS, such successor mediator - arbitrator shall be chosen as specified in the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. e. The mediator - arbitrator shall have authority to determine all procedural questions, including, but not limited to, any questions as to procedural arbitrability. Both parties specifically acknowledge that, in accordance with the first paragraph of this section above, the mediator - arbitrator in his/her own discretion, or on the application of any party, may mediate - arbitrate any claim which process may, but does not necessarily, include meeting individually with any party while excluding the other party or parties as determined with the discretion of the mediator - arbitrator. i. All communications with the mediator - arbitrator, including but not limited to, any demand for mediation - arbitration, shall be by certified mail to him/her and copies by certified mail to all other parties involved in said dispute. All mediation - arbitration shall be held at a location selected by mutual agreement between the Client and STS. In the event of failure to reach such an agreement, the location shall be selected by the mediator - arbitrator. The fee of the mediator - arbitrator and the costs of transcription and such other costs incurredby the mediator arbitrator shall be apportioned equally between the parties. The parties mutually agree that the Construction IndustryArbitration Rules of the AmericanArbitrationAssociation, where not inconsistentwith this Agreement, shall be applicable to any mediation - arbitration required by this Agreement. I SECTION 11: TERMINATION a. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon at least seven (7) days written notice in the event of substantial failure by the other party to perform in accordance with the terms hereof through no fault terminating party. Such termination shall not be effective if that substantial failure has been remedied bRW expiration of the period specified in the written notice. The only exceptions to this seven-day written notice condition are STS's rights to terminate this Agreement as set forth in Section 2 of the Agreement or to terminate this Agreement immediately if conditions making it more difficult than anticipated to drill at the specified locations are encountered which are not made known to STS prior to its arrival at the Project site. b. In addition, STS may terminate this Agreement if the Client suspends STS's services for more than sixty (60) consecutive days through no fault of STS. c. If this Agreement is terminated, STS shall be paid for services performed prior to the termination date set forth in the notice plus termination expenses. Termination expenses shall include personnel and equipment rescheduling and re- assignment ac�ustments and all other related costs incurred directly attributable to termination. SECTION 12: SZVFaULBIrZTr a. In the event that any provision herein shall be deemed invalid or unenforceable, the other provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect, and binding upon the parties hereto. SECTION 13: SECTION HMADINGS a. The heading or title of a section is provided for convenience and information and shall not serve to alter or affect the provisions included herein. SECTION 14: SURVIVAL a. All obligations arising prior to the termination of this Agreement and all provisions of this Agree allocating responsibility or liabilitybetween the Client and STS shall survive the completion of services anW termination of this Agreement. SECTION 1S: ASSIGNS a. Neither the Client nor STS may delegate, assign, sublet or transfer its duties, responsibilities or interests in this Agreement without the written consent of the other party. SECTION 16: CHOICE OF LASH a. This Agreement shall be governed by the law of the state in which this Agreement will be performed . 11/88 i STS Fee Schedules glqi7o GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING GROUP Technical Classifications Engineering and technical personnel will be billed at the following rates for all field consultation, project management, and report preparation time and for travel time to and from the sites and meetings. Engineering Technician *(4 Hour Minimum) ................................................................ ............................... Per Hour ..... $ 36.00 ...... ............................... Senior Engineering Technician *(4 Hour Minimum) ........ ............................... ...................... ............................... ............................Per Hour ..... $ 40.00 Fi Field Engineer *(4 Hour Minimum) ........................................................................................ ............................... ............................P Hour ..... $ 56.00 eld Instrumentation Specialist ............................................................ ............................... ... ............................... ............................Per Hour ..... $ 62.00 Assistant Project Engineer or Geologist ................................................. ............................... .. ............................... ............................Per Hour ..... $ 62.00 Project Engineer ................................................. ............................... ....................................... ............................... ............................P Hour ..... $ 72.00 P Senior Project Engineer ............................................................................................................ ............................... ............................P Hour ..... $ 82.00 rincipal Engineer ................................................... ............................... .................................. ............................... ............................Per Hour ..... $ 100.00 Senior Principal Engineer ............................... ......................................................................... ............................... ............................P Hour ..... $ 125.00 D Senior Draftsman ...................................................................................................................... ............................... ............................Per Hour ..... $ 45.00 raftsman ................................................................................................................................. ............................... ............................Per Hour ..... $ 38.00 R Secretary ................................................................................................................................... ............................... ............................Per Hour ..... $ 36.00 esearch Librarian .................................................................................................................... ............................... ............................P Hour ..... $ 50.00 *Overtime -after 8 hours, before 7:00 am and after 6:00 pm Monday through Friday, or Saturday - standard rate x 1.25 - Sunday or Holiday- standard rate x 1.50 Expert Witness Testimony and Preparation ..................... . ............................. ............................Per Hour.....$ 150.00 Contract Negotiation and Administration ............... ................................................................. ............................... ............................Per Hour ..... $ 100.00 Projects involving expert witness or dispute resolution services will require a retainer up to 25% of our total estimated billings. ersonnel Rates Related to Subsurface Exploration and Field Work W rigincering report, analysis, recommendations, and consultation services will be billed at the unit rates listed above. Other engineering related costs include: preliminary engineering reconnaissance, located of borings, or instrument elevations at the boring locations. One Person Crew ......................................... ............................... .............................................. ............................... ............................Pe Hour ..... $ 64.00 Two Person Crew .......................................... ............................... ............................................ ............................... ............................Per Hour ..... $ 94.00 Engineer or Geologist to Supervise Boring, Sampling, and Well Installation Operations ............ ............................... Telephone Calls With Mobile Field Phone ......................... ............................... .....Per Hour......$ 64.00 ....................... ............................... ............................Per Call ..... $ 8.00 Expenses Messenger Service (Same Day) ................ ............................... _ ....Per Delivery $ 40.00 Messenger Service (Overni t ••"•' gh ) .......................................................................................... ............................... ............................P Delivery ..... $ 25.00 Facsimile Transmittal (Fax).. Computer Assisted Drafting .................................................................................................... ............................... ............................Per Page ..... $ 0.50 .................................................................................. ...... ....................................... .... .............................Per Hour ..... $ 10.00 ........................................................... Computer Service Charges ....... ............................... ..Two Times Cost .................................................. Long Distance Telephone Calls, Telegrams, and Cables ......... ............................... .......................................................... .............................At Cost + 20g'o Meals and Accomodation: Short Term -Less Than Two Weeks ................................... ............................... ............................... .............................At Cost Long Term -Two or More Weeks .......... ............................... Per Person Per Da $ 60,00 O On -Line Literature Searches .............................................................................................................................................. .............................At Cost + 2U90 utside Services ............................................................................................................................. ............................... .....At Cost + 2096 mum ............................. Storage of Samples (Mini $10 Per Month) ..................... ............................... Per Sample Per Month ..... $ 0.25 ........................ Transportation Via Company or Private Vehicle .................................. ............................... Per Mile ..... $ 0.35 Tranportation Via Public Conveyance .......................................................................................................... Reproduction Costs: ................ ............................... ...At Cost + 20% M BluePrints ..............................................................:................................................ ............................... ............................P Square Foot.....$ 0.30 C ylar ........................................................................................................................ ............................... ............................Per Square Foot ....;$ 2.00 olor .................................................................................................................................... ............................... ............................P Page ..... $ 3.00 Report Report Distribution: A Maximum of 6 Copies Total of Each Report Can Be Fumished to 2 Addresses At The Time Of Initial Report Submittal. Additional Copies, If Requested ...................... .......................................................... ............................... ........................Minimum Per Copy ..... $ 25.00 Reproduction of Previous Reports - Please Remit in Advance ................ ... ........................Minimum Per Co $ 75.00 GTl 6 *06/90 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION SERVICES Subsurface Exploration Layout, Elevations and Utility Clearance - 2 -Man Crew ........................................................ ............................... ............................Per Hour ..... $ 94.00 Outof Town Accomodations .................................................................................... ............................... ............................Per Man, Per Day ..... $ 60.00 Services of Truck Mounted CME-75 Drill Rig - 2 -Man Crew ............................................... ............................... ............................Per Hour ..... $ 155.00 Services of Truck Mounted D -50 Drill Rig ............................................................................. ............................... ............................Per Hour.....$ 150.00 Servicesof CME -750 Drill Rig* ............................................................................................. ............................... ............................Per Hour ..... $ 165.00 Services of CME -45 Bombardier Mounted Drill Rig* ........................................................... ............................... ............................Per Hour ..... $ 150.00 AdditionalCrew Member ........................................................................................................ ............................... ............................Per Hour ..... $ 42.00 Water Truck Used with Rotary g Drill Rig .................................................................................. ............................... ............................Per Day .....$ 50.00 + $1.00 /mile PickUp Truck Auxiliary Vehicle .............................................................................................. ............................... ............................Per Day ..... $ 30.00 + $0.70/mile DiamondBit Wear .............................................................................................................................................................. .............................At Cost + 209c j Portable Power Auger ........................................................................................................ ............................... ............................Per Half Day ..... $ 50.00 ExpendableItems ............................................................................................................................................................... .............................At Cost + 20% OutsideServices ................................................................................................................................................................. .............................At Cost + 20% 1 -1/2 Inch to 2 Inch PVC Piezometer pipe .............................................................................. ............................... ............................Per Foot ..... $ 4.00 Additionalfor Use of 4-1/4 Inch ID Hollow Stem Auger ....................................................... ............................... ............................Per Foot ..... $ 5.00 Additional for Use of 6-5/8 Inch ID Hollow Stem Auger ....................................................... ............................... ............................Per Foot ..... $ 9.00 Travel Time after Initial Mobilization - Mileage Plus ............................................................ ............................... ............................Per Hour ..... $ 94.00 *All Terrain Vehicle Carrier - Additional ................................................................................. ............................... ............................Per Da $ 160.00 Note: a. Overtime, if required by client = 1.50 x regular rate. b. Sunda and holiday = 2.00 x regular rate. Y Y 8 Routine Sol] Classtflcation Tests Visual Engineering Classificat ion ............................................................................................................... ............................... ............................Per Sample ... ...$ 3 Water Content Test. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... Per Test ... ...5 Unit Dry Weight Determination ....................................................................................................................... ............................... ............................Per Test ... ...$ Unconfined Compressive Strength ................................................................................................................... ............................... ............................Per Test ....$ 1 . HandPenetrometer Test. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Per Test ... ...$ 2.50 Organic Content (Ignition Method) .................................................................................................................. ............................... ............................Per Test ...... $ 32.00 Sieve Analysis (200 gm) ................................................................................................................................... ............................... ............................Per Test .....$ 45.00 Note: If project samples are contamined as evidenced by chemical analysis of photoionization detector readings, 100% surcharge plus protective clothing and equipment charges apply. Additional Services Grouting Boreholes (Minimum $50 Per Hole)(Up to 3 -1/4" 1.0 hollow Stem Borehole) ..... ............................... ............................Per Foot ..... $ 4.00 Pressuremeter Equipment Charges - (Personnel Rate as Per Fee Schedule) $250 Mobilization Plus ........................................................................................................ ............................... ............................Per Day ..... $ 250.00 AdditionalMembranes ..................................................................................................................... ............................... .....................Each.....$ 100.00 Special Equipment Required to Complete the Program, Such as Bulldozer, Backhole, Etc ......................................... .............................At Cost + 20% SpecialPermits ................................................................................................................................................................... .............................At Cost + 2096 Storage of Soil or Rock Samples After 60 Days (Mnimum $10 Per Mont h) .. ............................... ............................Per Sample Per Month ..... $ 0.25 Wellpoint Installation in Drilled Borehole - 1 -1/4" Diameter PVC Pipe $100 Set -Up Per Hole Pius .................................................................................................. ............................... ............................Per Foot ..... $ 4.00 TopSteel Protector Pipe and Cap Installed ..................................................................................... ............................... .....................Each.....$ 200.00 2 " Diameter PVC $100 Set -Up Per Hole Plus .................................................................... ............................... ............................Per Foot ..... $ 6.00 WorstOn Hazardous Waste Sites .................................................................................................. ............................... ..........................R Upon Request MonitorWell Installation .............................................................................................................. ............................... ..........................Rates Upon Request Any Drilling and Sampling at Depths Not Noted on this Fee Schedule Will Be Quoted on Request. GT2 6 *06/90 ` . GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY SERVICES Identification Visual Engineering Class ..................... Classification(') .............................................................................. ............................... ............Per Sample ..... $ 3.50 Water Content ....................................................................................................................... ............................... ............................Per Sample ..... $ 6.00 UnitDry Weight Detemiination ............................................... ............................... Per Test ..... $ 10.00 ............................................. ............................... Specific Gravity .......................................................... ........................................................ ....... ............................... ............................Per Test ..... $ 42.00 O AtterbergLimits (3 Point Test) ................................................................................................. ............................... ............................P Test ..... $ 43.00 ne Point Atterberg Limits ....................................................... ............................... ..................Per Test ..... $ 30.00 ........................... ............................... Shrinkage Limit Tests ............................................................... ............................... ....... Per Test ..... $ 35.00 ...... ................................. ............................... Grain Size - Sieve Analysis (Washed) 500 -700 gm Sampled ....................................................................... ............................... Per Test ..... $ 70.00 Sieve Analysis (Unwashed) 500-700 gm Sampled ........................................... ............................... ............................Per Test ..... $ 57.00 AdditionalSieves Over Seven ......................................................................................... ............................... .....................E 7.00 Grain Size - Combined Analysis (Hydrometer and Sieve) ...................................................... ............................... ............................Per Test ..... $ 100.00 P GrainSize - Hydrometer (Without Sieve) ................................................................................ ............................... ............................P Test ..... $ 50.00 ercent Passing #200 Sieve ....................................................................................................... ............................... ............................P Test ..... $ 25.00 OrganicContent ......................................................................................................................... ............................... ............................P Test ..... $ 32.00 Undisturbed Sample Classification: Extrusion and Sample Preparation of Undisturbed Thin Wall Samples 2.8 In. Sampl e ..... ............................... ............................Per Tube ..... $ 13.50 5 .0 In. Sample .................................... ............................Fer Tube ..... $ 25.00 Labor atory Supervisor ...................... Logging and Classification of Undisturbed Samples( 2) ......................................................... ............................... ............................Per Tube ..... $ 70.00 ................ .................................................................................................... ............................... Per Hour ..... $ 50.00 Laboratory Technician ............................................................................................................. ............................... ............................P Hour ..... $ 42.00 Note: (1) Price includes extrusion of 1.8 in. diameter shelby tubes and wet or dry sample preparation as required. For larger samples, see extrusion and sample preparation. (2) Logging and classification of undisturbed samples includes visual classification and complete characterization including notation of discontinuities and disturbances; photographs of samples, natural water content at top, middle, and bottom, and in tube unit weight. Compaction and Density CBR CaliforniaBearing Ratio (CBR) Test ........................................................................................ ............................... ............................P Test ..... $ 200.00 , AASHTO Met hod ............................................................. ............................... Per Test ..... $ 440.00 .......................................... ............................... S Harvard Minature Compaction Test .......................................................................................... ............................... ............................Per Test.....$ 75.00 tandard Proctor ASTM D -698 - 4 In. (Method A) ............................................................. ............................... ................. ...............Per Test ..... $ 65.00 6 In. (Method B, C or D) ..................................................... ............................... ............................Per Test ..... $ 72.00 Modified Proctor ASTM D -1557 - 4 In. (Method A) ................................................ ............................... ..................Per Test . $ 70.00 ........................ .... 6 In. (Method B, C or D) ..................................................... ............................... ............................Per Test ..... $ 75.00 R One Point Proctor - Standard or Modified ............................................................................... ............................... ............................Per Test.....$ 45.00 elative Density on Cohesionless Soils ................ ..................... ............................Per Test..... $ 150.00 ............................................... ............................... Preparation of Clay Sample ....................................................................................................... ............................... ............................Per Test ..... $ 35.00 Consolidation Consolidation Test on 2.5 and 4 In. Diameter Specimen Regular Increasing Load Increment at 24 -Hour Intervals t022 TSF or Strain Controlled Including Pressure -Void Ratio Curve Plotted Time Curve ................ .................................... ............................... ............................Per Test ..... $ 320.00 .......................................................................................................... ............................... .....................Each.....$ 50.00 Each Additional Unload- Reload Cycl e .................................... ............................... ..................Per Cycle ..... $ 60.00 .................... ............................... With Back Pressure .................. ............................... ................. ....Additional Per Test.....$ 150.00 ................................................. ............................... Rapid (T100 Loading and Unloading) or Taylor Method (includes Time Curves) ........... ............................... ............................Per Test ..... $ 310.00 24 -Hour Loading With No Intermittent Time Reading ............................... ....................... ............................... ............................Per Test ..... $ 225.00 Consolidation Test - Controlled Rate of Stress With Measured Pore Pressures Pressure -Void Ratio Curve and Dial Time Curve ............. ............................... .................. ............................... ............................Per Test ..... $ 450.00 Swell Pressure ...................................................................................................................... ............................... ............................P Test ..... $ 150.00 _ Swell Pressure Tests Exceeding One Week in Duration .................................................. ............................... ............................Per Week ..... $ 25.00 For Rush Projects Requiring Unscheduled Overtime ..................................... Additional Per Test.....$ 100.00 d Sample preparation for trim 5 in. diameter specimens for 2.5 in. an4............................. ............................... d 4.0 in. tests ..................... ......................Additional Per Test ..... $ 50.00 Note: ( Test includes four incremental unloads at the end of the load sequences. (2) An additional charge may be assessed for trimming and preparing rocky specimens. Shear Stren h Unconfined Compression (Samples 2.0 in. or less Diameter)(Without Stress- Strain) .......... ............................... ............................Per Test ...... $ 16.00 Unconfined Compression (Samples 2.0 in. or less Diameter)(With Strzss- Strain) ............... ............................... ............................Per Test ...... $ 35.00 Unconfined Compression (Samples 2.8 in. or 4.0 in. Diameter)(Without Stress - Strain) ...... ............................... ............................Per Test ...... $ 25.00 Unconfined Compression (Samples 2.8 in. or 4.0 in. Diameter) ( With Stress- Strain) .......... ............................... ............................Per Test......$ 45.00 Ri PocketPenetrometer or Torvane ............................................................................................... ............................... ............................Per Test ..... $ 2.50 L mac ......................................................................................................................................... ............................... ............................Per Test ..... $ 10.00 D ab Vane ................................................................. ............................... ...... ............................Per Test ..... $ 40.00 irect Shear Strength - Fast - Sand ............................................................................... ............................... .Per Test ..... $ 150.00 ....... ............................... Slow - Silt or Clay ....................................................... ............................... .... ......... ............................ Per Test ..... $ 225.00 R esidual Shear Strength (From Direct Shear) Includes 5 Cycles ................................................ ............................... ........................Per Test ..... $ 350.00 Each Additional Cycl e ........................................................ ............................... Per Cycle ..... $ 60.00 ............................................... ............................... F or Remolded Sample Tests .......................................................................................... ............................... .....................Additional Per Test . $ 40.00 GT3 6 *06/90 Triaxial Compression Unconsolidated Undrained (UU) Extrud 1.4 to 2.8 Lm. Samples ...................................................................... ............................... ............................Per Confining Stress ..... $ 130.00 Saturation of UU Specimens .......................... ..........Additional Per Confining Stress ..... $ 40.00 ................................................. ............................... Consolidated Isotropically Undrained (CIU) Triaxial Test with Pore Pressures Measurements - Extruded 1.4 to 2.8 In. Samples ...........................Per Effective Consolidated Stress ..... $ 2 Consolidated Anisotropically Undrained (CAU) Triaxial Test With Pore Pressure Measurements - Extended 1.4 to 2.8 in. Samples ............................Per Effective Consolidated Stress.....$ 32 . Consolidated Drained Test (CD) - Sand ........ ............................... .,,,...Per Consolidated Stress ..... $ 240.00 ........................................ ............................... - Silt or Clay ............................................... ............................... ............................Per Consolidated Stress ..... $ 300.00 ................................... ............................... For 4 In. Diameter Samples Tested .................... ............................... .............Additional Per Test ..... $ 100.00 6 and 12 In. Diameter Samples Tested ............... .......................................... ............................... .................................. ............................... Upon Request For Difficult Sample Preparation, Including Trimming to Reduce Size, Remolding, or Recompacting .. .....................Additional Per Test.....$ 40.00 For Samples Required to Remain in Cell for Over Three Days Due to Excessive Consolidation Time or Slow Rate of Loading ................ ............................... .......... ............................... ......................Additional Per Da $ 25.00 For Cell Pressure in Excess of 8 KSC ................. ............................... ................................................ ............................... ...............Additional.....$ 40.00 Dynamic Testing Dyn amic Triaxial Test - Triaxial Liquefaction ............................................... ............................... Upon Request ................................... ............................... Dynamic Triaxial Test - Triaxial Properties Test ................. ............... ...............Upon Request .............................................................. ............................... Resonant Column Test - Shear Modulus and Damping Measurement ...................... ..................................... Upon Request ..... esonant Column Test - Young's Modulus Measurement .. ............................... ........................... ...........................Upon Request ....... ............................... Wave Propagation Test ........................................................................................................... ............................... .......Upon Request .. ............................... Permeability Constant Head Permeability Test Performed in Permeameter, Triaxial Chamber, or Consolidometer ................ ............................Per Test ..... $ 170.00 Falling Head Permeability Test Performed in Permeameter, Triaxial Chamber, or Consolidame ter ................... ............................Per Test ..... $ 170.00 Permeability and Settlement of Soils (USBR Designation E- 13) ............................................ ............................... ............................Per Test ..... $ 210.00 Pin Hole Dispersion Test ....................... ............. .... ........................................... ............................... ................... ............................... Per Test ..... $ 140.00 For Sample Preparation of Shelby Tube or Split Spoon Brass Liner Samples ................... ........................ ...........Additional Per Specimen ..... $ 40.00 F or Sample Preparation of 4 -Inch Compaction Samples ...................... ............................... ................. .....................Additional Per Week ..... $ 50.00 For Permeability Versus Time Relation .............................................. ....................... ............................... ......................Additional Per Week ..... $ 30.00 For Reactive or Corrosive Pore Fluid ........................................................................... ............................... ......................Additional Per Test ..... $ 200.00 For Pore Fluid Other Than Water ......... ............................... .................. ............................... ........................ .....................Additional Per Test ..... $ 60.00 Soll Stabilization Tests Basic Design (Soil- Cement, Soil -Lime, Soil - Flyash or Combinations of These Materials) 1) ............................................................. E Moisture - Density Relations of Soil - Cement Mixtures ........................ ach....,$ 60 Wetting and D ch,.,,. 2 g Oang Tests of Soil- Cement Mixtures ............................................................................ ............................... .....................E 280.00 Freezing and Thawing of Compacting Mixtures .................................................................................. ............................... .....................E 475.00 Note: ( Basic design includes grain size, Atterberg Limits, compaction test at one stabilization material content, four specimens, each of three different stabilization material contents, and unconfined compression tests of 12 specimens. Excludes chemical soil tests. (2) Other stabilization programs including evaluation of geotextiles available upon request. All units prices are for individual routine tests performed under standard procedures which do not require special equipment. The unit prices do not include engineering charges for supervision of laboratory testing programs and coordination between the laboratory, project engineer, and the client. Also, not included in the unit cost are data summarization, summary data plots and engineering reports of test procedures and results. Therefore, additional engineering charges should be included in estimating total cost for all testing programs. This cost generally amounts to 10% to 20% of the total testing program, depending upon the scope and nature of the tes performed in the program. is Rock Laboratory Testing Services Dry and Apparent Specific Gravity ....................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................Pe Sample ..... $ 50.00 Porosity ............................................................................................................................................... ............................... ..... Per Sample ..... $ 40.00 Sonic Pulse Velocity Determination (at seating load) ) ........................................................ ............................... ............................Per Sample ..... $ 60.00 - C Slake Durability Index ............................................ ............................... ... ............................... ............................... ............................Per Test.....$ 100.00 arbonate Content ................................ ............................... ................. ........................Per Sample ..... $ 50.00 .................................... ............................... Petrographic Analysis ............................ ............................... Upon Request Permeability to Air ... ............................... ............... ............................. Per Test ..... $ 210.00 Permeability to Water ................................................................................................... ............................... . ............................Per Test ..... $ 180.00 Uniaxial Compression (Strength Only - ASTM D -2938 ............ Uniaxial Compression (Strength with Elastic Modulus and Bulk Densi """ ... .......... Per Test.....$ 80.00 tyl(ASTM D- 3148 ) .............................. ................... .........Per Test..... $ 100.00 Triaxial Compression With Modulus and Poisson's Ratio .................. .......Per Sample ..... $ 250.00 Uniaxial Compression With Modulus and Poisson's Ratio (ASTM D- 3148) ........................ ............................... ............................Per Swelling Pressure ................. Test.....$ 200.00 Brasilian or Point Load Test (Parallel or Perpendicular to Bedding) (ASTM D- 3967) . ............................... Per Test..... $ 50.00 ...................... ..................... ............................... " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " """"' Per Sample ..... $ 170.00 Triaxial Compression Without Pore Pressure Measurement ............................................. ............................... ............................P Point ..... $ 200.00 � Direct Shear on Joints or Bedding Planes (Per Normal Load) ................................ ............................... .. ............................... Per Test ..... $ 200.00 Hardness Determination by Schmidt Hammer ............. ........... ............................... ............................Per Sample ..... $ 20* Note: (1) Prices include normal sample preparation (sawing and preparation) on core specimens; $25 per hour will be charged for difficult sample preparation or recoring specimens. (2 ) Confining pressures to 500 psi. Higher confming pressures add $100 per test. GT4 606/'90 A ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT In -Situ Soil Parameters C AcousticEmission ..................................................................................................................... ............................... ............................Per Da 0 ross - Borehole ....................................................................................................................... ............................... y ..... $ 200. Gravimeter .................... Per Day..... $ 450.0 ................................................................................ ............................... Inclinometer Equipment Per Day ..... $ 250.0 ............... ............................... .................. ............................Per Da $ 300.0 Pressuremeter Equipment - $250 Mobilization Plus ................................................................ ............................... ............................P D a y..... Additional Membranes ...................... Y $250.0 Each.....$ 100.0 Vane Shear E ui ent - $200 Mobilization Plus .................. Per Da $ 350.0 Down Borehole Nuclear Density Meter - $250 Mobilization Plus ...................................................... ............................... y..... Dutch Cone Ec(ui ment ................ ................Per Day.....$ 400.0 p ............................................................. ............................... Per Day y..... $ 250.0 Sinco Pneumatic Pore Pressure Indicator ........................ ............................... .......................... ............................... ............................Per Day ..... $ 60.O Geophysical Equipment Subsurface Interface Radar (SIR) With One Transducer - $250 Mobilization Plus .......................................... Per Da $ 600.0! Extra SIR Transducer ................... y..... Per Day/Transducer.....$ 100.0( Resistivity Equi ment p nhancement Seismograph ................... ................................................................................................................ ............................... ............................Per Day.....$ 150.tX Sin le Channel E Per Da $ 75.0( ...................................................................................... ............................... 6-Channel Refraction Seismograph ........................................................................................... ............................... ............................Per ay..... $ 350.0( Day 12- Channel Exploration Seismograph D ................... Electro Magnetic EM -31 and Data Logger - .........lization.. Plus ..................................... ............................... ............................Per Day ..... $ 500.0( g gg $150 Mobilization Plus ....:................................... ............................... HNU Volatile Organic Scanner ........................... .........................Per Day ..... $ 200.0( ..................... ................................................. ............................... ............................P Da $ 120.00 Vibration Equipment y..... Teleblast Vibration Monitor With Installation and Removal (Includes Report) 0 -1 Month ............................................................................... ............................... Per Month.....$1200.00 .............. ............................... 4 -3 Months ............................................................. ............................... Per Month ..... $ 900.00 -12 Months ....................... . ............................... ......•........last Per Month.....$ 750.00 ....................................................................... ............................... ............................ S Cellular Phone Communication for Teleblast ...................................................................... ............................... ............................Pe Month ..... $ 350.00 G teel Weather -Proof Enclosure for Teleblast ........................................................................ ............................... ............................Pe Month ..... $ 75.00 P eophone Calibrat ion ..................................................................................................................... ............................... ortable Seismographs ................................................................................. ............................... Each.....$ 50.00 Roll of Film ..................... Per Day ..... $ 250.00 ..................................................................................................... ............................... ............................ B and K Type 2515 Vibration Analyzer Per Roll ..... $ 100.00 .................................................... ............................... Per Da B and K Type 4370 Accelerator. y..... ZOU.UO $ Band K Recorder Control ................................................... ............................... ............................ ............................Per Day.....$ 50.00 ....................... ............................... ............................Per Day ..... $ 50.00 Load Test Equipment PileDriving Anal yzer ................................................................ ............................... Per Da $600.00 LVDT Load Test Monitoring Dial Indicators .................... y .........•..........• ........................................................ ............................... Per Dial Per Week.....$ 30.00 System w " " " " """""""" Y ( /3 LVDTs) ................................................................ ............................... ............................P Day.....$ 200.00 500 -Ton Capacity Load Cell with Readout Unit. Per Da $ 300.00 Special Testing Corrosion Study uipment: Accuderm Thiess Meter ................. CK -3 Rhorback Corrosometer (Rate of Corrosion) ........................................................................................ ............................... Per Da $ 65.00 Conductivit $ 65.00 ..................... Per Da Y ••••• Per Test.....$ 25.00 Four Pin Resistivity E ......•••.••• Equipment ............................................................ ............................... _ Per Da $ 30.W Miller Multi-Combination Miller Volt Met Multi-Combination ombination Meter ......................... ............................ ............................... y..... y..... Per Da $ 50.00 Polarization Box .............................. .. ............................... a $ 35.00 ................ .... ............................... Per D ..................Per Da y.... ..... ....................................................................................... ............................... $ 100.00 Downhole Videocamera Including Operator -$250 Mobilization Plus .................................... ............................... ......•.....................P Da 500.00 Observation Well Monitoring Equipment GasMeter .......................................... ............................... Per Da $ 50.00 ...................................................................................... ............................... PH Meter ....................... ............................... y..... Per Test ..... $ 12.00 Monitor Well Development & Pumping 4" Submersible Pump ........ ............................... Per Da $ 50.00 .................................................................... ............................... Submersible Pump y..... p ..................................................................................................................... ............................... Per Da $ 90.W 2" Submersible Pump y..... p ................................................................................................................. ............................... Per Da Generator ................................ ............................... ........................... y..... $ 190.00 ' ..................................................................... ............................... ............................P Da $ 70.W Day Stress - Strain Measurement Bison Soil Strain Gage Indicator.. ............................................................... ............................... Vibrating Wire Strain indicator Per Day.....$ 50.00 ............... ............................•. ............................ Per Da y,,,,,$ 75.00 MA4 Vishay train Indicator ................................................................................................................. ............................... Per Da y..... Carlson Gauge Readout .............................................................................................................................. ...........y.....$ 75.00 Data Acquisition System UPM- 60 .................... Per Day ......................... ............................... $ 75.00 ............... ............................Per Month..... $ 500.00 Note: All gages at cost plus 20% handling. On all equipment, unless indicated, a mobilization charge equal to the single daily rate will be added to cover set -up, equipment preparation, and calibration. The actual carrier cost to transport the equipment to and from the job site is not included in this charge and will be billed at cost plus 2090. GT5 6 *06/90 GEOSYNTHETIC LABORATORY SERVICES All ASTM and Regulatory Agency development tests available upon request. All unit prices are for individual routine tests performed under standard procedu do not require special equipment. The unit prices do not include engineering charges for supervision of laboratory testing programs and coordination ctw laboratory, project engineer, and the client. Also not included in the cost are data summarization, summary data plots, and engineering reports of test procedures and results. Therefore, additional engineering charges should be included in estimating total cost for all testing programs. This cost generally amounts to 20% to 30% of the total tasting program ($ 150 minimum), depending upon the scope and nature of the tests performed in the program. Geoteztile Physical Characteristics ( Basis Weight (Modified ASTM D- 3776)(lyd Specimen)[ 5] .............................................. ............................... Bulk Density (ASTM D -792 ............... Per Specimen ..... $ 10.00 )[5 ) ........................................................................... ............................... Per Specimen ..... $ 25.00 Apparent Opening Size[5](ASTM D-4751) } .................................................................... ............................... ............................Per Specimen ..... $ 40.00 (Corps of Engineers CW- 02251) ........................... ............................... Permittivity to Water (ASTM D-4491 5 ...................... ............................... ............................Per Specimen ..... $ 35.00 )[ ] ....................................................................... ............................... ............................P Specimen ..... $ 35.00 Permeability to Water (ASTM D- 4491)[5] .............. ....................................................................... ............................... ..Per Specimen ..... $ 40.00 Thickness (Modified ASTM D- 1777)92 Kilopascal Normal Load)[ 101 " " """ ........................ -4716 3 .................. ............................... ......Per Specimen ..... $ 10.00 Transmissivity (Lm -Plane Flow)(ASTM D "" (Specify Normal Load and Gradient )[ ] ............................................... ............................... .......................... Per Specimen.....$ 100.00 .................................................................................. ............................... ............................Per Test ..... $ 50.00 Geoteztile Strength Evaluation ( Abraded Strength (ASTM D- 3884)[5MD - 5CD] (Rotary Platform, Double Head Method, CS -17 Wheel, Specify Load and Number of Cycles) .................... ............................Per Test ...... $ 40.00 Modified Stolil Abrasion (ASTM D4886)(Specify Load and Number of Cycles) ................ .. Burst, Mullen (ASTM D- 3786)[ 101 ............................. ............................... ............................. ............................Per Test ....$ 45.00 Compressibility (ASTM - Proposed)[3] ............................. ............................Per Test. .... $ 10.00 Ultimate Load and Elongation at Failure ................. ............................... ............................ ............................... ............................Per Test ..... $ 50.00 With Load at 10% Elongation ...... ............................... ......................................................... ............................... .......................... Per Test ..... $ 60.00 With Load - Elongation Curve ..................... .................................... ............................... Proposed, 1000 hrs 1978 3 ................ ............................... ..................Per Test ..... $ 75.00 Creep Test (ASTM Pr °P )( )[ ] ................................................................... ............................... ............................Per Test ..... $ 5 Grab Strength and Elongation (ASTM D- 4632)[5MD - 8CD] Ultimate Load and Elongation at Failure .................... ........................................................... ............................... Per Test ..... $ With Load at 10% Elongation ...... ............................... ......................... ...................................................................... ............................... Per Test ..... $ 25.00 With Load - Elongation Curve ........................ '. "" " """ Per Test ..... $ 35.00 Puncture Strength (Modified ASTM D- 4833)[5] Using5116" Diameter Beveled Tipped Rod ....................................................................................... ............................... ......Per Test ..... $ 15.00 D- 4533)[lOMD - l0CD Trapezoidal Tear Strength (ASTM " " "' Seam Strength (ASTM D-4884)[51 ] .................................................. ............................... ............................P Test ..... $ 15.00 .............................. ............................................................. ............................... ............................P Test ..... $ 50.00 Tensile Strength and Elongation 2 -Inch Strip or Raveled Strip (ASTM D- 1682)[5MD - 8CD] Ultimate Load and Elongation at Failure ............................... ....................................................................... ............................... Per Test ..... $ 25.00 Plus Load at 10% Elongation .......................................................................................................... ............................... With Load - Elongation Curve ........ ............................... .................Per Test ..... $ 25.00 Wide -Width Tensile Strength •••• Per Test.....$ 35.00 ASTM D-4595 - 8 -Inch Wide and 4 -Inch Long [6MD - 6CD] Ultimate Load and Elongation at Failure ................. Load and Secant Modulus at 1030 Elongation. .................................................................. ............................... ............................Per Test ..... $ 50.00 ............................................................. ............................... ......Per Test.....$ 60.00 With Load Elongation Curve ................ " ".. " "' "" Other Widths Available Upon Request " " " " " "" " Per Test ..... $ 70.00 Geomembrane Strength Evaluation Geomembrane Seam Shear Strength (ASTM D4437)[ 51 ................... ............................... Geomembrane Seam Peel Adhesion (ASTM D -4437 5 """""' " " " " " "' "' " " """""""""'.•.•••.•.• Per Specimen ..... $ 15.00 )[ ) ............................................... ............................... ............................Per Specimen ..... $ 15.00 Geomembrane Tensile Strength (ASTM D- 638)[ 5] .............. ............................... Per S Geomembrane Modulus 5 ................................. ............................... pecimen ..... $ 15.00 ASTM D -582 )[ ] .................................................................... ............................... ............................ Specimen ..... $ 15.00 Chemical and Biological ................................................. ............................... .. Upon Request Note: ( Physical and strength characterization testing by the above procedures requires multiple specimen tests. [*] indicates the minimum number of tests recommended by the referenced procedure. (2) For special modification to prevent specimens from slipping in the clamp (i e. gluing of high - strength specimens), add $50 per test. GT6 _ 6 *06/'90 Sotl- Geosynthetic Systems California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Soil Fabric System (Includes Compaction Test, & CBR of Soil- Geoteztile System) ................. ............................... ............................Per Moisture Content ..... $ 750.00 Direct Shear - Soil-Fabric Friction Angie (Modified Corps of Engineers EM 1110 ) ............................ ............................Per Normal Load ..... $ 200.00 Direct Shear - Soil-Fabric Friction Angle (ASTM Proposed: 12 "z12" Specimen) . ............................... ............................Per Normal Load ..... $ 250.00 Soil Burial Resistance, ASTM D -3083, NSF Modified, 30 Days Burial Only 1 Sample Buried at a Time ............................................................................................................... ............................... .....................Each.....$ 150.00 2 Samples Buried at a Time ............................................................................................................. ............................... .....................Each.....$ 75.00 3 Samples Buried at a Time ............................................................................................................. ............................... .....................Each.....$ 55.00 4 Samples Blrried at a Time ............................................................................................................. ............................... .....................Each.....$ 50.00 Permeability - ( ) Gradient Ratio Method (ASTM Proposed) ........ ............................... ............................Per Specimen, Gradient, Density and Soil Type ..... $ 500.00 In -Plane Flow (ASTM D -4716) Soil Composite System ......................................... ............................... ............................Set Up Charge ..... $ 150.00 (Specify Normal Load and Gradient) .................................................................................. ............................... ............................Per Test ..... $ 50.00 Pullout Shear - Granular Soils (Cohesive Soils On Request) ................................... ............................... ............................Per Normal Load ..... $ 450.00 Virginia Flume Test (VHTRC Silt Fence Simulation Test) ................................................... ............................... ................First Specimen ..... $ 300.00 ....................... ............................... ...........................Each Additional Specimen ..... $ 150.00 Asphalt Retention (Task Force 25)( 2) ............................................................................. ............................... ............................Per Specimen.....$ 350.00 Note: (I) Additional gradient at $50 per gradient. Does not include soil characterization. For permeability versus time relations, add $30 per week plus equipment rental of $50 per week - Note: Gradient ratio price includes one week. (Z ) Additional charge for grab strength testing of treated specimens. GT7 6*06/90 l� STS Consultants Ltd. Consulting Engineers 3650 Annapolis Lane Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/13/9 Agenda kem Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION RELATING TO MNDOT STUDY OF I -94 BETWEEN BROOKLYN BOULEVARD AND I -494 DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP, {IECTO OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes ) t Attached are the following documents: o A June 12, 1990 letter from MNDOT advising us that they will be conducting "project development" for a proposed third lane addition to I- 94/694 between Brooklyn Boulevard (in Brooklyn Center) and I -494 (in Maple Grove) in the near future; and o A June 28, 1990 response to that letter. As noted in the letter to MNDOT, City staff believes that there is a serious congestion problem on Brooklyn Boulevard between 65th and 69th Avenues, that no satisfactory plan has yet been developed to deal with that issue, and that the possible development of an interchange at I94/694 and Zane Avenue (in Brooklyn Park) offers some promise of relief to the Brooklyn Boulevard problems. To reinforce the City's request for a solution to this problem, a draft resolution is submitted for consideration by the City Council. City Council Action Required Consideration of the resolution. �e Member introduced the followin g resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO MNDOT STUDY OF I -94 BETWEEN BROOKLYN BOULEVARD AND I -494 WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation ( MNDOT) has initiated a project development study relating to the improvement of Interstate Highway 94 (I -94) between Brooklyn Boulevard in Brooklyn Center and I -494 in Maple Grove; and WHEREAS, heavy volumes of traffic entering and exiting from I -94 at the Brooklyn Boulevard (CSAH 152) interchange create serious traffic congestion and high accident problems, especially on Brooklyn Boulevard (CSAH 152) between 65th and 69th Avenues North; and WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Council that the project development study for I -94 can and should include the development of design alternatives which w' � hic ill resolve the congestion and high accident problems on g g P Brooklyn Boulevard; and that one possible alternative is the construction of an interchange at I -94 and Zane Avenue in the City of Brooklyn Park. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. MNDOT is hereby requested to include into its project development study for I -94 the development of design alternatives including the alternative of constructing an interchange at the intersection of I -94 and Zane Avenue in the City of Brooklyn Park which will resolve the congestion and high- accident problem on Brooklyn Boulevard (CSAH 152) between 65th and 69th Avenues North. 2. the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to forward this request to MNDOT's Metropolitan area District Engineer, to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, and to the Mayors of Brooklyn Park and Maple Grove, and to the Metropolitan Council, along with requests for their support of - this request. Date Mayor ATTEST: , Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. S Or4 Minnesota Department of Transportation g Vko l Met ropolitan District Transportation Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Oakdale Office, 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota 55128 Golden Valley Office, 2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 Reply to 593 -8535 Telephone No. June 12, 1990 Mr. Sy Knapp Director of Public Works City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 IN RE: S.P. 2786 -93 (I -94) Third Lane Addition. Brooklyn Boulevard to I -494 Dear Sy: As I've mentioned to you previously, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has begun the project develop - ment for the above referenced project. State Project 2786 -93 will involve construction of an additional lane in each direction of I -94 between Brooklyn Boulevard and the junction with I -494. This will also include complete reconstruction of the TH 169 interchange and :modification/ reconstruction of other interchanges along this segment. This project has a construction letting date of December 17, 1993. We are now in the process of preparing geometric layouts and the necessary environmental project documentation. As this work continues, I will keep you informed of the progress on the project. If you have any concerns about this project or require any additional information, please call me at the above number. Thank vou. Sincerely, Steve Hav `�P . E . Project Manager, Preliminary Design 1990 An Equal Opportunity Emplover i CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF :BYR OOKLYN � BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 June 28, 1990 Mr. Steve Hay, P.E. MNDOT/Metro District 2055 North Lilac Drive Golden Valley, MN 55422 RE: S.P. 2786 -93 (I -94) Third Lane Addition Brooklyn Boulevard to I -94 Dear Steve, In response to your June 12, 1990 letter, please be advised that the major issue relating to the proposed project which affects Brooklyn Center is the need to reduce congestion on Brooklyn Boulevard between 65th and 69th Avenue. In our discussions with MNDOT and with Hennepin County to date, no satisfactory plan has been developed to deal with that problem. Accordingly, we request that your project development study will include consideration of a full- access or half- diamond (to the east) interchange at Zane Avenue in Brooklyn Park. While we recognize that the Brooklyn Park City Council may object to the development of such an interchange, I wish to note that Brooklyn Park's Comprehensive Plan shows construction of an interchange at that location. It is also noted that an August, 1988 report from Brooklyn Park's "Toward The Year 2010" Futures Committee includes the recommendation that "Applications should be made to the Metropolitan Council and to MNDOT for an interchange at Zane Avenue and Interstate 94". As noted above, Brooklyn Center's primary interest is in resolving the problems which exist on Brooklyn Boulevard. If some other solution can be found to resolve those problems, we will have no interest in promoting the construction of an interchange at Zane Avenue. However, since this will obviously be the only real opportunity to address this issue in the foreseeable future, we do request that all alternatives be explored. June 28, 1990 Page Two I will be happy to participate in the project development process for this very important improvement. Yours very truly, Sy Knapp Director of Public Works SK /j g cc: Neil Johnson, Director of Public Works, Brooklyn Park G. G. Splinter, City Manager, Brooklyn Center I -94 /Brooklyn Boulevard West file CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/13/90 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERORMED FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1990 -18, WELL NO. 5 REPAIRS DEPT. APPROVAL: ` SY KNAPP DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached At the regular meeting of July 23, 1990, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 90 -154, which approved a contract for emergency repairs to Well No. 5. The • emergency repairs have been completed and payment is now being requested. The construction costs of these repairs, as invoiced by Keys Well Drilling Co., have amounted to $21,822.25. This is $1,810.75 less than the original estimate, due to an over - estimation of sand removal. It is requested that the Council approve final payment in the amount of $21,822.25 City Council Action Required Adopt the attached resolution. i 9� Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -18 - WELL NO. 5 REPAIRS WHEREAS, pursuant to a contract for Improvement Project 1990 -18, with the City of Brooklyn Center, Keys Well Drilling Company has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: WELL NO. 5 REPAIRS NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed for Well No. 5 repairs is accepted and approved. 2. It is hereby directed that final payment be made, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $21,822.25. 3. Payment for said improvements will be made from the Public Utility Fund. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/13/9 Agenda Item Number q G� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED SHADE TREES DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP, - LECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) The attached resolution represents the official Council action required to expedite removal of the trees most recently marked by the City tree inspector, in accordance with approved procedures. It is anticipated that this resolution will be submitted for Council consideration each meeting during the summer and fall as new trees are marked. Recommendation It is recommended the Council adopt the attached resolution. r Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED SHADE TREES (ORDER NO. DST 08/13./90) WHEREAS, a Notice to Abate Nuisance and Shade Tree Removal Agreement has been issued to the owners of certain properties in the City of Brooklyn Center giving the owners twenty (20) days to remove shade trees on the owners' property; and WHEREAS, the City can expedite the removal of these shade trees by declaring them a public nuisance: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The shade trees at the following addresses are hereby declared to be a public nuisance. PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY ADDRESS TREE NUMBER JEFF BURMEISTER 5406 OLIVER AVE. N. 401 IND. SCHOOL DIST.286 5900 HUMBOLDT AVE N 402 RICHARD CAMERON 5527 DUPONT AVE N 403 SUBURBAN HENN. PARKS 5524 LYNDALE AVE N 404 FREDERICK BAUER 5255 E. TWIN LK BLVD 405 PHILLIP COMMERS 5361 NORTHPORT DR. 406 KEVIN /CINDY WHELAN 3310 50TH AVE. N. 407 RANDAL /RUTH GEROLD 6231 LEE AVE. N. 408 MELISSA DONKERS 6230 LEE AVE. N. 409 JOHN & MILLEE LILJA 6218 LEE AVE. N. 410 DOUGLAS WHITE 4406 65TH AVE. N. 411 HARVEY JOHNSON 6418 NOBLE AVE. N. 412 GERALD RAMALEY 6425 NOBLE AVE. N. 413 DARLENE WOLFE 6407 JUNE AVE. N. 414 ALLISON ITTEL 4618 WINCHESTER LA. 415 ARTHUR HOVDE 4206 WINCHESTER LA. 416 PHILIP & CAROL DELL 4318 66TH AVE. N. 417 PHILIP & CAROL DELL 4318 66TH AVE. N. 418 HERBERT /NANCY EHLERT 4406 66TH AVE. N. 419 ROGER /NANCY MATTSON 6419 ORCHARD AVE. N. 420 RICHARD ROERING 6412 ORCHARD AVE. N. 421 WILLIAM JANDRO 6029 EMERSON AVE. N. 422 TIMOTHY L. ROCKERS' 7208 FREMONT AVE N 423 CITY OF B.C. CO.RD.10 /JUNE 424 WILLIAM G. SWANSON 5737 JUNE AVE N 425 PERRY /SHARON MILLER 3806 58TH AVE. N. 426 BOBBIE ROBINSON 5906 ADMIRAL LANE 427 DWIGHT LAMKE 6005 ADMIRAL PLACE 428 THOMAS NARDI 5901 HALIFAX AVE. N. 429 INTHISONE /INTHARATH 5924 JUNE AVE. N. 430 STEPHEN NELSON 821 69TH AVE. N. 431 RESOLUTION NO. PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY ADDRESS TREE NUMBER ELSIE KOWITZ 5118 65TH AVE N 432 RAYMOND ECKHOFF 6400 PERRY AVE 433 RAYMOND ECKHOFF 6400 PERRY AVE 434 KENNETH COUTIER 6312 PERRY AVE 435 KENNETH COUTIER 6312 PERRY AVE 436 DONALD BLOM 6301 BROOKLYN BLVD 437 JEFFREY RACETTE 5563 HUMBOLDT AVE 438 LESTER /HOLLY WELCH 5321 GIRARD AVE N 439 THERESA WINGERT 6050 NORTH LILAC DR 440 LOIS ISENBERG 6009 ALDRICH AVE 441 NICHOLAS EOLOFF 6015 ALDRICH AVE 442 RAYMOND CANNON 2219 ERICON DR 443 DANIEL ADAMS 2319 ERICON DR 444 JAMES BAUMGARTNER 6844 COLFAX AVE N 445 TIM & TRACY MARCHAND 6116 CAMDEN AVE 446 ROBERT LORVICK 5205 E. TWIN LK BLVD 447 CHARLES VOELTZ 4406 WINCHESTER LN 448 JOHN TRAUTMANN 2919 64TH AVE N 449 LESTER /HOLLY WELCH 5321 GIRARD AVE N 450 ROGER DUSBABEK 5400 LOGAN AVE. N. 451 GERALD CROSBY 6730 5TH ST. N. 452 MNDOT /DISTRICT 5 STATE PROPERTY 453 ROBERT O'DONNELL 720 69TH AVE. N. 454 ROBERT /JULIE WINKLER 6006 COLFAX AVE. N. 455 MILDRED AARSVOLD 5900 FREMONT AVE. N. 456 MILDRED AARSVOLD 5900 FREMONT AVE. N. 457 RONALD /RUTH SHODEEN 5448 DUPONT AVE. N. 458 WM. /GWEN WELLNER, JR 5444 DUPONT AVE. N. 459 RONALD /RUTH SHODEEN 5448 DUPONT AVE N 460 ALI /TARYN GALEHDARI 5519 COLFAX AVE. N. 461 BETTY PUMARLO 5643 COLFAX AVE. N. 462 MAYNARD ERICKSON 5624 DUPONT AVE. N. 463 GORDON /JUDY JOHNSON 5713 COLFAX AVE. N. 464 DALE WEGNER 5935 DUPONT AVE N 465 JOHNNY BROWN, JR. 5813 KNOX AVE. N. 466 WILLIAM DIRNBERGER 2200 ERICON AVE. N. 467 JEFFREY ERICKSON 5607 JUDY LANE 468 HENRY KEEHN 6500 ORCHARD AVE. N. 469 FRANCES LUNACEK 5211 XERXES AVE. N. 470 JAMES /MARY ALMAGE 3715 50TH AVE. N. 471 WILLIAM ZIESKA 5455 BROOKLYN BLVD. 472 WM. ZIESKA 5455 BROOKLYN BLVD. 473 STEVEN JUNCESKI 5231 66TH AVE. N. 474 DENNIS OLSON 5443 LOGAN AVE. N. 475 JEFFREY KJELDAHL 5905 CAMDEN AVE. N. 476 HAROLD NIELSEN 5901 ALDRICH AVE N 477 WM. ST. GERMAINE 5907 ALDRICH AVE N. 478 NANCY JOHNSON 5933 ALDRICH AVE N 479 MICHAEL VITA 4200 JANET LANE 480 KEITH OLSON 4107 JANET LANE 481 RONALD JOHNSON 6531 CHOWEN AVE. 482 RESOLUTION NO. PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY ADDRESS TREE NUMBER MICHAEL /R'LOU HENRY 6532 DREW AVE. 483 ROSCOE THULEEN 6217 SCOTT AVE. N. 484 BRADLEY HOUSTON 5312 62ND AVE. N. 485 BRADLEY HOUSTON 5312 62ND AVE. N. 486 BRADLEY HOUSTON 5312 62ND AVE. N. 487 PHILLIP CROWLEY 5012 HOWE LANE 488 ELSIE KOWITZ 5118 65TH AVE. N. 489 EUGENE /WM. HOFFMAN 5451 E. TWIN LK BLVD 490 BEN LONG 4911 BROOKLYN BLVD. 491 VIRGIL BOHLIN 7131 GRIMES AVE N 493 JAMES /AGATHA ECKMAN 5350 IRVING AVE N 494 JAMES /AGATHA ECKMAN 5350 IRVING AVE N 495 DONALD MORTENSON 4612 65TH AVE N 496 BETTY THELANDER 5906 DUPONT AVE N 497 MICHAEL /JILL JOHNSON 6007 COLFAX AVE N 498 WILLIAM SKOWRONEK 7225 HALIFAX AVE N 499 CITY OF B. C. 4720 WINGARD LANE 500 CITY OF B. C. 4720 WINGARD LANE 501 B.C.UNITED METHODIST 7200 BROOKLYN BLVD 502 2. After twenty (20) days from the date of the notice, the property owners will receive a second written notice that will give them (5) business days in which to contest the determination of City Council by requesting a hearing in writing. Said request shall be filed with the City Clerk. 3. After five (5) days, if the property owner fails to request a hearing, the tree(s) shall be removed by the City. 4. All removal costs, including legal, financing and administrative charges, shall be specially assessed against the property. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following g voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. y P P CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/13/90 Agenda Item Number . REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING RETIREMENT HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM DEPT. APPROVAL: Personnel Coordinator Signature itle MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _) Attached is a proposed resolution that will extend the retiree health insurance program for City employees. Resolution No. 86 -67 expires on December 31, 1990; the proposed resolution would extend the program through 1995. The basic change from the existing program to the proposed program is a provision that would allow retired employees who move out of state to continue participation in the program (see section 3 of the proposed resolution). There are twelve currently active employees who would qualify for the program. As with the existing program, funding as proposed will be generated from the City of Brooklyn Center's Employees' Retirement Fund, a fund established when the City moved from a self- funded retirement system to participation in the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA). The annual interest earned by this fund will more than cover the cost of the proposed program. City Attorney Charlie LeFevere has reviewed the resolution before the city council and made any necessary changes to it. The City's health care providers have also been contacted for their scrutiny of the program, and their comments were considered during the development of the proposal. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Pass a Resolution Establishing Retirement Health Insurance Program. • C/ Y Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING RETIREMENT HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Brooklyn Center that retiring employees have available to them at their option a quality health insurance program; and WHEREAS, the City's employee health insurance coverage requires the City to contribute at least the amount of single coverage for a retired employee to continue eligibility for coverage under the group plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the City of Brooklyn Center establish a Retirement Health Insurance Program with the following provisions: 1. Qualified employees shall have the option of retaining membership in the City of Brooklyn Center's employee health insurance plan for which the City will pay the single person premium until such time as the retiree is eligible for Medicare coverage or at age sixty -five (65), whichever is sooner. If the retiree desires to continue family coverage, and if such coverage is available under the City's policies, the additional cost for family coverage shall be paid monthly by the retiree to the City of Brooklyn Center. 2. To qualify under this program, an employee, on the day f his/her /h er retirement, must meet eligibility requirements for a full retirement annuity under PERA or PERA Police without reduction of benefits because of age. In addition, to be eligible for this program an employee must have been employed full -time by the City of Brooklyn Center for the last ten (10) consecutive years prior to the effective date of his/her retirement. Employees participate in this program on a voluntary basis. 3. Eligible employees, as described in Section 2 of this resolution, who become disqualified from participation under the policies of the City's health insurance carriers because of a move out of the service area of such carriers, may elect to continue participation in this program as follows. The employee may recommend to the City an insurance carrier providing health insurance in the area to which the employee has moved. Upon approval of the carrier by the City, qualification for coverage by the employee and submission of any additional information reasonably required by the City, the City will make monthly payments to the carrier on behalf of the employee for premiums for such, policy up to the amount paid by the City for the lowest single person premium of the City's employee health insurance plans at the time of payment. Any additional amount required shall be paid by the eligible employee. Eligible employees electing this option must prove residence in a non- covered geographic area and must submit a written notice of election to the City Manager on a form provided by the City. Once an eligible employee has been removed RESOLUTION N0, from coverage under the City's group health insurance plans pursuant to such an election, the employee may not thereafter reenter the group and will not be covered under the City's group policies. 4. The City Manager is authorized to administer the Retirement Health Insurance Program and to fund this program from the City of Brooklyn Center's Employees' Retirement Fund until such funds are depleted, at which time the program will be funded from the General Fund. 5. The provisions of this resolution shall apply only to employees retiring on or before December 15, 1995. 6. In the event the City discontinues providing group health insurance coverage for active employees, all benefits provided for in this resolution will also be discontinued. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 86 -67 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING RETIREMENT HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Brooklyn Center that retiring employees have available to them at their option a quality health insurance program; and WHEREAS, the Cityrs employee health insurance coverage requires the City to contribute at least the amount of single coverage for a retired employee to continue eligibility for coverage under the group plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the City of Brooklyn Center establish a Retirement Health Insurance Program with the following provisions: 1. Qualified employees shall have the option of retaining membership in the City of Brooklyn Center's employee health insurance plan for which the City will pay the single person premium until such time as the retiree is _ eligible for Medicare coverage or at age sixty -five (65), whichever is sooner. If the retiree desires to continue family coverage, the additional cost for family coverage shall be paid monthly by the retiree to the City of Brooklyn Center. 2. To qualify under this program, an employee, on the day of his /her retirement, must meet eligibility requirements for a full retirement annuity under PERA or PERA Police without reduction of benefits because of age. In addition, to be eligible for this program an employee must have been employed by the City of Brooklyn Center for the last ten (10) consecutive years prior to the effective date of his /her retirement. Employees participate in this program on a voluntary basis. 3. the City Manager is authorized to administer the Retirement Healt1T Insurance Program and to fund this program from the City of Brooklyn Center's Employees' Retirement Fund until such funds are depleted, at which time the program will be funded from the General Fund. 4. The provisions of this resolution shall expire on December 31, 1990 unless extended by the City Council prior to that date. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -67 April 21, 1986 Date May ATTEST • The motion for the adoption'of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyqui.st, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. K CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date E1 V� Agenda hem Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE OF A DOT MATRIX PRINTER ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: BARBARA A. GALLO, MIS COORDINATOR MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached The Department has need to purchase an Okidata 390 Dot Matrix printer for the Payroll Technician's computer workstation. The printer that was connected to this workstation is no longer working and is not repairable. The cost for the printer and cable is estimated to be $470. It is recommended that the Council approve the purchase of this printer, utilizing $490 of surplus Division 20 (Data Processing) capital outlay funds. Action Required A resolution is provided for Council consideration. • n Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE OF A DOT MATRIX PRINTER WHEREAS, the Finance Department has determined that purchase of a dot matrix printer and cable are needed at this time for the Payroll Technician's computer workstation because the existing printer is no longer working and is not repairable; and WHEREAS, the City's Management Information Systems Coordinator estimates that such a printer and cable would cost approximately $490; and WHEREAS, sufficient funds are available in the Data Processing Division 1990 capital outlay budget for this purchase. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The sum of $490 is appropriated from Object #4551, Division 20 for the purpose of purchase of a dot matrix printer and cable. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the followin g g voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. y P P J Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING SURPLUS PROPER BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the following items are hereby declared surplus: Diablo 630 printer, fixed asset #10299; NEC Spinwriter 7715 printer, fixed asset #10287; and NEC Spinwriter 3515 printer, fixed asset #10286. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to dispose of the property either through the auction process or sales of scrap material. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN HENNEPIN COUNTY AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR THE YEAR XVI URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has executed a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County for the purpose of participating in the 1990 (Year XVI) Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County is the recipient of an annual grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for purposes of the program and the City is subrecipient of those funds; and WHEREAS, program regulations require that the City and County execute a Subrecipient Agreement which sets forth the specific implementation processes for activities to be undertaken with program funds. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Brooklyn Center City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and the City Manager to execute the Subrecipient Agreement, County Contract Number A05430, on behalf of the City. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date Agenda hem Number ! h REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE OF FAX MACHINE AND COMPUTER WORKSTATION AND AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM DRUG FORFEITURE MONIES *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature - le - J me s Lindsay, C ie of Police MANAGER'S R /RECOMMENDATION: = IV No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached yes ) In the past, the department has purchased two major items with drug forfeiture monies. These were the portable radios for each officer and the new 9 mm semi- automatic handguns. The police department currently has $17,867.27 in drug forfeiture monies available. Part of this money was to be used for training for the officers' transition to the 9 mm weapons. The department proposes to purchase two items with part of these - funds. First, we would like to purchase a new plain paper fax machine. The current fax machine would then be moved upstairs for easier access by other city departments. We propose a plain paper fax machine for two main reasons. First, we receive a number of reports from other police agencies which are required to become part of our case files. All of these items must be recopied as the thermal copies are not permanent. The copies off the plain paper fax could become a part of the record and would eliminate the extra step. Also, when we arrest a party who is unable to show proof of their identity, we must hold them until we can positively identify them. Many of these individuals have booking photos on file with Hennepin County. The County will fax us a copy which we can use for identification. On some individuals, especially those with very dark skin and /or beards, the photos are unrecognizable. We must • then send an officer down to retrieve a copy of the photo and drive it back for identification. The fax machine requested has the capability of coloring 64 levels of gray which allows for much better quality of these photos and saves the time of driving down to retrieve a photo: The department also proposes to purchase a computer workstation. This workstation would enable the Administrative Aide and the Social Services Coordinator to each • have a station to work on for the remainder of the year. We find they both have numerous projects which need a workstation to complete. They are currently attempting to share the one station which creates problems. Also, the Social Services Coordinator would be able to complete her projects in her office instead of having to run over to the police department to have any word processing done. A workstation has been requested in the 1991 budget for the dispatch area for the typing of police reports. In the event the Social Services Coordinator is not funded in the 1991 budget, the new workstation could be transferred into dispatch at that time. These items come to a total of $9,500.00 which is broken down on the attached sheet. The remainder of the money, approximately $8,400.00 would then be earmarked for use in training time for officers' transition to 9 mm semi - automatics. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the resolution authorizing the purchase of the fax machine and computer workstation from drug forfeiture funds and authorize the transfer of funds. • • ITEMS FOR PURCHASE WITH FORFEITURE MONIES AUGUST 1990 One (1) Plain Paper Fax Machine: Canon L770 Cut Sheet Plain Paper Fax $3,995 One (1) Computer Workstation: 1 386 SX Microcomputer $2 1 HP LaserJet Series III Printer 1,501 1 ProCollection Font Cartridge 188 1 Cable 8 Word Processing & Spreadsheet Software 560 1 stand with casters 500 TOTAL REQUEST $9,500 �L Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1990 GENERAL FUND BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING FORFEITED PROPERTY FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE FAX MACHINE AND ONE COMPUTER WORKSTATION FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, Section 7.08 of the City Charter does provide for the increase of a budget appropriation by the City Council if the actual receipts exceed the estimates, but not to exceed the actual receipts; and WHEREAS, 1988 Laws of Minnesota C.665 provides for seizure and forfeiture of property used in commission of crime and proceeds of crime and contraband; and WHEREAS, said laws require that said property kept under said laws may be used only in the performance of official duties of the appropriate agency and may not be used for any other purpose; and WHEREAS, 70% of the sale of the property may be used by the Brooklyn Center Police Department as a supplement to its operating fund for use in law enforcement; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by the adoption of Resolution No. 88 -195 on November 21, 1988, did authorize the Director of Finance to appropriate said proceeds to the Police Department Budget as they are received to the extent that when said proceeds exceed five thousand dollars in any calendar year then said excess will be reported to the City Council for its appropriation; and WHEREAS, there is currently $9,500 available from forfeiture monies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to authorize the purchase of the following equipment for the Police Department: One Plain Paper Fax Machine $3,995 One Computer Workstation $5,505 _ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to amend the 1990 General Fund Budget as follows: Increase the Appropriations for the following line item: -------------------------------------------------------- Police Department Other Equipment Account No. 4552 $9,500 Increase Estimated Revenues for the following line item: -------------------------------------------------------- Forfeited Drug Money Account No. 3897 $9,500 Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meetin Date 8 -13 -90 Agenda Item Number /D'C!/ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION a ITEM DESCRIPTION: Adoption of new State Building Code Revisions to Section 3 -101 of City Ordinance DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: / ti Signature - title Direct of P1 rfi ng nd Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /REC MMENDATION: ` No comments to supplement this report oAmments elow /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Update City Building Code references to coincide with State Building Code adopted in Jul 1 0 Y� 99 . MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald Splinter, City Manager FROM: Clay Larson, Building Official DATE: 8 July 90 SUBJECT: Adoption of State Building Code The revision of Section 3 -101 is necessary because the State of Minnesota has a revised building code that includes updated versions of many national codes. This revised code was adopted on 9 July 90. A model adoptive ordinance was provided by the State Building Codes Division and was used as a basis for the ordinance revision. Two items within the code which are new and possibily need further explanation are as follows: 1. Chapter 1346- Uniform Mechanical Code (UMC) This is a nationally recognized mechanical code, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, that replaces the State Mechanical Code. Enforcement is mandatory. 2. Chapter 1305.6905 Special Fire Suppression Systems with p pp Y option item 11 8 " This is an amendment to Uniform Building Code section 3808 and provides for a much more comprehensive use of fire sprinklers in the city than is now in force under the provisions of the Fire Dept. ordinance. It requires that buildings be sprinklered based on occupancy rather than zoning district as currently provided. Two occupancies which would be effected are multi - family dwellings and churches. These occupancies are usually not covered because the "R" zoning districts are not included in the Fire Dept. provisions. Provisions of this chapter are not retroactive and are supported for adoption by the Fire Chief. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 19 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway to consider an amendment to Chapter 3 regarding the Minnesota State Building Code. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 3 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended by the repeal in the following manner: Section 3 -101. [ADOPTION OF THE MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE. The City of Brooklyn Center hereby adopts by reference those State Regulations 2MCAR 1.10101 through 2MCAR 1.18901 collectively known as the Minnesota State Building Code, filed with the Secretary of State and the Commissioner of Administration on September 9, 1980. [The following codes are adopted by reference as part of the 1980 Minnesota State Building Code: A. 1979 Edition of the Uniform Building Code, identified as the "UBC". B. 1978 National Electric Code, identified as "NEC ". C. 1978 American National Standard Safety Code for elevators, dumbwaiters, escalators, and moving walks, identified as "ANSI A17.1 1978, and supplements ANSI A17.12 1979 ". D. 1979 Minnesota Plumbing Code, identified as "MHD 120 through MHD 135 ". E. Flood Proofing Regulations (FPR) , Office of the Chief Engineers, U. S. Army. F. 1975 Edition of the One and Two Family Dwelling Code. ORDINANCE NO. G. 1976 Edition of the Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Code, identified as SBC 7101 through SEC 8505. H. The following andator appendices, annexes an g Y PP , d supplemental material listed in this code. 1. Minnesota State Building Code, Appendix " A " , identified as "Technical Requirements for Fallout Shelters ", (applying only to State - owned buildings). 2. Minnesota State Building Code, Appendix "B ", identified as "Variation in Snow Loads ". 3. 1979 UBC Appendix, Chapter 35, identified as "Sound Transmission Control ". 4. Minnesota Plumbing Code, Appendix "B ", identified as "Plumbing Illustrations ". [Three copies of the 1980 Minnesota State Building Code shall be on file and available for inspection in the Office face of the City Clerk. Those regulations combined with the provisions of this Chapter of the City Ordinances shall hereinafter be known as the "Building Code ".] Section 2. Chapter 3 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended by the addition of the following: Section 3 -101. Building Code The Minnesota State Building Code, established pursuant to MN Stat 16B.59 to 16B.73, one copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk is hereby adopted as the building code for the City of Brooklyn Center. Such code is hereby incorporated in this ordinance as completely as if set out in full A. The following chapters are adopted by reference as part of the 1990 Minnesota State Building Code. 1. Chapter 1300 - Code Administration 2. Chapter 1301 - Certification and Continuing Education of Building Officials 3. Chapter 1302 - Building Construction and State Tgency Construction Rules ORDINANCE NO. 4. Chapter 1305 - Adoption of the 1988 Uniform Building Code by Reference The 1987 ANSI A 17.1 Code for Elevators and Related Devices is an amendment to Chapter 51 of the UBC and no longer found in SBC Rule 1320. a. Required Provisions - UBC Appendix Chapter 35 Sound Transmission Control 5. Chapter 1315 - Electrical Code 6. Chapter 1325 - Solar Energy Systems 7. Chapter 1330 - Technical Requirements for Fallout Shelters 8. Chapter 1335 - Floodproofing Regulations (when required) 9. Chapter 1340 - Facilities for the Handicapped 10. Chapter 1346 - Minnesota Uniform Mechanical Code 1990 Edition 11. Chapter 1350 - Manufactured Home Rules 12. Chapter 1355 - Plumbing Code - Administrative Rule 4715 13. Chapter 1360 - Prefabricated Structures 14. Chapter 1365 - Variation of Snow Loads 15. Chapter 1370 - Model Energy Code- - Administrative Rule 7670 16. Chapter 1305.0150 Subpart 2 a. UBC Appendix Chapters 1, 12 Division 1 26, 38, 55, and 70 17. Chapter 1305.6905 special fire suppression systems with option 3808 (c) 8 18. Chapter 1310 - Building Security ORDINANCE NO. 19. Chapter 1335 - Floodproofina Regulations Parts 1335.0200 to 1335.3100, and FPR Sections 200.2 to 1405.3 Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 19 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted underline indicates new matter). ,! A MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION JULY 26, 1990 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Pro tem Lowell Ainas at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Pro tem Lowell Ainas, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace Bernards, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. It was noted that Chairperson Molly Malecki had stated that she would be unable to attend and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 12, 1990 Commissioner Bernards pointed out that a statement attributed to him on page 5 of the July 12 minutes should probably have been attributed to Commissioner Johnson. Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Bernards to approve the minutes of the July 12, 1990 Planning Commission meeting as corrected. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Ainas, Commissioners Bernards, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Sander. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 90015 (Teasdale and Associates) Following the Chairman Pro tem's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for variance approval to allow more than 100 of the Garden City Court Apartment project units to be three - bedroom units following a conversion of 24 two - bedroom units to 16 three - bedroom units. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90015 attached). The Secretary added, during his presentation of the report, that there is a question of whether the large rental units demanded should be provided by apartments or by single - family homes. He stated that the question before the Commission is a comprehensive question, involving housing and social policy, as well as zoning policy. He recommended that this issue be addressed in the City's forthcoming housing plan. He stated that the Commission did not need to act on an ordinance amendment at this evening's meeting. He concluded by stating that he did not believe the proposal met the standards for a variance, especially the standard of uniqueness. 7 -26 -90 1 Regarding the last two recommendations in the staff report, Chairman Pro tem Ainas asked whether the Housing Implementation Plan would go to the Housing Commission first. The Secretary responded that the Housing Commission has already recommended an implementation plan and that one aspect of that plan was to look at conflicts with the City's current zoning Ordinance. He stated that it would be the job of the Planning Commission to review those conflicts in the future as well. Commissioner Bernards expressed appreciation for the staff's work on this difficult question. Commissioner Mann asked how many nonconforming situations would be created if the 750 sq. ft. land area surcharge were adopted for three - bedroom units. The Secretary answered that there shouldn't be any, but that it would affect future conversions. The Planner noted that 5500 Bryant Avenue North is a three - bedroom apartment complex with insufficient land area. Chairman Pro tem Ainas asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Teasdale responded in the negative. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 90015) Chairman Pro tem Ainas informed the people present that although there are concerns about the possible tenant mix that would result from a conversion of units to three - bedroom units in this complex, the Planning Commission cannot limit or seek to influence the tenant mix in terms of race, income, or other status. He asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. 0 Mr. Ernest Borchardt, of 6507 Beard Avenue North, stated that when the apartments were built, they wanted a variance for four to five storey apartments. He stated that the neighborhood felt that such a complex would lead to overcrowding then and that the proposed conversion would also lead to overcrowding and that is why the neighborhood is opposed. He stated that he favored denying the variance. He added that he came from New York City and related some experiences that he had in New York that reflected on the overcrowded conditions in that city. He urged the Commission not to allow that situation to arise in Brooklyn Center. Mr. Bill Bradley, of 3307 65th Avenue North, stated that his tax dollars were going to subsidize the tenants and that he accepted that, but that he did not want his tax dollars to go to line someone's pockets. He felt that the tax credits sought by Mr. Teasdale were just a way for a developer to get rich rehabilitating some buildings. He recommended keeping the status quo. Mr. Donald Poss, former City Manager of Brooklyn Center and a resident at 3212 65th Avenue North, then addressed the Commission at some length. He stated that the 10% limit on three - bedroom apartments was put in place after considerable study by the Planning Commission and City Council. He stated that the concern 7 -26 -90 2 was over putting larger families into apartment units, that it was not the sociologically proper thing to do. He stated that he had recently lived in apartments and that he experienced kids running up and down the halls. He stated that it is not a good environment for children or for older adults who must live with those children. He stated that he agreed with the subsidy program for the tenants and with providing housing for people of low and moderate income. He stated that he believed decent housing should be provided for families in single - family homes and that, if necessary, the funds should be raised to provide for that housing. Mr. Poss went on to state that he felt the legal advice offered by the City Attorney was too timid. He encouraged the Commission not to be swayed by the City Attorney's opinion. Mr. Poss noted that the legislature now requires the acceptance of group homes in residential areas. He stated that he favored such a trend, but did not favor the proposal made recently which was too large a project. He asked the Planning Commission not to convey to the City Council the feeling that there is a problem with the 10% limit on three - bedroom apartments. He stated that he thought the City and its residents were a better judge of the issue of providing family housing than the legislature. He pointed out that the neighborhood did not strongly oppose the apartments that exist at Garden City Court when they were proposed some years ago. He stated that the people in the neighborhood have lived at peace with those apartments since they were built. He concluded by stating that putting large numbers of three - bedroom units in apartment buildings is improper. Chairman Pro tem Ainas asked whether anyone else wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Pro tem Ainas then asked the Commission for their thoughts on the matter. Commissioner Mann stated that she was not ready for an ordinance amendment at this time and that a variance was inappropriate. Chairman Pro tem Ainas agreed that a variance was not appropriate. In res response to a p question from Commissioner Holmes the Secretary stated ated that the Housing Implementation Plan should address the need for large rental units. Commissioner loner Holmes asked how other communities regulate three - bedroom apartments. The Secretary answered that he was not aware of any other community that had a 10% limit in the Metro area. He added that there really has not been a very large demand for such apartments in the past and that, therefore, not very many exist. He stated that the tax credit program may be creating an artificial market for such apartments. He concluded by stating that housing issues related to this proposal need to be addressed. 7 -26 -90 3 Commissioner Bernards stated that poor tenants are not confined to apartments. He related the problems that his neighborhood has had with a building at 55th Avenue North and Bryant. He expressed pleasure with the progress that has been made since a new owner has taken over the building and is screening tenants carefully. He stated that he felt the City had to be on top of this issue and that the City should encourage investors to renovate both multiple family and single- family dwellings to make them marketable. He stated that he leaned toward a land area requirement to control extra bedrooms. Commissioner Sander stated that she agreed with Mr. Poss in not putting large families into three - bedroom apartments. She stated that she felt there would be congestion with three - bedroom units. She concluded by stating that she was not in favor of three or four - bedroom units in apartment buildings and that she was not intimidated by the possibility of lawsuits. Chairman Pro tem Ainas stated that he never really considered the proposal to be a valid request for a variance. He stated the need is to look at alternatives. He stated that he agreed with Mr. Poss that the legal advice had been somewhat timid, but that it may be a result from the experience the City has had with group home cases. He stated that he agreed with the concern about three - bedroom units in apartments. He also recommended that the Commission deny the request for a variance without specific direction to the Housing Commission or the City Council on an ordinance amendment that would eliminate the 10% factor. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO 90015 (Teasdale and Associates) Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend denial of Application No. 90015 on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance are not met and that the issue of the 10% limit on three - bedroom apartments be referred to the Housing Commission and the City Council without any specific recommendation at this time. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Ainas, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Commissioner Mann stated that she would like to also make a motion that the City Council consider its policy of inspecting only common areas in multi family buildings while inspecting the entire unit in a single- family home. The Secretary stated that the inspection policy is an administrative policy that is not contrary to the provisions of the Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance. He stated that he could review that policy at another time, but that he did not feel that it was appropriate for the Commission to give direction on housing inspection policy. Commissioner Mann withdraw her motion. 7 -26 -90 4 ADJOURNMENT Following a brief discussion of upcoming business, there was a motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Chairman Pro tem 7 -26 -90 5 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90015 Applicant: Harold Teasdale Location: 3407 -3417 65th Avenue North Request: Variance Application No. 90015 submitted by Harold Teasdale was considered by the Commission and tabled at its June 14, 1990 meeting. The applicant requests a variance from Section 35 -400 footnote lc of the Zoning Ordinance in order to allow more than 10% of the units at Garden City Court Apartments to be three - bedroom units. The applicant desires to convert 24 two - bedroom units to 16 three - bedroom units within the complex so that a total of 25% of the units in the complex would be three - bedroom units. This amount of 25% is essentially a requirement to receive low income tax credits which are awarded by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. The City's Zoning Ordinance limits the number of three - bedroom units to no more than 10% of the units in any multi- family building. Thus, it is impossible to comply both with City ordinance and with the requirements for the Low Income Tax Credits. Hence, the request for a variance. In tabling this application, the Commission requested further information on the following items: 1. An opinion from the City Attorney on the legality of the City's 10% limit on three - bedroom apartments. 2. Background on the origin of the 10% limit from City records. 3. Evidence from the Metropolitan Council documenting the increasing demand for three - bedroom apartments and the declining demand for other apartments (especially one - bedroom apartments). 4. More information on the programs which the applicant wishes to take advantage of in making the conversion of units from two - bedroom to three - bedrooms. Information relating to the first three items is attached and will be summarized along with a discussion of the programs below. City Attorney's Opinion City Attorney Charles LeFevere has transmitted to us a brief letter and a memo by Julie Lawler evaluating the legality of the current ordinance. (See letter and memo attached). Ms. Lawler's memo indicates that bedroom restrictions are viewed by the courts as exclusionary zoning which is suspect with respect to discrimination. Bedroom limitations may tend to discriminate 7 -26 -90 1 against minority groups with larger families or against larger families generally. The Fair Housing Act, she states, prohibits zoning practices that "otherwise make unavailable or deny" housing to any person for an impermissible reason such as race or familial status. She concludes by recommending that the City consider amending the ordinance to reflect the State legislature's commitment to multi - family housing by changing the 10% restriction to at least 25 %. This would be consistent with the legislature's requirement that low income tax credits be awarded only to projects with at least 25% of the units being three - bedroom units. Mr. LeFevere's letter recommends eliminating any restriction on the number of bedrooms and relying simply on additional land area. The ordinance presently requires 250 sq. ft. of additional land for bedrooms in excess of two. In further discussions, he had indicated that a greater requirement than this would be legally defensible as it would be neutral and related to the historical zoning concern of density. Background on 10% Limit Attached for the Commission's review are all minutes of the Planning Commission and City Council from 1973 and 1974 relating to consideration of the package of ordinances which were adopted relating to multiple- family dwellings. The ordinance changes ultimately adopted included the 10% limit on three - bedroom apartments, the 250 ft. land area deduction for efficiency units, a density credit of 500 sq. ft. for under building parking stalls, and a deduction of setback areas adjacent to public streets from eligibility for meeting land area requirements. There was general discussion at some meetings regarding density concerns, but the 10% limit on three - bedroom units was only considered as part of the final package of ordinances and there is no separate discussion of it in the minutes. There is a comment in the 11 -15 -73 Planning Commission minutes by Blair Tremere (former Director of Planning and Inspection) that "there were serious questions as to whether three or more bedroom units in the R4 and R5 types of multiple family dwellings were desirable at all." No reason as to why they would be undesirable was given. However, we have also had a discussion with former City Manager Donald Poss regarding the issue and it is his recollection that the reason for the 10% limit was that it was felt that families of that size should not live in apartments, but in single - family homes. Documenting Demand for Three - Bedroom Units Attached for the Commission's review are a number of excerpts cer is from reports by the Metropolitan Council, especially from Mismatches Between Supply And Demand; Rental Housing in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area This report analyzes a number of mismatches in the rental housing market. The report concludes that there are 7 -26 -90 2 more lower- income households than affordable units, more high -cost units than n high income renters, more large renter households than large rental units, and generally that those which can least afford it are bearing excessive rent burdens. Table 42 on page 93 of the report shows that, in the metropolitan area, there were 11,270 large renter households in 1985 and only 5,693 large rental units. Thus, there is basically a 2:1 ratio of demand relative to supply of large units. It should be pointed out that large units represented only about 2.5% of all rental units in 1980. While there is a waiting list for subsidized three - bedroom units, conversions may not become a widespread phenomena since they still represent a smaller (though growing) portion of the overall rental market. Much could be said here of the changing demographics of the 1990's and beyond and of their effect on the housing market in general and the rental housing market in particular. As the baby boom generation matures, many in it will try to move from starter homes to larger or nicer homes. However, this will place a large number of starter homes on the market at the same time, reducing their rice a � nd making P g more affordable for the baby bust generation that follows. This price shift, along with the reduced numbers of people in the rental market age group (20 -24), will result in higher vacancy rates in rental housing. Nancy Reeves, a housing planner at the Metropolitan Council, has pointed out to us that some of the starter homes in Brooklyn Center may wind up being rented rather than sold, thus providing some of the large housing units demanded by renter families. A Metropolitan Council publication called Housing Markets in 2000 states on page 18 that "a weakened housing market may exacerbate problems stemming from lack of maintenance (of an aging housing stock) or absentee ownership." It recommends three options for maintenance and upkeep and choices for reuse or redirection of the housing stock: - "Maintaining and upgrading the stock to keep housing competitive in the marketplace. - Removing housing and rebuilding to remove blight; to meet different housing needs; and to meet needs for commercial uses. - Modifying existing housing to better meet housing needs by converting apartments (for example, from smaller units to larger units) modifying apartments to provide amenities newer apartments have; and providing features that make it easier for older people to live in them (for example, elevators and grab bars in baths). ths). 7 -26 -90 3 Thus, the conversion of smaller apartment units to larger ones is considered a means of making them more marketable and lead to better maintenance of a project than if it were to experience high vacancy. The addition of amenities would also help. Programs Pursued by Applicant The applicant has been pursuing financial assistance from two federal programs: The Rental Rehabilitation Program administered locally by the County and Low Income Tax Credits administered by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. The Rental Rehabilitation Program provides funds for rehabilitating existing rental dwellings. Sixty percent (60 %) of the money must go to family units (two bedrooms or more) . Priority is given to complexes with three bedroom units. The housing units must be affordable and the owner must affirmatively market the units and not discriminate against low and moderate income tenants. However, it is not required that the units all be rented to low and moderate income tenants. The funds can only be used on existing facilities, though they could be used to provide new facilities required by the City (such as recreational facilities). The local HUD office has recently issued a ruling that the Rental Rehabilitation Program cannot be used on a project which is also benefitting from Low Income Tax Credits. It is our understanding at this time that the applicant will no longer pursue the Rental Rehabilitation Program on this project, but will continue to pursue and may still be awarded the Low Income Tax Credits. The Low Income Tax Credits, which are awarded by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, require that at least 75% of the units have two or more bedrooms and that a third of these, or at least 25% of the total, have three or more bedrooms. Low Income Tax Credits are available for various types of projects, family rental housing being only one of five categories. The award of the credit is tied to renting a minimum portion of the units to persons of lower or moderate income. At least 20% of the units would have to be reserved for persons at or below 50% of the County median income (which is $45,000 for a family of four), or 40% of the units to families with incomes at or below 60% of the median. The tax credit award will only be partial if the proportion of units reserved is also partial. It is, therefore, likely that 100% of the units will be reserved for families with incomes at or below 60% of the median. Those income levels are as follows: 1 person $18,900 2 persons 21,600 3 persons 24,300 4 persons 27,000 5 persons 29,150 The reservation of units must be for at least 30 years. These income limits are not so low that all of the renters would have to 7 -26 -90 4 be receiving Section 8 Rent Assistance, though some no doubt would. (Mr. Teasdale has indicated that he prefers to keep as many of the existing tenants as possible since relocation costs are considerable). Applicants for Low Income Tax Credits are awarded points for various aspects of their projects. The Garden City Court project proposed by Mr. Teasdale has received points for: other governmental involvement (MHFA financing), providing family housing, rehabilitation of existing housing, intermediary (soft) costs, and because Brooklyn Center is an area which has not received a benefit from the program in the past. The project has not been rejected for the tax credits; it is still on a list of possible projects to be awarded credits. The ro'ect 's p � i also in the running for the Apartment Renovation Mortgage Loan Program which is for purchase of existing buildings and rehabilitation. g g The tax credit program is scheduled to sunset at the end of this year unless continued by Congress. Analysis The Teasdale proposal raises concerns that relate to housing policy as well as zoning policy. In terms of housing, it must be realized that 98% of the land in Brooklyn Center is already developed and the vast majority of the housing we will have in 20 years is already built. The people that occupy that housing, however, will change over time. The baby boom generation (age 25 to 44) has, for the most part moved out of the rental market and is either in starter homes or move -up homes. The baby bust generation has moved into the rental housing market and will begin to move into the homeownership market from now on. The effects of this demographic shift are likely to be numerous and significant. The demand for the housing which is abundant in Brooklyn Center will likely decline and prices and rents will likely become very competitive. We view it as being in the City's best interest to keep or make the existing housing in Brooklyn Center as marketable as possible. Conversion of multi - family units to three - bedroom units or larger may serve this purpose since demand presently exceeds supply for these types of units. While fears have been expressed about the possible deleterious effect of families receiving housing subsidies on the surrounding single- family neighborhood, some positive effects may also occur: -More marketable housing units are more likely to be occupied, generating positive cash flow and making maintenance of the property more economically feasible. -Units that are demanded by more potential tenants will put the owner in the position of choosing better tenants though he cannot discriminate on the basis of race or poverty status, etc. 7 -26 -90 5 -The rehabilitation funds will g ive project the 'ect a shot in the arm and improve the property over its present condition. - Maintaining housing units for low and moderate income families will provide available housing for people employed in the City's central business area, including the industrial park and the regional shopping facilities. Last year, the City commissioned a study of the Brooklyn Center housing market by Maxfield Research Group, Inc. One of the findings relating to the rental market contained on page 7 was: "The potential problem with the attraction of low- income households to Brooklyn Center is the community's inability to serve this group. Allowing rental buildings to become lower - income housing through deferred maintenance (and thus, lower rents) creates substandard housing for persons with lower incomes. By actively seeking funding and designating housing units with the unique needs of low - income persons in mind, Brooklyn Center would be in a better position to serve this population." One of those "unique needs" is probably the provision of affordable three - bedroom rental units. The report in essence is saying: change is coming and the City will be better off if it actively adapts to that change than if it does nothing. As to zoning issues, it seems clear to us that a variance is not warranted in this case as there is nothing that would particularly distinguish the Garden City Court apartment project from other apartment projects in the City. The question is whether the purposes of the existing 10% limit on three - bedroom units are legally valid and, if not, what should be done about the Zoning Ordinance that will fairly reflect valid zoning concerns. Ordinances which have a discriminatory or exclusionary effect are very suspect in light of the Fair Housing Act and the Mount Laurel court decisions. The City Attorney has advised that the present 10% limitation may be considered to discriminate against minority groups which may tend to have larger families and against families with children generally. One question is whether any limit on three - bedroom units would be considered discriminatory or whether some level such as 25 %, 33 %, or 50% would be considered reasonable. One concern we have is that raising the limit may only postpone and not eliminate a legal appeal. If the Commission is disposed to recommend an ordinance amendment at all, it should consider carefully the reasonableness and appropriateness of any possible limit on three - bedroom apartments. The more appropriate zoning "device" we feel is the land area requirement which has historically been used to control population density. The present surcharge of 250 sq. ft. for each bedroom over two within a dwelling unit is minimal. A significant increase in this land area requirement should be considered. Attached is a COPY of the Bloomington multi - family land area requirements. 7 -26 -90 6 Bloomington uses a matrix of land area requirements for building heights and unit sizes. This is a very complex system of establishing land area requirements and we do not recommend adoption of a similar system for Brooklyn Center as it would no doubt result in nonconformities and development opportunities unforeseen at this time. However, it should be noted that the step -up in land area requirement for each additional bedroom in Bloomington's code is approximately 650 sq. ft. (it varies throughout the matrix) . We would recommend considering a land area surcharge of 750 sq. ft. to 1,000 sq. ft. for each bedroom in excess of two. (Likewise, a deduction of a similar amount should be considered for efficiency units.) The land area surcharge relates to the historical zoning concern of population density and is neutral in its effect on potential tenants. Finally, concern has been expressed regarding recreational opportunities for children at apartment complexes. It is likely that the greatest concern should be for toddlers, preschoolers, and early elementary age children since older children will have the mobility to find recreational outlets off the premises. We do not feel it would be appropriate to specify the apparatus to be provided, but we would agree that some plan for recreational facilities should be subject to City Council approval on projects with an average number of bedrooms noticeably over 1.0 per unit. Conclusion A variance to allow more three - bedroom apartments is not appropriate because the standard of uniqueness is not met in this case. However, it is recommended that an ordinance amendment be considered involving the following elements: a) Repeal of the 10% limit on three - bedroom apartments and on efficiency units in light of a reevaluation of both valid zoning objectives and emerging housing needs in the community. b) An increase in the land area surcharge for bedrooms over two and the land area deduction for efficiency units from 250 sq. ft. to at least 750 sq. ft. in furtherance of the historical zoning objective of population density control. C) Addition of a provision requiring apartment complexes with an average of 1.5 bedrooms per unit and over 10 units to provide recreational facilities for children as approved by the City Council. A draft ordinance is attached for the Commission's review and discussion. The applicant has expressed concern over timing. However, the Commission should not feel pressured to take any action on an ordinance amendment unless and until it is comfortable 7 -26 -90 7 i with both the form and policy implications of the amendment. Input from the Housing Commission must also be sought. It took a year of discussion in 1973 and 1974 to arrive at the 10% limit and other associated provisions that were adopted. It may take a considerable amount of time to achieve the necessary consensus to change the ordinance that was adopted then. Nevertheless, staff will make every effort to expedite consideration of this matter as the Commission and Council direct. Recommendation In light of the above, it is recommended that the Commission take the following actions at this time: 1. Recommend denial of variance Application No. 90015 on the grounds that the standard of uniqueness is not met in this case. 2. Recommend that the City Council include the issue of larger (3 -4 bedroom) rental units in the Housing Implementation Plan. 3. That the issue of these three - bedroom apartments and the possible need to eliminate the present 10% limit be referred to the Housing Commission for their review and comment. 7 -26 -90 8 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8 -13 -90 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 90015 - Teasdale and Associates DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: ,^, ' �- W Signature - title Director of Planning and specti on ***************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:] ~� No comments to supplement this report C ments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X The applicant requests variance approval to allow more than 10% of the Garden City Court Apartment project units to be three - bedroom • units following a conversion of 24 two - bedroom units to 16 three - bedroom units. This application was considered by the Planning Commission at its July 26, 1990 study meeting. Minutes, information sheet, and a map of the area are attached. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended denial of Application No. 90015 on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance are not met and that the issue of the 10% limit on three - bedroom apartments be referred to the Housing Commission and the City Council without any specific recommendation at this time. If the Council concurs with the Commission recommendation to deny the variance request, it is recommended that direction be given to staff to prepare a resolution of denial outlining consideration of the matter and the reasons for denial. MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA i STUDY SESSION JULY 26, 1990 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Pro tem Lowell Ainas at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Pro tem Lowell Ainas, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace Bernards, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. It was noted that Chairperson Molly Malecki had stated that she would be unable to attend and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 12 1990 Commissioner Bernards pointed out that a statement attributed to him on page 5 of the July 12 minutes should probably have been attributed to Commissioner Johnson. Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Bernards to approve the minutes of the July 12, 1990 Planning Commission meeting as corrected. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Ainas, Commissioners Bernards, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Sander. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 90015 (Teasdale and Associates) Following the Chairman Pro tem's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for variance approval to allow more than 10% of the Garden City Court Apartment project units to be three - bedroom units following a conversion of 24 two - bedroom units to 16 three - bedroom units. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90015 attached). The Secretary added, during his presentation of the report, that there is a question of whether the large rental units demanded should be provided by apartments or by single- family homes. He stated that the question before the Commission is a comprehensive question, involving housing and social policy, as well as zoning g g P Y► g policy. He recommended ommended that this issue be addressed in the Cit P Y• a Y s forthcoming housing plan. He stated that the Commission did not need to act on an ordinance amendment at this . evening's meeting. g He concluded by stating that he did not believe the proposal met the standards for a variance, especially the standard of uniqueness. 7 -26 -90 1 Ili Regarding the last two recommendations in the staff report, Chairman Pro tem Ainas asked whether the Housing Implementation Plan would go to the Housing Commission first. The Secretary responded that the Housing Commission has already recommended an implementation plan and that one aspect of that plan was to look at conflicts with the City's current Zoning Ordinance. He stated that it would be the job of the Planning Commission to review those conflicts in the future as well. Commissioner Bernards expressed appreciation for the staff's work on this difficult question. Commissioner Mann asked how many nonconforming situations would be created if the 750 sq. ft. land area surcharge were adopted for three - bedroom units. The Secretary answered that there shouldn't be any, but that it would affect future conversions. The Planner noted that 5500 Bryant Avenue North is a three - bedroom apartment complex with insufficient land area. Chairman Pro tem Ainas asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Teasdale responded in the negative. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 90015) Chairman Pro tem Ainas informed the people present that although there are concerns about the possible tenant mix that would result from a conversion of units to three - bedroom units in this complex, the Planning Commission cannot limit or seek to influence the tenant mix in terms of race, income, or other status. He asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mr. Ernest Borchardt, of 6507 Beard Avenue North, stated that when the apartments were built, they wanted a variance for four to five storey apartments. He stated that the neighborhood felt that such a complex would lead to overcrowding then and that the proposed conversion would also lead to overcrowding and that is why the neighborhood is opposed. He stated that he favored denying the variance. He added that he came from New York City and related some experiences that he had in New York that reflected on the overcrowded conditions in that city. He urged the Commission not to allow that situation to arise in Brooklyn Center. Mr. Bill Bradley, of 3307 65th Avenue North, stated that his tax dollars were going to subsidize the tenants and that he accepted that, but that he did not want his tax dollars to go to line someone's pockets. He felt that the tax credits sought by Mr. Teasdale were just a way for a developer to get rich rehabilitating some buildings. He recommended keeping the status quo. Mr. Donald Poss, former City Manager of Brooklyn Center and a resident at 3212 65th Avenue North, then addressed the Commission at some length. He stated that the 10% limit on three - bedroom apartments was put in place after considerable study by the Planning Commission and City Council. He stated that the concern 7 -26 -90 2 was over putting larger families into apartment units, that it was not the sociologically proper thing to do. He stated that he had recently lived in apartments and that he experienced kids running up and down the halls. He stated that it is not a good environment for children or for older adults who must live with those children. He stated that he agreed with the subsidy program for the tenants and with providing housing for people of low and moderate income. He stated that he believed decent housing should be provided for families in single - family homes and that, if necessary, the funds should be raised to provide for that housing. Mr. Poss went on to state that he felt the legal advice offered by the City Attorney was too timid. He encouraged the Commission not to be swayed by the City Attorney's opinion. Mr. Poss noted that the legislature now requires the acceptance of group homes in residential areas. He stated that he favored such a trend, but did not favor the proposal made recently which was too large a project. He asked the Planning Commission not to convey to the City Council the feeling that there is a problem with the 10% limit on three - bedroom apartments. He stated that he thought the City and its residents were a better judge of the issue of providing family housing than the legislature. He pointed out that the neighborhood did not strongly oppose the apartments that exist at Garden City Court when they were proposed some years ago. He stated that the people in the neighborhood have lived at peace with those apartments since they were built. He concluded by stating that putting large numbers of three - bedroom units in apartment buildings is improper. Chairman Pro tem Ainas asked whether anyone else wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Pro tem Ainas then asked the Commission for their thoughts on the matter. Commissioner Mann stated that she was not ready for an ordinance amendment at this time and that a variance was inappropriate. Chairman Pro tem Ainas agreed that a variance was not appropriate. In response to a question from Commissioner Holmes, the Secretary stated that the Housing Implementation Plan should address the need for large rental units. Commissioner Holmes asked how other communities regulate three - bedroom apartments. The Secretary answered that he was not aware of any other community that had a 10% limit in the Metro area. He added that there really has not been a very large demand for such apartments in the past and that, therefore, not very many exist. He stated that the tax credit program may be creating an artificial market for such apartments. He concluded by stating that housing issues related to this proposal need to be addressed. 7-26-90 3 Commissioner Bernards stated that poor tenants are not confined to apartments. He related the problems that his neighborhood has had with a building at 55th Avenue North and Bryant. He expressed pleasure with the progress that has been made since a new owner has taken over the building and is screening tenants carefully. He stated that he felt the City had to be on top of this issue and that the City should encourage investors to renovate both multiple family and single- family dwellings to make them marketable. He li stated that he leaned toward a land area requirement to control extra bedrooms. Commissioner Sander stated that she agreed with Mr. Poss in not putting large families into three - bedroom apartments. She stated that she felt there would be congestion with three - bedroom units. She concluded by stating that she was not in favor of three or four - bedroom units in apartment buildings and that she was not intimidated by the possibility of lawsuits. Chairman Pro tem Ainas stated that he never really considered the proposal to be a valid request for a variance. He stated the need is to look at alternatives. He stated that he agreed with Mr. Poss that the legal advice had been somewhat timid, but that it may be a result from the experience the City has had with group home cases. He stated that he agreed with h the concern about three - bedroom units in apartments. He also recommended that the Commission deny the request for a variance without specific direction to the Housing Commission or the City Council on an ordinance amendment that would eliminate the 10% factor. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO 90015 (Teasdale and Associates) Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend denial of Application No. 90015 on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance are not met and that the issue of the 10% limit on three - bedroom apartments be referred to the Housing Commission and the City Council without any specific recommendation at this time. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Ainas, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Commissioner Mann stated that she would like to also make a motion that the City Council consider its policy of inspecting only common areas in multi family buildings while inspecting the entire unit in a single - family home. The Secretary stated that the inspection policy is an administrative policy that is not contrary to the provisions of the Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance. He stated that he could review that policy at another time, but that he did not feel that it was appropriate for the Commission to give direction on housing inspection policy. Commissioner Mann withdraw her motion. 7 -26 -90 4 I Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90015 Applicant: Harold Teasdale Location: 3407 -3417 65th Avenue North Request: Variance Application No. 90015 submitted by Harold Teasdale was considered by the Commission and tabled at its June 14, 1990 meeting. The applicant requests a variance from Section 35 -400 footnote lc of the Zoning Ordinance in order to allow more than 10% of the units at Garden City Court Apartments to be three - bedroom units. The applicant desires to convert 24 two - bedroom units to 16 three - bedroom units within the complex so that a total of 25% of the units in the complex would be three - bedroom units. This amount of 25% is essentially a requirement to receive low income tax credits which are awarded by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. The City's Zoning Ordinance limits the number of three - bedroom units to no more than 10% of the units in any multi - family building. Thus, it is impossible to comply both with City ordinance and with the requirements for the Low Income Tax Credits. Hence, the request for a variance. ' In tabling this application, the Commission requested further information on the following items: 1. An opinion from the City Attorney on the legality of the City's 10% limit on three - bedroom apartments. 2. Background on the origin of the 10% limit from City records. 3. Evidence from the Metropolitan Council documenting the increasing demand for three- bedroom apartments and the declining demand for other apartments (especially one - bedroom apartments). 4. More information on the programs which the applicant wishes to take advantage of in making the conversion of units from two - bedroom to three - bedrooms. Information relating to the first three items is attached and will be summarized along with a discussion of the programs below. City Attorney's Opinion City Attorney Charles LeFevere has transmitted to us a brief letter and a memo by Julie Lawler evaluating the legality of the current ordinance. (See letter and memo attached) . Ms. Lawler's memo indicates that bedroom restrictions are viewed by the courts as exclusionary zoning which is suspect with respect to discrimination. Bedroom limitations may tend to discriminate 7 -26 -90 1 against minority groups with larger families or against larger families generally. The Fair Housing Act, she states, prohibits zoning � ng practices that otherwise make unavailable or deny " housing to any person for an impermissible reason such as race or familial status. She concludes by recommending that the City consider amending the ordinance to reflect the State legislature's commitment to multi- family housing by changing the 10% restriction to at least 25 %. This would be consistent with the legislature's requirement that low income tax credits be awarded only to projects with at least 25% of the units being three - bedroom units. Mr. LeFevere's letter recommends eliminating any restriction on the number of bedrooms and relying simply on additional land area. The ordinance presently requires 250 sq. ft. of additional land for bedrooms in excess of two. In further discussions, he had indicated that a greater requirement than this would be legally defensible as it would be neutral and related to the historical zoning concern of density. _Background on 10% Limit Attached for the Commission's review are all minutes of the Planning Commission and City Council from 1973 and 1974 relating to consideration of the package of ordinances which were adopted relating to multiple - family dwellings. The ordinance changes ultimately adopted included the 10% limit on three - bedroom apartments, the 250 ft. land area deduction for efficiency units, a density credit of 500 sq. ft. for under building parking stalls, and a deduction of setback areas adjacent to public streets from eligibility for meeting land area requirements. There was general discussion at some meetings regarding density concerns, but the 10% limit on three - bedroom units was only considered as part of the final package of ordinances and there is no separate discussion of it in the minutes. There is a comment in the 11 -15 -73 Planning Commission minutes by Blair Tremere (former Director of Planning and Inspection) that "there were serious questions as to whether three or more bedroom units in the R4 and R5 types of multiple family dwellings were desirable at all." No reason as to why they would be undesirable was given. However, we have also had a discussion with former City Manager Donald Poss regarding the issue and it is his recollection that the reason for the 10% limit was that it was felt that families of that size should not live in apartments, but in single - family homes. Documenting Demand for-Three-Bedroom Units Attached for the Commission's review are a number of excerpts from reports by the Metropolitan Council, especially from Mismatches Between Supply And Demand: Rental Housing in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area This report analyzes a number of mismatches in the rental housing market. The report concludes that there are 7 -26 -90 2 more lower- income households than affordable units, more high -cost units than high- income renters, more large renter households than large rental units, and generally that those which can least afford it are bearing excessive rent burdens. Table 42 on page 93 of the report shows that, in the metropolitan area, there were 11,270 large renter households in 1985 and only 5,693 large rental units. Thus, there is basically a 2:1 ratio of demand relative to supply of large units. It should be pointed out that large units represented only about 2.5% of all rental units in 1980. While there is a waiting list for subsidized three - bedroom units, conversions may not become a widespread phenomena since they still represent a smaller (though growing) portion of the overall rental market. Much could be said here of the changing demographics of the 1990's and beyond and of their effect on the housing market in general and the rental housing market in particular. As the baby boom generation matures, many in it will try to move from starter homes to larger or nicer homes. However, this will place a large number of starter homes on the market at the same time, reducing their price and making homeownership more affordable for the baby bust generation that follows. This price shift, along with the reduced numbers of people in the rental market age group (20 -24), will result in higher vacancy rates in rental housing. Nancy Reeves, a housing planner at the Metropolitan Council, has pointed out to us that some of the starter homes in Brooklyn Center may wind up being rented rather than sold, thus providing some of the large housing units demanded by renter families. A Metropolitan Council publication called Housing Markets in 2000 states on page 18 that "a weakened housing market may exacerbate problems stemming from lack of maintenance (of an aging housing stock) or absentee ownership." It recommends three options for maintenance and upkeep and choices for reuse or redirection of the housing stock: - "Maintaining and upgrading the stock to keep housing competitive in the marketplace. - Removing housing and rebuilding to remove blight; to meet different housing needs; and to meet needs for commercial uses. - Modifying existing housing to better meet housing needs by converting apartments (for example, from smaller units to larger units) modifying apartments to provide amenities newer apartments have; and providing features that make it easier for older people to live in them (for example, elevators and grab bars in baths). 7 -26 -90 3 Thus, the conversion of smaller apartment units to larger ones is considered a means of making hem more marketable and lead d to better maintenance of a project than if it were to experience high vacancy. The addition of amenities would also help. Programs Pursued by Applicant The applicant has been pursuing financial assistance from two federal programs: The Rental Rehabilitation Program administered locally by the County and Low Income Tax Credits administered by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. The Rental Rehabilitation Program provides funds for rehabilitating existing rental dwellings. Sixty percent (60 %) of the money must go to family units (two bedrooms or more) . Priority is given to complexes with three bedroom units. The housing units must be affordable and the owner must affirmatively market the units and not discriminate against low and moderate income tenants. However, it is not required that the units all be rented to low and moderate income tenants. The funds can only be used on existing facilities, though they could be used to provide new facilities required by the City (such as recreational facilities) . The local HUD office has recently issued a ruling that the Rental Rehabilitation Program cannot be used on a project which is also benefitting from Low Income Tax Credits. It is our understanding at this time that the applicant will no longer pursue the Rental Rehabilitation Program on this project, but will continue to pursue and may still be awarded the Low Income Tax Credits. The Low Income Tax Credits, which are awarded by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, require that at least 75% of the units have two or more bedrooms and that a third of these, or at least 25% of the total, have three or more bedrooms. Low Income Tax Credits are available for various types of projects, family rental housing being only one of five categories. The award of the credit is tied to renting a minimum portion of the units to persons of lower or moderate income. At least 20% of the units would have to be reserved for persons at or below 50% of the County median income (which is $45,000 for a family of four) , or 40% of the units to families with incomes at or below 60% of the median. The tax credit award will only be partial if the proportion of units reserved is also partial. It is, therefore, likely that 100% of the units will be reserved for families with incomes at or below 60% of the median. Those income levels are as follows: 1 person $18,900 2 persons 21,600 3 persons 24,300 4 persons 27,000 5 persons 29,150 The reservation of units must be for at least 30 years. These income limits are not so low that all of the renters would have to 7 -26 -90 4 be receiving Section 8 Rent Assistance, though some no doubt would. (Mr. Teasdale has indicated that he prefers to keep as many of the existing tenants as possible since relocation costs are considerable). Applicants for Low Income Tax Credits are awarded points for various aspects of their projects. The Garden City Court project proposed by Mr. Teasdale has received points for: other governmental involvement (MHFA financing), providing family housing, rehabilitation of existing housing, intermediary (soft) costs, and because Brooklyn Center is an area which has not received a benefit from the program in the past. The project has not been rejected for the tax credits; it is still on a list of possible projects to be awarded credits. The project is also in the running for the Apartment Renovation Mortgage Loan Program which is for purchase of existing buildings and rehabilitation. The tax credit program is scheduled to sunset at the end of this year unless continued by Congress. Analysis The Teasdale proposal raises concerns that relate to housing policy as well as zoning policy. In terms of housing, it must be realized that 98% of the land in Brooklyn Center is already developed and the vast majority of the housing we will have in 20 years is already built. The people that occupy that housing, however, will change over time. The baby boom generation (age 25 to 44) has, for the most part moved out of the rental market and is either in starter homes or move -up homes. The baby bust generation has moved into the rental housing market and will begin to move into the homeownership market from now on. The effects of this demographic shift are likely to be numerous and significant. The demand for the housing which is abundant in Brooklyn Center will likely decline and prices and rents will likely become very competitive. We view it as being in the City's best interest to keep or make the existing housing in Brooklyn Center as marketable as possible. Conversion of multi - family units to three - bedroom units or larger may serve this purpose since demand presently exceeds supply for these types of units. While fears have been expressed about the possible deleterious effect of families receiving housing subsidies on the surrounding single- family neighborhood, some positive effects may also occur: -More marketable housing units are more likely to be occupied, generating positive cash flow and making maintenance of the property more economically feasible. -Units that are demanded by more potential tenants will put the owner in the position of choosing better tenants though he cannot discriminate on the basis of race or poverty status, etc. 7 -26 -90 5 -The rehabilitation funds will give the project a shot in the arm and improve the property over its present condition. - Maintaining housing units for low and moderate income families will provide available housing for people employed in the City's central business area, including the industrial park and the regional shopping facilities. Last year, the City commissioned a study of the Brooklyn Center housing market by Maxfield Research Group, Inc. One of the findings relating to the rental market contained on page 7 was: "The potential problem with the attraction of low- income households to Brooklyn Center is the community's inability to serve this group. Allowing rental buildings to become lower - income housing through deferred maintenance (and thus, lower rents) creates substandard housing for persons with lower incomes. By actively seeking funding and designating housing units with the unique needs of low- income persons in mind, Brooklyn Center would be in a better position to serve this population." One of those "unique needs" is probably the provision of affordable three - bedroom rental units. The report in essence is saying: change is coming and the City will be better off if it actively adapts to that change than if it does nothing. As to zoning issues, it seems clear to us that a variance is not warranted in this case as there is nothing that would particularly distinguish the Garden City Court apartment project from other apartment projects in the City. The question is whether the purposes of the existing 10% limit on three - bedroom units are legally valid and, if not, what should be done about the Zoning Ordinance that will fairly reflect valid zoning concerns. Ordinances which have a discriminatory or exclusionary effect are very suspect in light of the Fair Housing Act and the Mount Laurel court decisions. The City Attorney has advised that the present 10% limitation may be considered to discriminate against minority groups which may tend to have larger families and against families with children generally. One question is whether any limit on three - bedroom units would be considered discriminatory or whether some level such as 25 %, 33 %, or 50% would be considered reasonable. One concern we have is that raising the limit may only postpone and not eliminate a legal appeal. If the Commission is disposed to recommend an ordinance amendment at all, it should consider carefully the reasonableness and appropriateness of any possible limit on three - bedroom apartments. The more appropriate zoning "device" we feel is the land area requirement which has historically been used to control population density. The present surcharge of 250 sq. ft. for each bedroom over two within a dwelling unit is minimal. A significant increase in this land area requirement should be considered. Attached is a copy of the Bloomington multi - family land area requirements. 7 -26 -90 6 Bloomington uses a matrix of land area requirements for building heights and unit sizes. This is a very complex system of establishing land area requirements and we do not recommend adoption of a similar system for Brooklyn Center as it would no doubt result in nonconformities and development opportunities unforeseen at this time. However, it should be noted that the step -up in land area requirement for each additional bedroom in Bloomington's code is approximately 650 sq. ft. (it varies throughout the matrix) . We would recommend considering a land area surcharge of 750 sq. ft. to 1,000 sq. ft. for each bedroom in excess of two. (Likewise, a deduction of a similar amount should be considered for efficiency units.) The land area surcharge relates to the historical zoning concern of population density and is neutral in its effect on potential tenants. Finally, concern has been expressed regarding recreational opportunities for children at apartment complexes. It is likely that the greatest concern should be for toddlers, preschoolers, and early elementary age children since older children will have the mobility to find recreational outlets off the premises. We do not feel it would be appropriate to specify the apparatus to be provided, but we would agree that some plan for recreational facilities should be subject to City Council approval on projects with an average number of bedrooms noticeably over 1.0 per unit. Conclusion A variance to allow more three - bedroom apartments is not appropriate because the standard of uniqueness is not met in this case. However, it is recommended that an ordinance amendment be considered involving the following elements: a) Repeal of the 10% limit on three - bedroom apartments and on efficiency units in light of a reevaluation of both valid zoning objectives and emerging housing needs in the community. b) An increase in the land area surcharge for bedrooms over two and the land area deduction for efficiency units from 250 sq. ft. to at least 750 sq. ft. in furtherance of the historical zoning objective of population density control. C) Addition of a provision requiring apartment complexes with an average of 1.5 bedrooms per unit and over 10 units to provide recreational facilities for children as approved by the City Council. A draft ordinance is attached for the Commission's review and discussion. The applicant has expressed concern over timing. However, the Commission should not feel pressured to take any action on an ordinance amendment unless and until it is comfortable 7 -26 -90 7 with both the form and policy implications of the amendment. Input from the Housing Commission must also be sought. It took a year of discussion in 1973 and 1974 to arrive at the 10% limit and other associated provisions that were adopted. It may take a considerable amount of time to achieve the necessary consensus to change the ordinance that was adopted then. Nevertheless, staff will make every effort to expedite consideration of this matter as the Commission and Council direct. Recommendation In light of the above, it is recommended that the Commission take the following actions at this time: 1. Recommend denial of variance Application No. 90015 on the grounds that the standard of uniqueness is not met in this case. 2. Recommend that the City Council include the issue of larger (3 -4 bedroom) rental units in the Housing Implementation Plan. 3. That the issue of these three - bedroom apartments and the possible need to eliminate the present 10% limit be referred to the Housing Commission for their review and comment. 7 -26 -90 8 . RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 7:59 p.m. and resumed at 8:15 p.m. Following the recess, the Secretary stated that he and the Planner had attempted to contact Mr. Teasdale, but were unable to reach him. He stated that he would review the report and recommended opening the public hearing, but that the application should be tabled so that the applicant could appear. APPLICATION NO. 90015 ( Teasdale and Associates) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for variance approval from Section 35 -400, footnote 1 c of the Zoning Ordinance to allow more than 10% of the units in the Garden City Court apartment development to be three - bedroom units. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90015 attached). The Secretary also explained that the maximum density for the property on which the Garden City Court apartments were located is 16 units per acre or 2,700 sq. ft. per unit. He stated that the staff had not received any further memo from the City Attorney regarding the legality of the 10% limit on three - bedroom apartments in the Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance could not exclude low income people. He stated that recent amendments to the Fair Housing Act prohibit discrimination against low income residents. He stated that staff did not recommend approval of a variance, but that, if the 10% limit is considered to be unfair, he would recommend an amendment to the ordinance. 6 -14 -90 4 0 The Secretary stated that the essential question for the Planning Commission is what is the effect of the 10% limit. Does it have an effect on who occupies an apartment unit or does it address a typical zoning concern such as density? He stated that the "who" issue is not a zoning concern. He stated that he could not respond in any detail to the two questions about the possible grant money to be used in rehabilitating units. Commissioner Mann asked, if the 10% limit were eliminated, would the project have enough land area for the additional three - bedroom units that would be created. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. He explained that the reduction in the overall number of units would reduce the land requirement by more than the additional land requirement for three - bedroom units would add to that overall land requirement. Chairperson Malecki asked what was the reason for the 10% limit. The Secretary responded that it was apparently to limit the number of large apartment units. Chairperson Malecki asked whether there were any three - bedroom units in the complex right now. The Secretary responded in the negative. Chairperson Malecki then recognized the applicant and asked whether he had anything to say regarding the application. Mr. Harold Teasdale, the gentleman who was interested in buying the Garden City Court apartments and converting some of the units to three - bedroom units with the use of grants and tax exempt financing, then briefly addressed the Planning Commission. He stated that one of the issues for the City to consider in addressing the variance request is the declining demand for one - bedroom apartments in the Metropolitan area. He noted that, conversely, there is an increasing demand for three - bedroom apartments. He also stated that there was federal and state money for three - bedroom units. He stated that, because of the reduction in the overall number of units, the number of people within the complex would not change that much. Commissioner Bernards asked Mr. Teasdale whether he would not remodel the complex if tax exempt financing were not available. Mr. Teasdale responded not necessarily. He stated that there was also low - income credit available from the federal government which would provide money for remodeling the units. Commissioner Johnson asked whether there was any verification of the supposed excess of one - bedroom and the lack of three - bedroom units. Mr. Teasdale responded that the Metropolitan Council has done studies of the region's demographics and has documented the decline in demand for apartments generally. Mr. Johnson asked whether the City's recent Housing Study noted anything regarding the demand for one - bedroom apartments. The Secretary responded that he would have to look at the study more closely. He stated that most of the homes in Brooklyn Center are for first time home buyers and that there are mostly one and two - bedroom apartments in the City. Mr. Teasdale 6 -14 -90 5 added that, in the Whittier neighborhood of Minneapolis, the only kind of conversions that are done are to three - bedroom units. The Secretary asked Mr. Teasdale whether there were any limitations on the grant being sought and whether it was a County grant. Mr. Teasdale responded that it was a federal program administered by the County. The Secretary asked whether there were certain requirements on who could rent a unit in the development if the financing and grant were approved. Mr. Teasdale stated that he would not be able to limit who to rent to. He stated that he would have to be open to Section 8 tenants. The Secretary asked whether all of the units would have to be rented to Section 8 tenants. Mr. Teasdale responded in the negative. The Secretary asked whether a number of the units could then continue to be market rate rental. Mr. Teasdale responded in the affirmative. In response to a question from Commissioner Bernards regarding the management of the complex, Mr. Teasdale stated that he would like to keep the present managers at the complex. The Planner stated that he believed that the Housing Study did mention at some point a declining demand for apartments and that a danger was reduced cash flow and thereby decline of the upkeep of properties. He also stated that the City's last population estimate from the Metropolitan Council had gone down by about 800 people and that one of the reasons for this was because of a high vacancy rate in the City's apartments. Commissioner Ainas commented on the demand for various types of apartments and noted that he was on a waiting list for a three - bedroom apartment. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 90015 Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mr. Francis Zins, of 3408 65th Avenue North, stated that the neighbors in the area were very concerned about the proposal. He stated that there were a lot of children at the complex now and that there would be more with single - parent households if the variance were approved. He stated that the complex has nothing to offer children, that there are no sidewalks and that children have to play in the street. He stated that the children cannot play at the school because parents are afraid that they will get hurt. He stated that they wind up playing in 65th Avenue North, which is a busy street. He also stated that the parking situation at the complex is bad, that there are not enough spaces and that residents wind up parking on Chowen Avenue North. He stated that there are parking spaces at the complex that don't get used because of the habits of some of the tenants. He stated that some of them play their radios very loud in the street late at night. He complimented the present manager on having done a good job of getting after some of the tenants. Commissioner Bernards asked Mr. Zins whether he had tried to work with police on the problems. Mr. Zins responded in the 6 -14 -90 6 affirmative. He again stated that he was concerned that the area would decline if the variance were granted. The Secretary asked Mr. Zins whether he felt the situation would be acceptable if there were modifications to the project that would involve more parking and more play areas. Mr. Zins responded that he did not know where they could put such facilities. The Secretary asked Mr. Zins how he felt the management of the complex had been conducted. Mr. Zins responded that it did not seem that good. Commissioner Johnson stated that he knew of an elderly woman who lived in the complex who had been asking for a guardrail for a year and that it had not been put in. Mrs. Louise Wirtz, of 6501 Beard Avenue North, (the on -site manager for the project) stated that the City may eliminate one problem, but cause another. She acknowledged that the City could not discriminate in who was allowed to rent a unit, but she encouraged the City to look at the problems with subsidized housing along Humboldt Avenue North. She expressed a concern that there would be more undesirables living in the complex. She also related a recent problem that she had had with a drug dealer. Mrs. Wirtz acknowledged that not all low- income residents were like that, but that most of them are on AFDC. She stated that the City already has its share of subsidized housing. She acknowledged that these people need a place to live, but asked that they not all be housed near them. She also had some complaints regarding the management. In response to a question from Chairperson Malecki, Mrs. Wirtz stated that three - bedroom apartments are a problem. She stated that she preferred single - family homes for families where children can have space. Mr. Francis Zins asked whether the apartment project had been inspected recently. The Secretary answered that he was not sure if the license was up for renewal. He pointed out that the issue before the Planning Commission is not whether the rental license should be renewed. He explained that that is not decided by the Planning Commission. He added, however, that he would investigate with the Housing Inspector if there are any problems at the complex. Mr. Zins stated that he had a petition signed by 97 people in the neighborhood who are very much against the project. Chairperson Malecki asked what the petition said. Mr. Zins then read the petition which cited the possible use of federal and state money for low- income housing and predicted problems in the project and declining property values in the neighborhood. The Secretary asked Mr. Zins whether he wanted to submit the petition. Mr. Zins responded in the affirmative and gave the petition to Chairperson Malecki. Chairperson Malecki concluded that the main concerns appear to be regarding parking and playground area. Mr. Zins responded in the 6 -14 -90 7 affirmative and added that there was concern regarding the children who would inhabit the complex. Mrs. Jackie O'Brien, of 6536 Chowen Avenue North, asked whether the project had been sold. Mr. Teasdale stated that the project had not been sold but that he had made an offer on the property contingent on getting the variance. Mrs. O'Brien asked whether there was anything to prohibit two families from occupying one dwelling unit. The Secretary p Y responded b reviewin g the definition of a "family" in the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that a dwelling becomes a two - family unit when certain physical facilities are installed such as a second kitchen. He added, however, that a variety of living arrangements could be acknowledged as a family as long as the people in it maintain a common household. He stated that the main issue under City ordinance would be whether the number of occupants exceed the he occu anc limits in the Housing occupancy g Maintenance Occupancy Ordinance. Mrs. O'Brien asked about the possibility of two welfare mothers living in the same apartment. The Secretary answered that it would probably be allowed if it was within the limits of total occupancy of the unit. Mrs. O'Brien also asked about the possibility of unrelated individuals living in one unit. The Secretary answered that such an arrangement would probably be covered by the lease with the owner. He stated that the City would allow up to five unrelated individuals to be considered a family as long as they were maintaining a common household. Mrs. O'Brien stated there would be parking problems with such an arrangement. The Secretary acknowledged that this might happen, but pointed out that a problem could also exist with a family of two adults and two grown children with their own cars. He stated that the City's Zoning Ordinance requires two parking spaces per dwelling unit. He also stated that the Garden City Court apartment complex may have been built before that parking requirement went into effect. Mrs. O'Brien stated that she had fought the approval of apartments many years ago when she first moved to the community and that they were fighting them again now. She stated that it was a difficult situation not to know who owned the complex or would own it, with or without the variance. The Secretary stated that many people buy property with a contingent offer and that Mr. Teasdale is simply pursuing that route in this case. Mr. Zins stated that 25 years ago there were plans for a play area for children at this complex. The Secretary stated he was not sure how many children have always been at the complex. He stated that the buildings were composed of dwelling units and that the people come and go. He stated that the problem is not necessarily because of the type of dwelling units or whether the residents happen to be welfare recipients, but that there are individuals who can create problems and be bad tenants. An unidentified woman in the audience asked the Secretary whether he did not feel that the problems come with low- income residents. The Secretary answered that the tall 6-14-90 90 g building south of the City Hall was full of low- income residents and that the City has no problems with them. He stated that one could not stereotype a person on assistance as necessarily being a problem. He stated that he did not feel it was a fair characterization to equate low- income residents with crime and drugs. Mrs. Louise Wirtz stated that not all low - income people have problems, but that a majority of them do. She cited people who cheat on welfare and boyfriends who are allowed to live with welfare mothers as long as they are not fathers of the children and that some of them live better than she does. The Secretary pointed out that the program being pursued by Mr. Teasdale would not necessarily require that all of the units be rented to low- income individuals. Mrs. Wirtz asked to see that in writing. Mr. Teasdale said that some of the residents would be low- income. He stated that he hoped to have many of the same tenants as are in the buildings right now. He stated that he wanted to have good tenants and that bad tenants are a problem for everyone. He stated that good dwelling units would attract good tenants. He stated that he would try to screen tenants so that the bad ones were weeded out. Mr. Earl Anderson, of 3301 64th Avenue North, stated that he felt that Brooklyn Center was saturated with low- income residents and that no more were needed. Mr. Todd Paulson, of 3216 Poe Road, and a member of the City Council, then briefly addressed the Planning Commission. He thanked the Commission for their good work and asked them to get more information on this matter before making a decision. He stated that he would like to encourage the Commission to look at the requirements Hennepin County has for these programs. He also recommended getting a comment from the City Attorney and also information from the Metropolitan Council on the need for three - bedroom units. He also recommended that the Commission look into the history behind the 10% limit. He stated that he just became aware of the issue today and stated that he felt the proposal was not a candidate for a variance since it was not unique. He stated that there may be a reason to look at amending the ordinance if it is determined that the 10% limit is not fair. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Mann stated that she would like to see the application tabled until the City Attorney comments on the 10% limit. Commissioner Ainas agreed and suggested checking with other cities on their experience with apartment conversions. He also suggested acquiring any Metropolitan Council reports bearing on this issue. Commissioner Bernards stated that a variance would set a precedent and that the proper way to approach this would be to evaluate the 6 -14 -90 9 ordinance itself and to change it if necessary. Commissioner Ainas agreed. Chairperson Malecki also suggested that the Planning Commission look at the Housing Study that was done last year. She doubted that the state or federal government would spend money without attaching some strings as to who would live in the complex. The Secretary reviewed some of the items that the Commission wanted to have researched. He stated that staff would work on these and concluded that he felt the Planning Commission prefers an ordinance amendment, if necessary, rather than granting a variance. Commissioner Ainas stated that he did not think the City should rely on a land area requirement for three - bedroom units. He stated this, he said, because Prescott Wisconsin recently dropped a similar provision when their City Attorney gave them a memo that such an ordinance would be declared unconstitutional. The Planner noted the City Attorney's memo which was distributed to the Commission in which one community that had a fairly exorbitant land area requirement had their ordinance thrown out. He added, however, that a number of other cities that he interviewed two years previously had similar provisions and that he doubted that they were all invalid. The Secretary then reviewed again for the benefit of those present the Zoning Ordinance provisions that apply to the Garden City Court apartments. He stated there is presently a 10% limit on the number of three bedroom units in any apartment complex and that that 10% limit is the reason for the variance. He stated that the question for the Commission is whether that provision may be discriminatory toward larger families. He concluded that it is a complex issue that cannot be resolved quickly. He added that he would notify the neighbors when the matter was reconsidered. Commissioner Bernards noted that the complex could have some three - bedroom units under the present ordinance. Chairperson Malecki stated that she wanted information on available parking at the complex. The Secretary reviewed the problem of parking and explained that parking on a public street is allowed with some restrictions unless it is posted "no parking." Mrs. Louise Wirtz, the resident manager, stated that there was adequate parking at the complex, but that people park on the street because it is closer to their units. Chairperson Malecki stated she would also like some background on the history of the three - bedroom limit in the ordinance. The Planner explained that most of the history had been dug up two years ago with the Zappa application. He stated that a number of ordinance amendments were adopted in 1974 which related in one way or another to density concerns. Among them, he stated, were the 10% limit, the land area requirement of 250 sq. ft. of additional land for each bedroom over two, a deduction of setback area from land area required for multi - family dwelling units (he noted that this was repealed seven or eight years ago), and a density credit 6 -14 -90 10 for under building parking stalls. He stated that all of these ordinances related in one way or another to density and open space and stated that he would provide that information for the Planning Commission's consideration. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO 90015 (Teasdale and Associates) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to table Application No. 90015 and direct staff to provide more information as indicated in the Planning Commission's discussion. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Johnson and Mann. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Johnson to adjourned the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:53 p.m. Chairperson 6 -14 -90 11 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90015 Applicant: Teasdale and Associates Location: 3407 through 3417 65th Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance from Section 35 -400 footnote 1 c. of the Zoning Ordinance to allow more than 10% of the units in the Garden City Court apartment development to be three - bedroom units. The proposal would involve taking 24 two - bedroom units in the complex and remodeling them into 16 three - bedroom units. The total number of units in the complex would be reduced from 72 to 64. The percentage of three - bedroom units would, therefore, be 25 %. The property in question is zoned R5 and is bounded on the north by 65th Avenue North, on the east by the Beard Avenue apartments (three 12 unit buildings) , on the south by Builder's Square, and on the west by Garden City elementary school. The complex presently consists of six 12 unit buildings served by a private cul -de -sac street. The two and one half storey apartment buildings are permitted uses in the R5 district. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which he explains his proposal and briefly addresses the Standards for a Variance (see Section 35 -240 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached). Mr. Teasdale explains that recent changes in the laws pertaining to the awarding of low income housing credits and the allocation of tax exempt bond financing have made it a requirement that a minimum of 25% of total units in a multi - family project be three - bedroom units. Low income housing credits, he states, are the major vehicle for the provision of rehabilitation funds on a multi - family project. Mr. Teasdale points out that the number of rental units has increased while the number of renters has declined or is projected to decline. This will lead to vacancies unless. ,a project is upgraded. One area of the rental market that is expected to experience increased demand is moderate cost three bedroom units. Mr. Teasdale states that Brooklyn Center is vulnerable to future vacancies with the high number of one - bedroom units. Mr. Teasdale points out that his proposed remodeling will reduce the number of dwelling units in the complex and should result in an increase of only 6 to 10 children in the complex. Mr. Teasdale concludes his letter by stating that it is in the City's interest to allow more three - bedroom units since it will allow for rehabilitation of rental projects which should benefit the neighborhood. Otherwise, there may be declining demand for smaller units which will result in decay in the future. As to the variance standards, Mr. Teasdale states that the Garden City Court apartment project is for sale, but will be worth less to potential buyers if rehabilitation funds cannot be used to upgrade it. Rehabilitation funds are only available for a project with at least 25% three - bedroom units. Therefore, the existing 10% limit in the Zoning Ordinance causes an economic hardship for the present owner. 6 -14 -90 -1- Application No. 90015 continued Regarding uniqueness, Mr. Teasdale admits that the same circumstances could apply to other apartment developments. Mr. Teasdale states that the situation was not created by the current owners. (Apparently, he means that the hardship has resulted from the adoption of the 10% limit by the City in 1974, not by actions of the owner.) Finally, Mr. Teasdale states that the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare, but should, in fact, prove beneficial to other property in the area. Staff Response We would acknowledge that there is validity to many of the applicant's arguments. Not only will rehabilitation funds not be available, but market demand will also be less if conversion to three - bedroom units is not allowed. The result, as has been pointed out, may be that there will be fewer people renting the units, less income to work with, and consequently perhaps a lower standard of maintenance. This may be considered a hardship not only for the owner, but for tenants, neighbors, and the City as well since a deteriorating project is in no one's interest. Also, this hardship results from the imposition of the 10% limitation in the Zoning Ordinance which was adopted in 1974, after the project was built. The applicant argues that the rehabilitation of the project allowed by the relaxation of the 10% limit on three - bedroom units will benefit other property and will not be detrimental to the public welfare. There may be some concern on the part of the neighborhood about the likelihood of more children at the complex with greater impact, both positive and negative, on the neighborhood. The number of dwelling units would actually decline by 8; so, the number of additional children might be fairly limited. In any case, the City probably cannot legally adopt and execute a housing policy which is discriminating against children. The main standard which is not met in this case is uniqueness. This complex is really not unique at all. It may be, therefore, that a more appropriate way of dealing with the issue would be to change the ordinance to either alter or eliminate the 10% limit on three - bedroom apartments. In 1988, there was a proposal by Robert Zappa to build a 12 unit building with 11 three - bedroom units. The Planning Commission considered the ordinance at that time and recommended no change. The application was forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation to deny. The applicant never showed up at the City Council meeting and the application was tabled. No action has been taken on the issue by the City Council. At the time the Zappa application was considered by the Planning Commission, staff conducted a survey of 16 other municipalities with respect to their ordinances regarding three - bedroom apartments. Half the cities (8) had requirements for additional land area for three - bedroom units (as has Brooklyn Center), but none of them had any provision similar to the 10% limit on three - bedroom units. 6 -14 -90 -2- Application No. 90015 continued We have asked the City Attorney to comment on the 10% limitation, as to whether it would likely be found legal in light of fair housing legislation and court decisions. He has conveyed to us a memorandum prepared in 1988 regarding the subject. The case law on ordinances similar to Brooklyn Center's is limited because this type of provision (the 10% limit on three - bedroom units) is fairly rare. Two cases are cited in the memorandum. In one case, the. ordinance was upheld as a legitimate means of controlling density of development. A similar ordinance was declared invalid in another case since it had the effect of excluding children. In both cases, the impact of children on available school facilities was cited as a basis for the ordinance. In one case, this basis was deemed legitimate; in another, it was not. We expect another memo from the City Attorney on this subject and will forward it to the Commission as soon as it is available. The Commission is encouraged to consider both the purposes and effects of the 10% limit on three - bedroom units. It may well be that a legal challenge to our ordinance would be successful. Another way of addressing the density concern is to require more land area for three - bedroom units. The present ordinance requires 250 sq. ft. of additional land for each bedroom over two in a given unit. This sort of provision is more common and more neutral in its effects than the 10% limit. The City Attorney has suggested in 0 the 1988 cover letter (attached) that the City consider additional land requirements for three - bedroom units over the 10% limit. This is a possibility, or just increasing the land requirement 'for all three - bedroom units so long as the requirement is reasonable and is related to density concerns, not an attempt to exclude children. We will be prepared to discuss this matter further at Thursday's meeting. 6 -14 -90 _ -3- 35 -240 applicant a written notice of the action taken. A copy of this notice shall be kept on file as a part of the permanent record of the f application. 2. Standards for Variances The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of this ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration. however, the Board shall not recommend and the City Council shall in no case permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this ordinance in the district where the affected person's land is located. A variance maybe granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met: a. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. b. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. c. The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. d. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may impose conditions and restrictions in the granting of variances so as to insure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance and with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and to protect adjacent properties. Y IIn11 /111 "' � '� � � �% ►��i ■u■ n��■ �u ��� ,� . - � � ■emu► . ���� •, �- mass man main off OUR MEMO ■U■u ■�U■U■ nU Jill �� �� W • .,.;' a r V ���1����/ ■tug � ''' /� Ai ,� � y • ��1.� ■U� : tom' � � �� ww w■� ww a M CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/13/90 Agenda Item Number LL REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: COMMUNICATIONS AUDIT DEPT. APPROVAL: Personnel Coordinator Sign ture - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: 4! No comments to supplement this report Comments pp p is below /attached . *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached In January 1990, the city council authorized an agreement between the City and Coleman & Christison, Inc. for a communications audit (Resolution No. 90 -23). Attached is the completed report resulting from the audit. Steve Miller, Account Executive with Coleman & Christison, will be present at the city council meeting to review the report and respond to any questions the council may have about it. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Discuss communications report and take action if necessary. Contents I. An Executive Overview A New Approach Using Traditional Tools The Problem 4 The Audit Process 5 Does The Public Think There Is A Communication 6 Problem In Brooklyn Center? Challenges Of A New Age Make Communication 10 Improvements More Compelling Our Recommendations: 12 i s 1) A Hybrid Newsletter 2) An Issues Hot Line 3) A Communications Advisory Committee, A Communications Plan Improving External And Internal Communications 18 On the Department Level Communication Beyond Brooklyn Center 22 Summary 24 II. Budget Analysis How Much Will It Cost? 25 -2- Coleman & Christison. Inc. III. City Communications As Seen By Management & Staff How Well Are We Talking To Each Other, Residents? An Overview 28 Personal & Professional Background Of Management Staff 28 Inner- And Inter - Departmental Communications 29 Current Issues And The Complaint Process 32 Department Communication Techniques . 36 IV. City Communications As Viewed By Residents Are They Listening? An Overview 38 Residential Survey 39 Transportation Surve y 41 Focus Group Discussions 42 V. Appendix Research Sources 44 -3- Coleman & Christison- Inc. I. An Executive Overview A New Approach Using Traditional Tools The Problem In early 1990, Coleman & Christison was asked to perform a communication audit of the city f Brooklyn Center for the following easons: Y Y g • In 1989, the city commissioned a survey of the residents of Brooklyn Center through the polling and research firm of Decision Resources, Ltd. The survey identified constituent communications as an area that deserved serious review by the City Council and executive management. According to the survey: "The major finding is that the reach of existing channels is extremely limited. Many people are unable to obtain information, and the sources utilized by most residents are too diffused to insure a coherent message ... To insure a continuing reservoir of goodwill among its residents, the City may wish to undertake a re- evaluation and expansion of its current communications efforts." • Changes in ownership and management of the local newspaper, the Brooklyn Center Post News, have resulted in what has been perceived by city department heads, business leaders, and the spokespersons for several major civic groups as a significant cutback in coverage of local events in Brooklyn Center. It is also reported that the coverage that is afforded the city is often inaccurate and negative in nature. This perception seems to be supported by the public as the circulation of the Post News has dropped to 3,194, not quite a third of Brooklyn Center's 11,270 households. And in fact, the community section of the Minneapolis -based Star Tribune reaches more households in Brooklyn Center at 5,683. • Technologies in publishing, broadcast and telecommunications have undergone almost revolutionary change during just the past decade. If, in the final analysis, it is agreed that changes or improvements are necessary in Brooklyn Center's communication program, the City Council, city -4- Coleman & Christison Inc. management and residents must have a thorough understanding of the many communication options that are available. This is especially, important now when recent budget cuts by both the State and Federal government have reduced the amount of revenues available to municipalities. We began our study, then, on the premise that the city currently lacks a mass communication vehicle that reaches all 11,270 households in Brooklyn Center on a regular basis and with comprehensive coverage of local events and issues. The Audit Process A communication audit is a formalized way of looking at an organization's entire communication system. While this must include a careful analysis of more visible mass communication techniques like newspapers, television, cable and radio, it also includes one -on -one communication between managers in different departments, between managers and their staff, between the staffs from one department to another, and between citizens and everyone at city hall from the city manager on down to the switchboard operator. This is accomplished by methodically documenting the three major communication elements normally present in any organization: 1) internal communications, 2) external communications, and 3) outside communications that effect the institution. To assess the internal communications process at Brooklyn Center city hall, we first conducted a series of 1.5- to 2 -hour interviews with the city manager, the directors of each department, and certain administrative staff. We also conducted hour -long focus group discussions with two employee groups made up of employees from each department. To assess external communications, we held six focus groups made up of individuals from several important subgroups in Brooklyn Center including senior -5- Coleman & Christison Inc. citizens, business people, educators, service organizations and neighborhood groups. We also included four specific communications - related questions in an independent survey of the residents of Brooklyn Center conducted by the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council. Our assessment of external communications by Brooklyn Center city hall was also supported by the residential survey conducted by Decisions Resources, Ltd., mentioned earlier in this summary. We utilized research data compiled by our media department to examine the influence of outside media on Brooklyn Center including the Brooklyn Center Post News, Northwest News, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Northwest Community Television (cable), Cityline (telecommunications), and several mailing services. And finally, the reader will note that all segments of this study were supported by research and data from several sources inside and outside of the city of Brooklyn Center (for a complete list of these sources, please see the appendix). Does The Public Think There Is A Communications Problem In Brooklyn Center? At the outset of the audit process, we asked a very basic question of both city officials and the public... "Do officials of Brooklyn Center city government provide enough information to the public ?" While the Decisions Resources, Ltd., survey documented some of the perceived, communication inadequacies in Brooklyn Center, it never documented whether the residents themselves felt they were or were not receiving enough information from the city. In fact, the very positive ratings given the city in most areas of the survey would indicate that residents are generally satisfied with the -6- Coleman & Christison -Inc. r job the city is doing regardless of whether or not there is perceived to be a good communication system. This point was expanded on during the audit process. When people were asked, "Do you feel well informed about city business and activities ?" in a survey conducted by the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council, nearly 70 percent said "yes" and only 30 percent said "no." The percentages were almost identical when the question was reworded to say "Is the information you currently receive about city activities not enough information, just right, or too much information." Again nearly 70 percent of the respondents said "just right," 28.6 percent said "not enough" and only .8 percent said "too much." During our focus groups, we uncovered some of the underlying meanings behind these responses. In regards to the first question where people stated that they felt well informed about city issues, we suspect what they really meant was that they knew about as much as they wanted to know. The second question regarding the amount of information people receive on city activities again could be more broadly interpreted to mean eo le receive about as much information P P as they want to receive instead of what someone else feels they "need." City officials varied in their responses to the question about the need for more information from their departments. While many managers indicated that their departments could do more, sooner in` communicating their activities to the public, most felt that the real problem was due to: 1) the lack of coverage of important issues and events in the Brooklyn Center Post News, 2) the inaccurate and negative nature of the coverage that does appear in the Brooklyn Center Post News, and 3) the low circulation of the Brooklyn Center y ente Post News. -7- Coleman & Christison Inc. Which leads us back to the central question, "Do officials of Brooklyn Center city government provide enough information to the public ?" We must accept the fact that the answer to that question in the eyes of most of the public is an unqualified "yes." Therefore it follows that the need for improvements in the city's communication system should not be based on a perception that there is a great public clamor for such improvements. So where does that leave us? ... a recommendation azainst more or improved communications activities for the city of Brooklyn Center? ... decidedly not. A significant number, nearly one - third, of all Brooklyn Center residents fall into the "uninformed" and "need- more - information" categories. If we identify exactly who makes up this group, we could probably go a long way toward at least addressing the public, concern in this area. The Decisions Resources, Ltd., study does provide us with a partial answer to this question. In this survey, cross - tabulations were used to determine who was left "outside of the communications loop" in Brooklyn Center. According to the survey findings, these are less than two -year residents, renters and 18 to 24 year olds. We recommend that further cross - tabulations on both the Decisions Resources, Ltd., data and that done for the city by the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council, be run again to help shed more light on both the demographic and geographic makeup of this group. The city must then make this group a priority for any changes or improvements in the Brooklyn Center communication program. We should also note here that this recommendation may prove especially important in light of the fact that this group — new residents, renters and 18 to 24 year olds — has been identified by several studies as the source of many of the social problems and -8- Coleman & Chrislison Inc. challenges now confronting Brooklyn Center. These studies include A Profile of Poverty in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota; The Brooklyn Center Housing Market: A Study of Trends and Their Impact on the Community and the 1988 and 1989 annual reports of the Brooklyn Center Police Department. But now let's get back to the broader question of "yes" or "no" on the need for improved communications between the city of Brooklyn Center and residents. In the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council survey, we also asked, If the city wanted to improve how it communicates with the residents, would you support or not support such an activity ?" An overwhelming majority — 88.4 percent — said they would support such an activity, 4 percent said they would not support such an activity and only 5.6 percent brought up the issue of cost. How does this correlate with the answers given earlier in the same survey that indicated most residents felt informed and were receiving enough information about the city? Again we must turn to our focus groups for some insight into the reasons people answered this question the way they did. Most focus group participants could site specific improvements they would like to see made to the existing communications program. There were also several suggestions for new communication services they would like to see the city consider adding to the current communication program. It is reasonable to say that people are happy with the communications services they are now receiving from the city of Brooklyn Center an A, at the same time, would welcome improving and expanding those services —even if it cost more to do so. -9- Coleman & Chrislison Inc. Challenges Of A New Age Make Communication Improvements Far More Compellinia We believe that even if communication improvements did not win popularity contests with the public, there remains far broader and more compelling reasons for upgrading the communication system in Brooklyn Center. Almost everyone we talked to during the audit process feels strongly that Brooklyn Center is at an important juncture in its history. What was once a very homogeneous community of traditional, two - parent, white, middle -class families is undergoing a subtle but steady transformation. The original core of residents, those who came here for affordable housing following World War II, have raised their children and are now either retired or facing retirement. The needs and concerns of this group, still one of the largest in Brooklyn Center, are quite a bit different than those of newer generations. Affordable housing and convenient location continue to draw many new people to this city, some who don't fit the mold of the traditional Brooklyn Center resident. For example, there has been a significant increase reported in the number of single - parent households headed by a woman. In 1980, these households represented nearly 9 percent of all households in Brooklyn Center, the highest concentration in Northwest Hennepin County. Brooklyn Center also has one of the highest poverty rates in the northwest corridor at 5.4 percent of its total population. Brooklyn Center ranks third highest among northwest municipalities with subsidized rental units at 323 compared to Brooklyn Park with 346 and Golden Valley with 352. And, according to a Metropolitan Council study done in 1984, Brooklyn Center has one of the highest minority populations in the northwest suburbs at approximately 4.5 percent. This figure jumps to as high as 25 percent in some of Brooklyn Center's schools. -10- Coleman & Christison Inc. These broad changes are now rippling through the social fabric of Brooklyn Center. The resulting pressures have put a tremendous strain on the resources of all of Brooklyn Center's major institutions, its schools, its churches, its human services agencies, its Police Department and its city government. Residents and their elected officials find they must now deal with such issues as increased drug abuse, accelerated criminal activity including gang violence, and racism. And more "mundane" but no less important decisions will have to be made soon on major infrastructure improvements, redevelopment of the housing stock, business and industrial redevelopment, and ongoing improvement and review of the city's transportation system. Quoting now from Brooklyn Center's Year 2000 Committee Report: ...we wish to point out that in our examination of the issues and trends which will be impacting Brooklyn Center in the years to come, two words seemed to reoccur consistently. These two words were change and anticipate. Change in our society, the way we look at the world (our paradigm), our technology, our economic base and almost everything else we can think of will be occurring faster than it has in the past. We can also count on the fact that these changes will be more pervasive than ever before. Government institutions, including municipalities, have traditionally served as buffers to change and defenders of the status quo. We believe in the future, because of the speed and the extent of the change in our society, municipal and other institutions will have to be more flexible and accommodating to change. This will not be easy because human beings and their institutions simply do not care for, like, or indeed, want to consider change. Generally, people will be more comfortable with a status quo. The Council will have to work with the community to accommodate coming changes. This will call for a high degree of leadership, citizen participation and communication. -11- Coleman & Christison 'Inc. The word "anticipate" is defined in Webster's Dictionary as "to look forward to; to prevent by action in advance." The quality of our future may well depend on how well we anticipate and plan for change. We must adopt a forward looking stance which will allow us to "prevent by action in advance. "... (emphasis ours) Our Recommendations As mentioned earlier in this report, many of those involved in the audit process, including the City Council, feel that the first order of business ought to be the development of a mass communication vehicle fill P c e that s the void left b the Brooklyn n y Center Post News. While we certainly don't disagree, it is our duty as auditors to step back from the more pressing concerns of the moment and assess the whole picture. We believe there are several lesser communication concerns facing the city that when added up might be just as important as developing a new or improved mass communication vehicle. Specifically, we are talking about several recommendations that affect only certain subgroups within the community. And while we did not discover any major roadblocks to effective communication within the city's management staff, many of these recommendations spin out of the day -to -day communication activities that go on between departments and between each department and its public. Most of these recommendations are included in the section of this report that deal s with th the communication programs of each department. Included in that section is a discussion of such topics as the lack of a formalized complaint system that can be monitored by the city manager and the Council, the need for an employee newsletter, and the development of a coherent communication style. -12- Coleman & Christison Inc. To successfully address Brooklyn Center's immediate mass communication problem, however, while laying the necessary groundwork for a longer -term solution to improving city communications, we recommend the following: I: A Hybrid Newsletter When it comes to reaching every household in Brooklyn Center on a timely basis, our choices quickly become limited. As was pointed out earlier in this report, the local newspaper barely reaches a third of the households in the community. At this time, it also lacks the support and confidence of many groups in Brooklyn Center. The community section of the Minneapolis -based Star Tribune reaches more households in Brooklyn Center at 5,683, but again this does not solve the problem of reaching all residents in Brooklyn Center. And there is even less local coverage by the Star Tribune of events in Brooklyn Center than in the Brooklyn Center Post News. To successfully utilize this medium, we would have to buy advertising space on a regular basis. Cable penetrates even more households in Brooklyn Center (43.7 percent or 4,846 households as of the end of April), but there is serious question as to how effective this medium is as a communication vehicle for local public affairs. In fact, figures we compiled indicate that as few as 250 to 350 households are likely to view specific programming on the city including City Council meetings. Increasing the viewership of this programming significantly would be extremely expensive and may not even work in the long run. That leaves us with really only one alternative that will satisfy all of the prerequisites we have listed previously for an effective communication system in Brooklyn Center ... a timely communication vehicle, a communication vehicle that reaches all of the homes in Brooklyn Center, and a communication vehicle that will effectively cover local events and issues. To achieve this goal, we recommend that the city of Brooklyn Center publish a monthly news tabloid. We envision the tabloid as hybrid of the -13- Coleman & Christison Inc. n typical city newsletter. In our review of city newsletters (including Brooklyn Center's), we found that most of them approach the audience using a "directive" editorial style. Many of these articles list rules and regulations, do's and don'ts, or even where's and how's that when taken as a whole come across sounding almost patronizing to the average reader. Very little is done to give context to a current issue or provide a broader perspective on what future issues might be. And in most cases, simple layout and design techniques are not used in these publications to prioritize issues for the busy reader. Instead of approaching news of the city in this style, we believe it is possible for Brooklyn Center to provide residents with a publication that is far more reflective and "reader friendly." We would do this by borrowing several tried and true editorial techniques that are designed to increase readership. For example, we recommend kicking off this enlightened approach to the city news tabloid with a regular city hall column written by former Post News columnist Mary Jane Gustafson. We were impressed by the number of people in all groups we spoke to who mentioned Ms. Gustafson's column as an extremely credible and interesting source of information on the city. We have had preliminary conversations with Ms. Gustafson making it clear that final decision on any such project rests with the City Council. However, she did indicate that she would be pleased to do approximately six columns a year for the city. We suggest establishing several regular features designed to pass along important information in an interesting fashion. One of these might be a "Dear Abby" type of column where a counselor or counselors from local social agencies answer real questions from local residents. Another section or department should focus on business activities in town with possibly a regular review of important business indices by city Finance Director Paul Holmlund. And yet another section such as "Ask The Mayor, Ask The Council" or "Ask City Hall" would feature letters -to- the - editor. And while city news would obviously be the focus of this publication, we don't see any reason why lighter community events could not be included. Photos and short stories about local celebrations, interesting personalities, -14- Coleman & Christison Inc. major personal accomplishments, etc., are always popular with readers in a small community. Y The point here is to design an editorial product that always asks the following rhetorical questions: "Who would be interested in this issue and how important is it to that group? How do we package the information in as interesting a way as possible? And finally, how do we get that information to them as quickly as possible ?" We also recommend that the newsletter be delivered to each household in Brooklyn Center via the U.S. Postal service using carrier route sort. This would mean that the Parks and Recreation guide now attached to the city newsletter would become a separate publication that could still be delivered by the swim club if desired. This delivery system would solve two major problems we have seen with the current newsletter delivery system: 1) it would insure that renters are included in the communications loop. As we pointed out earlier, this is a very important target group. And 2), it would insure mailings to the business community, another important target group that is not now receiving the city newsletter. We were not surprised to discover that most of the cities we polled use the mail system to distribute their newsletter. -15- Coleman & Chrislison Inc. II. An Issues Hot Line During our study, many department personnel reported spending a great deal of time, resources and patience on routine calls. For example, every year in the Spring the city begins removing diseased trees from public and private land throughout the city. Hundreds of people will call the Public Works department asking for information on their tree- removal responsibilities. Another example comes from the Community Center where front -desk personnel must answer dozens of calls each day on regular program information and hours of operation. And of course if a major issue breaks, the main switchboard operator will get flooded with calls from people who are just calling to "find out what is going on." While the City ouncil has made it very clear that the do not want to force Y rY Y residents into listening to taped telephone messages (no matter how wonderful the technology), we believe that the process can be reversed and that many people can be enticed into using the system. Aside from relieving some of the telephone burden from city employees, these systems can now provide an important feedback mechanism to city management and the Council. Here's how it works. The city would contract with a telecommunications vendor to set up an "Issue of the Week" Hot Line that would be promoted in the news tabloid and in all other city correspondence. Instead of just running a taped message and allowing the caller to hang up, we can program the system to offer the caller a range of options. For example, we could program in a short questionnaire after the message that could later be accessed to provide up -to- the - minute readings on public opinion regarding certain issues. Callers could also have pre - programmed information faxed directly to a fax number of their choosing. Or a caller could choose to be connected directly to someone at city hall or at any other agency in the metropolitan area that might have more information available on a particular topic. And of course, the caller could simply leave a name and address asking for more information or for someone at city hall to return a call. These systems are truly the wave of the future. As people become more familiar with Brooklyn Center's Hot Line, we believe such a system could -16- Coleman & Christison Inc. eventually be used by the city to deal more directly with routine requests for information. It is also relatively inexpensive to set up such a system, and of course everyone has a telephone. III. A Communications Advisory Committee A Communications Plan To effectively implement these programs as well as make base -line decisions regarding some of the communications improvements that are less pressing at this time, we recommend that the City Council appoint a Communications Advisory Committee with its first task to prepare a communications plan. Most major businesses, large non - profit organizations and many state and federal government units do such planning. Recently several local municipalities have also joined the list of communities with communication plans including Eagan, Plymouth, Golden Valley, Edina, St. Louis Park and Minnetonka. The first step in developing such a plan is for top policy makers to agree on communication goals and objectives for an organization. All communication efforts that follow should then support and flow from this mission statement. Next, the plan must lay out clearly who it is the organization wishes to communicate with...who are the key audiences that most impact the mission statement and how to best reach them. Planners must then start the process of prioritizing issues (in this case from both the public's point of view and the department's point of view) and laying out a specific list of communication activities that will facilitate two -way communication on those issues. Implementation is the last step. Armed with the information described above, managers start with the most cost - effective communication vehicles and work their way down until they have accomplished their goals (or run out of money). While this audit goes a long way toward laying a foundation for such a plan, it is not a plan per say. To be successful, Brooklyn Center's communication plan will need to be developed with the input of several groups in Brooklyn Center including the City Council. -17- Coleman & ChriVison Inc. Obviously these programs will require an increase in the city's communication budget (see the attached budget summary). We are confident, however, that these costs can be kept within reason by using freelance writers, advanced desktop publishing technologies and competitive bidding. The real question then becomes, "who is going to do the work ?" We believe that the success of the programs suggested above, as well as several secondary proposals discussed later in this summary, will depend on execution by a professional communicator. One reason for this is that department managers were unanimous in saying that they couldn't free up any extra time for additional communications activities. More importantly, however, is the simple fact that it will take a communications professional to do the job properly. And in the final analysis, we believe that a communication specialist will eventually become a part- or full -time position with the city. Several of the cities we mentioned above have already come to this conclusion. In the short -term, however, we believe that the immediate recommendations in this proposal for a news tabloid, a Hot Line and a communications plan could be successfully administered by an outside communications specialist. Improving External & Internal Communications On The Department Level - Once Brooklyn Center's news tabloid and issues Hot Line is successfully up and running, and the Communications Committee has developed a comprehensive communications program, it will be time to start focusing on developing and improving secondary communication programs within the city. We believe this process should start in each Department. -18- Coleman & Christison Inc. I As we pointed out earlier, our exhaustive interviews of management and focus ou �' P discussions with employees revealed no major roadblocks to successful communication within departments, between different departments, or between departments and residents. In fact, most employees report that Brooklyn Center city hall is a good place to work. People are competent and friendly, and executive management was characterized consistently as providing employees with a good balance between plenty of leeway and plenty of support. These observations held up for staff as well as management. There are, however, several was in which we believe each department and the city Y P Y as a whole can improve external and internal communications. These improvements fall in four main areas. First, a review of printed communication materials sent out by various departments revealed that some are badly designed, written and produced. Some of the writing is very technical and filled with jargon making it difficult for the average person to understand exactly what is being asked of him or her. And in some cases, multiple generation copies have made certain documents all but impossible to read. We also noted that there is no consistent color or graphics style used on city print materials. We recommend that all printed pieces used by the city of Brooklyn Center be considered for possible rewriting and redesign. The second area of minor communication breakdown involves cross - communication between the line employees of different departments. Many employees and several managers suggested that there is almost no regular form of communication between the employees of different departments other than what occurs in the break room. Employees in the Police, Public Works and Parks and Recreation Department are also isolated from th physically e mam areas of city hall and don't have an opportunity to exchange information in any fashion. -19- Coleman & Christison Inc. From a communications perspective, we look at every employee in an organization as an ambassador of good will. Friends, neighbors and acquaintances will often ask an employee what is oin on regarding this project or that project. Man Brooklyn g g g g P J P J Y n Y Center employees reported feeling a bit embarrassed at being caught not knowing about major projects. Still others reported not knowing about major projects until they were written about in the city newsletter. To solve this problem, we recommend that the city produce a twice -a -month employee newsletter that would keep employees up to date on major programs. This publication should also include news on both serious and not -so- serious internal developments from new personnel to the name of the latest new grandson or granddaughter. Aside from the communications considerations we've mentioned, a well -done publication of this nature can improve morale. Third, we discovered during our audit that there is no formalized complaint system operating at the Brooklyn Center city hall. While no one suggested that a failure to answer complaints was a problem in Brooklyn Center, careful tracking of complaints can provide valuable information on trends that the city can respond to. City managers and the City Council could use complaint reports to get a better handle on public opinion. This information can be used by communicators to structure communication vehicles that will best reach people who are dissatisfied with city services. And a formalized complaint system will insure that no one falls through the cracks. We recommend that complaint tracking systems such as the one offered by LOGIS be reviewed for possible use by the city. And finally, we have noted that there are a range of communication opportunities available to each department that will help them reach selected audiences. These -20- Coleman & Christison Inc. audiences range in size from a few hundred residents to thousands. The selection and use of each of these tools will depend on the individual communication goals of each department. These are highly targeted communication techniques, and the Brooklyn Center Police Department is particularly good at using them. For example, to alert residents in a certain neighborhood to an upcoming crime prevention meeting, flyers were inserted in the shopping bags used at the local municipal liquor store. The same flyer was also taped to the top of pizza delivery boxes going to homes in the targeted neighborhood. The Police Department also uses data that already exists in their computer system to generate reports that are of particular interest to important subgroups like apartment owners, car dealers, store owners, and so on. Another example of this grass -roots approach to communication comes again from the Police Department as well as the Parks and Recreation Department. Both use special - interest newsletters. The Police Department publishes a Crime Watch newsletter that is distributed to neighborhood groups involved in the Department's Crime Watch program. The Recreation Department publishes a Seniors' Happenings newsletter that provides senior citizens with information on several activities and events that might be of interest to them. There are dozens of opportunities such as these available to all departments, the city as a whole and the City Council. -21- Coleman & Christison Inc. Communicating Beyond The Boarders of Brooklyn Center The last stage in the overhaul of Brooklyn Center's communication program should involve a systematic plan to improve the image of the city among influential outside groups. By listing this consideration last, we by no means want to down play the importance of communications outside of the city. In fact, the long -term success Brooklyn Center might have in attracting new, civic - minded residents depends to a great degree on how outsiders perceive the city. Particular attention should be focused on how the city communicates with the news media, developers, the financial community, legislators, civic leaders and other influential citizen groups. Dealing successfully with social and image problems in Brooklyn Center becomes even more important when one considers that most observers predict a slowdown in demand for starter, single - family housing (the predominant form of housing in Brooklyn Center). This will of course put more competitive pressure on the market as a whole, and Brooklyn Center could lose out if people develop a negative image of the city. In the study titled: The Brooklyn Center Housing Market: A Study of Trends and Their Impact on the Community, the authors stated ...... In order to remain vital, Brooklyn Center will need to be able to compete for entry-level homeowners, who may find it more desirable to purchase a modest, but new home in areas such as Anoka, Champlin, Brooklyn Park, Coon Rapids or Maple Grove." There are numerous ways this can be' accomplished through improvements to the city's communication program. A good example involves the delicate issue of how public statements and media opportunities are handled in Brooklyn Center. It was our finding in the audit process that there is no regular review or planning done on this issue. While this discussion would have particular bearing on the Police and Fire -22- Coleman & Christison Inc. departments, we suspect all of the departments find themselves in the public eye at one time or another. While we would never advocate interfering in a process that could impact public safety, we do suspect that there are times when news could be managed to more positively portray the city of Brooklyn Center. -23- Coleman & Christison Inc. l S umm au During our audit, we found that the number one communication concern most people had related to the inability of the city to get information to all residents on a timely and thoughtful basis. To solve this problem, we suggest that the city launch a monthly news tabloid that features an innovative approach to reporting city hall news. This includes inviting former Brooklyn Center Post News columnist Mary Jane Gustafson to write a regular column for the news tabloid. We also suggest that the city develop an issues Hot Line service. This would feature a telephone message that would be changed weekly to reflect issues of public concern. The program would be designed to provide feedback from residents using the service. And finally, we suggest that a Communications Advisory Committee by created to develop a communications plan for Brooklyn Center. The Committee will help guide the efforts of a communication specialist who will or will not be on staff depending P g on the recommendation of city management and the City Council. When time and resources permit, we recommend going beyond the mass communication vehicles described above and cultivating better internal and external communications within each department. Singled out for special concern are design and readability of department publications, the need for an employee newsletter, a formalized complaint system, and targeted communication techniques. Finally, we point out the importance of considering the impact of communications from the city that reaches beyond the borders of Brooklyn Center. We suggest that careful attention be given communication programs that will help project a positive image of Brooklyn Center to influential groups throughout the metropolitan area. -24- Coleman & Christison Inc. II. Budget Analysis How Much Will It Cost? The following analysis compares the cost of the 1990 Brooklyn Center communication budget with the additions we have recommended. Cu rrent: Sug ested: 6 X Newsletter Vs. 12 X News Tabloid Newsletter News Tabloid Printing & Key Lining $15,350.00 $ 42,000.00 Reporting & Editing 7,900.00 36,000.00 Delivery 6,600.00 13,659.24 Labor (Freelance) 9,096.00 1,500.00 Paper 1.159.20 0.00 TOTAL: 40,105.20 93,159.24 Interactive Telecommunications Set -up Fee 1,000.00 Vendor Service Fee 4,800.00 Scripting/Monthly Reports 6,000.00 TOTAL: 11,800.00 Cable Television Labor 2,370.00 Equipment Repair 0.00 TOTAL: 2,370.00 -25- Coleman & Christison Inc. Park &Rec Senior Happenings Newsletter Cu rrent: Suggested: Paper $ 620.00 Postage 122.50 Labor 1,539.00 TOTAL: 2,281.50 Park & Rec Miscellaneous Flyers (for schools) Paper 2,940.00 Labor 0.00 TOTAL: 2,940.00 Special Mailings To Brooklyn Center Residents A: 4X/yr, 2 -page letter sent 1st class, 10,000 copies /mailing B: 2X /yr, 1 page flyer hand delivered, 10,000 copies /delivery A: 14,340.20 B: 2,657.00 TOTAL: 16,997.20 Civic Handbook Paper and covers 94.00 Labor 25.00 TOTAL: 119.00 -26- Coleman & Christison Inc. a Cable television commercials paid to Advision Cu rrent: Sug eg sted: Community Center ads $ 1,045.00 Gold Course Ads 616.50 Dudley Classic Ads 714.00 TOTAL: 2,375.50 Legal Notices 1990 Budgeted Amount 10,800.00 TOTAL: 10,800.00 Employment Advertising 1990 Budgeted Amount 5,100.00 TOTAL: 5,100.00 Neighborhood Watch Newsletter Printing 6,400.00 Labor 3,708.00 Delivery 637.00 TOTAL: 10,745.00 TOTAL -- CURRENT COMMUNICATION BUDGET 93,833.40 - TOTAL -- SUGGESTED ADDITIONS $ 104,959.24 TOTAL -- CURRENT BUDGET WITH ADDITIONS 198,792.64 Subtract two city newsletters from current year <13.000.00> GRAND TOTAL, SUGGESTED PROGRAM $ 185,792.64 -27- Coleman & Christison Inc. III. City Communications As Seen By Management & Staff How Well Are We Talking To Each Other, Residents? An Overview The following two sections of this report — III. City Communications As Seen By Management & Staff and IV. City Communications As Viewed By Residents — are provided as a general summary f the research r t iv o e esea ch ocedures we used o arrive at the P g �'Y P recommendations outlined above. The first phase of our study was dedicated to assessing the way in which the city's executive staff and employees felt about communications inside city government as well as communications between city government and residents. All department directors and selected senior staff were interviewed one -on -one. Interviews lasted an average of two hours each. We also conducted two employee focus group sessions that lasted one hour each. This section of our report is organized as follows : 1) personal and professional background of management staff, 2) inner- and inter - departmental communications, 3) current issues and the complaint process, and 4) department communication techniques. Personal & Professional Background Of Mana2ement Staff While it wasn't our charge to assess the overall qualifications of Brooklyn Center's professional staff, we did review this information in light of its impact on communications. The picture painted here was one of a knowledgeable, dedicated and -28- Coleman & Christison Inc. seasoned staff. The average length of time senior managers have been on the job in Brooklyn Center is 15 years. Over half of Brooklyn Center's senior staff have lived in town more than 20 years. These are remarkable statistics, especially when compared to many other communities in the Twin Cities area. However, we would like to make one recommendation. We found that nearly all members of the management staff regularly participate in professional associations. Most also attend seminars and classes of one type or another. While this is certainly to the credit of Brooklyn Center management personnel, rarely do these continuing education experiences involve formalized training in communications. This is probably due to the fact that until recently, formalized training in communications has not always been seen as an important part of the continuing education requirements for government employees. We believe just the opposite should be true given the integral role effective communication plays in successful city government, and, indeed, in any institution that depends so heavily on interfacing with the public. Therefore, we recommend that, at a minimum, formalized training in communications be required for all senior staff. Such training should also be considered for line employees as well. Inner- And Inter - Departmental Communications Interaction at the top in Brooklyn Center — between the City Council and city staff, between the city manager and department directors, and between department directors from different departments — was consistently characterized in a positive manner. There is a strong sense here of professionalism and mutual respect. And while there is clearly an emphasis on getting the job done, the working atmosphere is -29- Coleman & Ckristison Inc. described as relaxed. Many respondents also report that their colleagues keep things in perspective and maintain a good sense of humor. Because many city tasks require joint cooperation by two or more departments, department officials emphasized the importance of teamwork. While staff meetings play an important role in this process, many of those we talked to mentioned the success of small groups or committees formed to handle specialized concerns. Permanent staff committees that have worked particularly well include the Traffic, Employee Safety and Data Processing committees. Other committees are created on an ad hoc basis to deal with tasks of a temporary nature such as the improvement project on 69th Avenue or the development of the Earle Brown Heritage Center. Methods of communication between management and staff vary a great deal within each of Brooklyn Center's departments and offices. While some departments hold regular staff meetings and issue several memos each week, others depend on more informal communication techniques. We found that these arrangements were driven more by personal management style and department size than any formalized communications system. Most directors characterized the communication climate between themselves and their staffs as open and accessible in both directions. With a few exceptions, employees agreed with their managers on this point... they did say they felt they could talk with their managers. Breakdowns in communication between management and staff were reported, however. Staff frequently complained that they didn't hear about a major project in other departments until it was written about in the newspaper, or worse yet, when a resident called to ask what was going on. To a lesser degree, some employees reported that they didn't hear about projects in their own departments before the -30- Coleman & Christison Inc. public. As one employee observed, "Department heads are very well informed about what is going on in the city, but staff may not be as informed. The right hand doesn't always know what the left hand is doing. The department head may know what is going on, but the people that answer the phone calls every day may not." A department director added, "I am not sure that information always filters down to the other employees. Sometimes they might feel that the only information they get is from the newspaper." In fact, the only way staff "gets the word" on what other departments are up to on a fairly regular and reliable basis is during breaks in the employee lunchroom. City -wide meetings are not held, and with the exception of a round of get - togethers at Christmas, staffs from one department rarely mix with the staffs of other departments. This problem is made worse for the Police Department, employees at the Community Center and employees at the City Garage because of the physical isolation of these facilities from the rest of city hall. We believe this situation deserves attention from the City Council and city managers. Management experts will all testify to how important information is to staff morale and productivity. And we know that each member of an organization, whether it is local government or a major corporation, acts as a mini- ambassador to the public. An employee that is embarrassed because he or she "doesn't know what's going on" (as several employees testified during our focus groups), is liable to leave a bad impression with residents and other important publics. We recommend that city leaders look at approaching this problem in several ways. First, we agree with those who recommended an employee newsletter. An employee newsletter does not have to be extensive or look fancy to be -31- Coleman & Christison Inc. effective. And in fact we would suggest a simple, two -sided 8.5" x 11" or 8.5" x 14" broad sheet with one or two paragraph updates from each department. The newsletter must be issued at least twice a month to be effective. We also recommend that city management look at ways to bring staff together more frequently during the year. As cliche' as it might sound, city picnics, outings, special information sessions, and even suggestion boxes all work to strengthen ties between staff members and between staff and management. Perhaps internal communication projects could be coordinated by an ad -hoc internal communication committee. This committee would mirror the efforts of the Communication Advisory Committee we suggested earlier to help improve external communications. Current Issues And The Complaint Process Like the residents they work for, city management personnel and employees believe the most important issue facing Brooklyn Center is drug abuse and the social problems drug abuse engenders. This includes crime, domestic problems and gang activity. Many city employees feel these problems are due to the deterioration'of certain neighborhoods in Brooklyn Center, in particular those areas with a high number of rental units. These areas are characterized by increasing numbers of single - parent (female- headed) families that depend heavily on public assistance including Section 8 vouchers. Other issues of importance to city employees included: -32- Coleman & Christison Inc. 1) Attracting younger people to Brooklyn Center to help rejuvenate a community that has been aging; 2) Improvements in the infrastructure with particular emphasis on streets and traffic control; 3) Better awareness among the public of the services the city provides and the value of those services; and, 4) Development and redevelopment projects. City employees feel that most Brooklyn Center residents have a positive attitude about their city government. Managers assign this to a combination of good service and low taxes. There is also a sense among management staff that the doors are open at city hall and that anyone with a real concern will be heard. One refrain that was repeated over and over again during our interviews was that basically most people are busy with work and their families, and they generally don't focus too closely on city government and city services unless something comes up that effects them directly. One concern that was expressed by managers along this line was in regards to the system for dealing with resident complaints and suggestions in Brooklyn Center. Presently complaints are handled in a somewhat fractured manner with no system in place to insure that all complaints are followed up on. When calls come into the switchboard operator, they are transferred directly to the department the operator feels is responsible for that service area. Unless requested by a City Council member or the City Manager, department personnel do not regularly report back on how complaints are ultimately handled. More serious complaints are often transferred to -33- Coleman & Chrislison Inc. the City Manager's office. How Are We Doing complaint forms are also available to residents at various points in city hall or at the Community Center. While the public did not complain in surveys and focus groups about how complaints were handled by city personnel, many managers feel that the system should be upgraded to insure that no one falls through the cracks. Some managers also report concern about the opposite problem where one resident might call and make the same complaint to several different departments resulting in significant duplication of effort. And finally, several managers expressed an interest in making the complaint system less threatening and more accessible to the public. We believe this issue deserves further consideration. Complaints and suggestions are a very important source of feedback in the communications loop. Complaint reports can be a wonderful diagnostic tool for spotting trends, especially for an organization with as much day -to -day contact with the public as city government. For every complaint an organization receives on a particular topic, 10 more people probably feel the same way but just don't want to call. We also know from various studies that the public responds very positively to those organizations that effectively handle complaints. And the reverse can be just as damaging: studies show that a person who has a complaint about an organization will tell 15 to 20 other people, while a person who has had a good experience will only mention it to a few people. We recommend that the city implement one of the computerized complaint systems that are available to city governments for logging and assigning complaints. Such a system would allow the City Manager to monitor the complaint process and make sure that all complaints are responded to in an orderly fashion. Complaint reports can also be invaluable to managers as well as -34- Coleman & Christison Inc. the City Council to better monitor the pulse of public opinion. We also recommend that a public information campaign be conducted in the city newsletter and in other city communications encouraging the public to call city hall when they have a concern. One other method we have suggested to help spur community feedback is an issues hot -line that will provide the public with both timely information on certain topics and a method for comment that is non - threatening and anonymous. -35- Coleman & Christison Inc. Department Communication Techniques Each department uses an array of communication techniques to reach groups of people q g P P P important to its service area. For example, the Public Works Department structures its communication activities around upcoming projects. Legal notices must be published in the local newspaper. Informational meetings are held, as well as the official hearings that are required by law. Notices are mailed directly to the people who live in an affected area. City employees will even deliver informational brochures and flyers door -to -door to help keep people informed about what is going on in their neighborhoods. In our audit, we reviewed the communication system in each department to determine what worked best, what didn't work and what improvements might be made. Secondly, we reviewed the many communication vehicles used in each department — letters, memos, brochures, newspaper ads, videos, posters, etc. — for content and style. What strikes the outside observer first is the incredible number of communication activities each department is involved with every day of the week. The list starts with simple form letters and memos and continues on with brochures, annual reports, television commercials, cable news programs, statement stuffers (included with water bills), news releases and press conferences, speeches and public appearances, neighborhood meetings, specialized newsletters, phone banks, billboards and marquees, seminars, special reports and even give -away items like hats and tee shirts... just to name a few. And if a department has trouble getting the information out on its own, it will often co -opt other organizations into helping it do so. Many departments also demonstrate a high level of sophistication about the basic processes of good communication. These include the Police Department, the Parks and -36- Coleman & Christison Inc. Recreation Department and the Public Works Department. But there is plenty of room for improvement ...even in these departments. We recommend that the City Council and city management seriously consider hiring an administrative aide or an outside communications consultant that would take a closer look at department communications. In our view, this is the only way to sort through and capitalize on the myriad number of communication opportunities available to the city at the department level. One of the first tasks this assistant should take on is the development of a system for standardization and quality control over all communication materials generated by the city. As noted earlier, a review of these materials revealed several basic problems with writing, format and design. But these are minor concerns. More importantly, we believe that a communications specialist could identify those communication techniques that work well and help departments use them more effectively. While we recognize the importance of a dependable, timely and comprehensive news vehicle that will reach all residents of Brooklyn Center, we believe that these department -level communication activities will ultimately play an equally important role in the success of the city's overall communication program. -37- Coleman & Christison Inc. IV. City Communications As Viewed By Residents Are They Listening? An Overview In the first phase of the communication audit for Brooklyn Center, we evaluated how the organization views itself both internally and externally. During this phase, we looked at how outsiders view the city. Normally this is done by commissioning a scientific poll specifically for the communication audit process. Focus groups are often conducted as well to give added perspective to the quantitative analysis provided by polling data. For the Brooklyn Center Communication Audit, the City Council elected not to conduct a poll and instead relied on a substantial amount of existing polling data. Six, one -hour focus groups were also conducted with residents representing the senior citizen community, business groups, the education community, service organizations and neighborhood groups. The following section provides a brief description of the three sets of quantitative data we used: 1) the residential survey conducted by Decision Resources Ltd., 2) communication- related questions included in a transportation survey conducted by the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council, and 3) focus group discussions. -38- Coleman & Christison Inc. Residential Survey The residential survey was conducted by Decision Resources Ltd., between March 3, 1989 and March 22, 1989. According to the executive summary of the survey, "The average interview took 38 minutes. In general, random samples such as this yield results projectable to the entire universe of Brooklyn Center residents within a plus or minus 4.5 percentage points in 95 out of 100 cases." The survey covered seven main topic areas including residential demographics, quality of life, parks and recreation, city services, issues and policies, civic center expansion and communication. The survey found that 92 percent of Brooklyn Center residents are content with their city. While no one characteristic stood out as least desirable about the city, 10 percent complained about the condition and crowding of roads and highways. Another nine percent pointed to the adverse effects of growth and urban sprawl. As mentioned earlier, Brooklyn Center residents registered very favorable remarks regarding city services and personnel. Fire protection, snow plowing, police protection, park maintenance and sewers were rated highly by more than 85 percent of the residents. City street repair and maintenance and animal control were rated highly by almost 75 percent of the public. Only water quality rated lower at 64 percent. Brooklyn Center residents see three major public safety problems facing their community... drugs, juvenile crimes and vandalism and burglary. The mayor and City Council received a 66 percent favorability rating in the Decision Resources survey, while city staff received a 60 percent favorability rating. -39- Coleman & Christison Inc. Regarding communication, the executive summary of the survey further stated: Communications with residents was the only issue area in which a re- examination of current methods seems indicated. Most residents rely upon mailings and the park brochure for information about recreational offerings. The newspaper is the primary vehicle for obtaining information about city government and its activities. But, it is troublesome that only eight percent of the residents rely upon the city newsletter and 16 percent reported they had no communication channel to rely upon. Residents who receive information, then, obtain it through vehicles that cannot ordinarily be structured by the city. The City Manager's Newsletter was received by only 37 percent of the residents, an unusually low figure in comparison to most suburban communities. The current delivery system, then, clearly needs to be reconsidered. Twenty -eight percent of the residents reported regularly reading the publication, and most regarded the newsletter as at least "somewhat effective." This lack of readership is a very critical problem, though, since only 60 percent of the community receive and read the Brooklyn Center Post, a low readership for a suburban weekly newspaper. In essence, substantial portions of the community are unable to inform themselves about the actions and activities of city hall. Since newspapers do not seem to be the answer, the city may need to substantially increase the reach and quality of its newsletter. We relied heavily on the findings in this survey in regards to general attitudes" by Brooklyn Center residents about quality of life issues and communications. We recommend that the reader review the survey in conjunction with our audit. -40- Coleman & Christison Inc. Transportation Survey During the spring of 1990, the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council surveyed Brooklyn Center residents regarding their awareness levels and attitudes toward public transportation. Two hundred sixty -seven residents responded. This gives the survey a 95 percent confidence level within the realm of the population at a plus or minus 5 percent margin of error. As part of this survey, we were given the opportunity to submit several questions regarding the attitudes of residents toward communication with the city. The questions and results were as follows: 1) Do you feel well informed about city business and activities? Yes: 69.4% No: 29.1% Don't Know: 1.5% 2 Is the information ou currently y t y about city activities not enough information, just right, or too much information for you? Not Enough: 2 4 g 8. % Just Right: 69.8% Too Much: 1.0% Don't Know: 0.8% 3) If the city wanted to improve how it communicates with the residents, would you support or not support such activity? (Those answering cost raised this issue.) Support: 87.8% Not Support: 4.8% Cost: 6.1% Don't Know: 1.3% -41- Coleman & Christison Inc. 4) What one particular city issue or activity is of most interest to you? 1) Community Issues: 20.1 percent 2) Park and Recreation: 19.2 percent 3) Education/Children: 16.2 percent 4) Zoning: 6.0 percent 5) Crime: 9.4 percent 6) Other: 6.4 percent 7) Transportation: 5.6 percent 8) Information: 12.0 percent Sub - categories that were mentioned in the "community" and "information" categories section included the community center, community services, council meetings, redevelopment, social events, politics and community affairs, taxes and changes in city demographics. Focus Group Discussion Our focus groups were made up of residents selected from the following general backgrounds: business, senior citizen, service organizations, education and neighborhood groups. Because only one person responded to our invitation for a neighborhood focus group, we have thrown out responses in this category. Focus group meetings lasted one hour each and were generally freewheeling discussions that focused on two or three main topic areas... impressions of Brooklyn Center city government, most important issues facing the city, and communication vehicles used to keep tabs on important city issues. -42- Coleman & Christison Inc. Predictably, responses from each group tended to reflect common interests. However, there were several central themes running through all of our discussions that helped lend perspective to the quantitative data we reviewed above. With few exceptions, all members of the groups had a positive impression of city personnel and services. The number one issues concerning group participants were again drugs, crime and the general deterioration of certain neighborhoods. Other concerns included upgrading the city's image, refuse removal, and economic development and redevelopment. Concerning city communication vehicles, most respondents were universal in their disappointment with local coverage afforded by the Brooklyn Center Post News. Particularly interesting were the responses from members of the business panel who have all dropped advertising in the Post because of low response levels. While the newsletter was mentioned in a fairly positive light by many panel members, the Northwest News and Mary Jane Gustafson were singled out for special praise. This fact helps illuminate just how desperate the communication problem is in Brooklyn Center when you consider that in the first instance the Northwest News has ceased publication, and in the second instance that the writer has retired! Interestingly enough, however, people again didn't feel that there was a blatant lack of communication from the city. While many suggested improvements, most felt they were getting about as much information as they wanted. It should be pointed out, however, that many of these residents are fairly involved in community activities and have a better knowledge of what is going on at city hall. -43- Coleman & Christison Inc. r V. Appendix Research Sources The Brooklyn Center Housing Market: A Study of Trends and Their Impact on the Community, Maxfield Research Group, Inc, 1989 A Profile in Poverty in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Community Action For Suburban Hennepin, 1988 A Residential Survey of the City of Brooklyn Center, Decisions Resources, Ltd., 1989 Brooklyn Center Transportation Survey, Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council, 1990 Information Packet, Northwest Community Television, 1990 Survey of Northwest Cable Television Service Area, Decisions Resources Ltd., 1989 Quotation, Cityline Telecommunications Services, 1990 Quotation, Post Publications, 1990 (updated in July) Demographic Profiles, Census Bureau Population and Housing Characteristics Report, 1980 Demographic Profiles, Metropolitan Council Population Estimates, 1988 and 1989 Demographic Profiles, Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council, 1980 Demographic Profile, Systems Information Statement, Brooklyn Center, 1988 Community Profiles, Metropolitan Council, 1984 Minneapolis Star Tribune, DataTimes Information Network Scan, Dec. 1989 to Present Brooklyn Center Post, Clipping Analysis, Jan. 1990 to Present Newspaper Rates and Data, Standard Rate & Data Service, 1990 Telephone Interviews With City Communications Specialists, Lakeville, Plymouth, Edina, Eagan and St. Louis Park, 1990 -44- Coleman & Christison Inc. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/13/9 Agenda kern Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: CITY HALL STUDY (DISCUSSION ITEM) DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP, DIRIzCTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) On April 16, 1990 the City Council met informally with City staff to discuss the ® development of a capital improvement planning process, including the possible remodeling and /or additions to City Hall. Alternates presented to the Council at that time included: Option A - A "Short -Term plan" which provided maximum utilization of space within the existing City Hall structure by remodeling both the upper and lower levels, with estimated costs totalling $1,252,000. and Option B - A "Long -Term plan" which included "Phase I" improvements on both levels of the City Hall at a cost of $538,000., and a future major addition to City Hall at a cost estimated at $6.3 million. Upon review and discussion of these options, Council members expressed serious concern with both options, i.e.: Option A - was regarded as being very costly for a short -term solution. In particular, the City Council expressed concern because there was no assurance that improvements made under this option would be compatible with a long -range plan. Based on the assumption that most expenditures for these improvements might not be "salvageable" under a long -term plan, the Council concluded that this is not a cost - effective approach. Option B - was regarded as being too costly in total. In addition, the Council again felt that the interim improvements (estimated at $538,000) were not cost - effective. Accordingly, the Council requested staff to investigate other options, including the possibility of leasing office space in other buildings. The City Manager's office has considered the lease option and it appears this may be a necessary and viable option for satisfying immediate space needs (i.e. - overcrowded conditions now exist in the Police Department, in the Planning and Inspections Division, in the Administrative Office and in the Finance Department.) It is estimated that a minimum of 4000 square feet of space is needed immediately. Various alternatives have been considered to move all or part of one department into a leased space, then to re- allocate existing space to the departments remaining in City Hall. It is estimated that suitable office space could be leased at a basic lease rate of $8 to $10 per square foot per year plus "operating costs" of $7 to $9 per square foot per year. It is staff's opinion that this is a reasonable short - term solution. However, it should not be regarded as a good long -term solution because of the following considerations: • Lease payments must be incorporated into the City's annual operating budget which currently has severe limitations. • Distribution of City departments (or parts of departments) to other locations causes many administrative problems and dramatically reduces inter - departmental and /or intra- departmental communications, both of which are vital to the efficient operation of the City's services. • o If any City department is temporarily relocated to a leased office without advance decisions on how additional needs will be met in the future, there will undoubtedly be future re- shuffling of space allocations. In effect, such an interim solution may be no more cost - effective than an "interim remodeling" solution. In addition to the lease of office space outside of City Hall, consideration has also been given to other options. One such option is to utilize Constitution Hall for all City Council and Planning Commission meetings so that the existing "Council Chambers" could be temporarily or permanently converted for use as office space. However, staff does not believe it is appropriate to recommend this approach unless it can be shown to fit into a long -term plan to satisfy the City's total needs for office space. After considering these and other options, it has become apparent to City staff that the most responsible approach will include three elements, i.e.: 1. A long -term master plan for physical expansion of City Hall to accommodate long -term needs. 2. A stage development plan which assures that all, or nearly all, expenditures made for any physical improvements will be made in accordance with the master plan, thereby assuring that all capital expenditures will be cost - effective in the long term. In addition, such a staging plan should consider "interim" solutions. However, such interim solutions should only be considered when: (1) it is not economically feasible to • provide a permanent "in- house" solution, and (2) when such a solution is more effective than the lease option. 3. Use of the "lease option" when this is determined to be the most cost- effective alternative to meet short -term needs. City staff believes that the major item needed to initiate this action plan is the development of a "Space Assignment" plan covering the existing City Hall building and an addition to that building. Such a study would utilize the information developed in CMA's "Space Needs" study, and develop a long -term plan for allocation of specified areas for specified uses. This "plan" would be far short of a final construction plan. Rather, it would be a schematic plan assigning "blocks" of space for various departments, with consideration given to the relationships of one department to another. The plan would also portray general space needs for public use areas, conference rooms, department entrance areas, circulation corridors and stairways, etc. Once such a plan is developed and adopted, rational and responsible decisions can then be made: (1) to determine how to stage the development of that plan; and (2) to decide which departments should temporarily be relocated to leased facilities based on the knowledge of how that fits with the plan or (3) whether interim improvements are cost - effective. It is estimated that development of a space assignment plan would cost between $10,000 and $20,000. If the City Council agrees that this is a proper approach, staff will solicit a proposal for such a study by an architect, and present it to the Council for formal consideration at the August 29 Council meeting. i CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/13/90 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: EVALUATION REPORT RE: LIFT STATION NO. 2 DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP D'RECTO OF PUBLIC WORKS --- MANAGER'SREVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: A �► ,�� r,�,�= ,� ; ,Y-•, No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Submitted herewith is a copy of a report, as prepared by S.E.H., Inc., regarding sanitary sewer lift station No. 2 which is located on the bank of the Mississippi River at the intersection of Lyndale Avenue and 55th Avenue North. The report describes the existing facility and details current deficiencies and details two alternates (A and B) for upgrading the existing station and one alternate (C) for replacing the station with a totally new station. It is noted that Alternate C (the replacement alternate) would require that the City obtain additional property southerly of the existing station. This matter has been discussed with a representative of the Hennepin Parks Commission which is currently finalizing negotiations for the purchase of that property. That representative believes that this would be a definite improvement. He noted that approvals would have to be obtained from the Hennepin Parks Commission and from the Metropolitan Council. However, he foresees no serious problem in obtaining those approvals. As noted in the report, the best approach to this project would be to award a contract in early spring and have construction begin as soon as possible when weather permits so that the project can be completed prior to the following winter. Staff recommends approval of Alternate C because, while it is the most expensive alternate, we believe that in the long term it is the most cost - effective one and resolves all deficiencies. Accordingly, we request that the Council review the report and select one of the alternates described in the report. Once the Council selects an alternate, staff will solicit a proposal for professional services as needed to develop detailed plans and specifications and construction management services, and present that to the Council for formal consideration. If Alternate C is selected we will also formalize a request to the Hennepin Parks Commission regarding use of the property adjacent to the present site. City Council Action Required Review and discussion ... and selection of an alternate ... by motion. Note A representative of S.E.H., Inc. will attend the Council meeting to assist staff in presenting the report and answering questions. r • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/13/9 Agenda Item Number /v2p� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: ALTERNATE FUNDING SOURCES FOR STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM COSTS (DISCUSSION ITEM) ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP, DIRE,/ OR OF "PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: '✓ r• a% _� 6 No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes ) The attached memorandum oran um details the need to provide an alternative source of funds for management development and implementation of a local storm water mana P P g plan. At its February 26, 1990 meeting, the Council expressed an interest in two particular mechanisms: a local watershed management special tax district, and a storm water utility. Staff Recommendation On further review of the options, including an assessment of the administrative work load each alternative might impose, staff recommends that the Council consider establishing a storm water utility. Such a utility could provide a source of revenue that is stable and which is unlikely to be statutorily modified. Costs authorized to be paid from a storm water utility are relatively broadly defined. Council Action Required The reliminar 1991 bu p y g assumes that the costs of development of a local storm water management plan and the City's share of the costs of managing the West Mississippi and Shingle Creek Watersheds will be funded from outside the General Fund. The Council should at this time choose an alternate source of funds and direct staff to begin the work necessary to implement that . alternate. August 9, 1990 TO: Sy Knapp FROM: Diane Spector SUBJ: Alternate Funding Sources for Storm Drainage System Costs This memorandum summarizes the history and requirements of the Surface Water Management Act, and begins to estimate the costs to Brooklyn Center of meeting those requirements. Two alternate funding sources - a special tax district and a storm water utility - are summarized. It is recommended that the City Council establish a storm water utility in 1991 to pay the costs of storm water management activities. I. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT COST REVIEW The following is a summary of four major elements of cost relating to the City's surface water management program. A. Watershed Management Commission Costs The 1982 Minnesota Legislature adopted the Surface Water Management Act (SWMA) (statutes 473.825 to 473.883) mandating that all watersheds within - the seven - county metro area be governed by a watershed management organization. In 1984 Brooklyn Center entered into two joint powers agreements: ■ The Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission: includes portions of nine cities, including the westerly 2/3 of Brooklyn Center. ■ The West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission: includes portions of five cities, including the easterly 1/3 of Brooklyn Center. To comply with statutory requirements, both commissions have developed generalized plans for managing surface waters. Those plans, which recently received final approval from the Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources (BWSR), include eight management issues: 1. Runoff management 2 2. Floodplain management 3. Shoreland management 4. Water quality monitoring 5. Erosion and sedimentation control 6. Stormwater treatment 7. Wetlands management 8. Groundwater protection Each plan includes strategies addressing these issues. These strategies include projects, plans, and programs. The responsibility and level of participation of each governmental unit and the Commission are also identified in the plans. Until now, the City of Brooklyn Center has funded its apportioned share of the Watershed Commissions' costs via the general fund tax levy. The 1990 budget for these costs is $26,559. For 1991, the City's share of costs will be $36,688.50. This significant increase is due to several factors: ■ The Watershed Management Plans developed by each Commission will require some amendment. ■ There has been an increase in the number of development projects which are to be reviewed by the Commissioner's engineer. Statutes require that any development of an area exceeding five acres must be reviewed and approved by the local watershed commission. ■ There is a need to more closely review and analyze state requirements, and to communicate those requirements to the commissioners, developers, and state and local agencies. ■ A part of the cost allocation is based on the tax capacity of the area within the watershed. Because Brooklyn Center's tax capacity has increased, its assessment has increased. Both Commissions have been using 1990 fiscal year reserves to fund the additional 1990 activities. The 1991 apportionment not only reflects these increased costs but also the reduction in reserves. B. Capital Project Costs The current Watershed Management plans include only minor capital improvement projects, including the Twin Lakes outlet modification project. However, additional projects will need to be undertaken, both by the Commissions and by the City, to meet the newly adopted regulations and standards, particularly relating to water quality improvements. Of special concern to Brooklyn Center is the water quality in the Palmer Lake Basin, in Shingle Creek, and in the Twin Lakes. At this time it is not possible to predict these costs. However, they must be expected to be substantial. 3 C. Routine Storm Water System Maintenance The City routinely incurs costs for maintenance of its storm water system. This includes storm sewer and ditch cleaning and repair and street sweeping. The estimated annual cost for these activities is $150,000. Because storm drainage facilities are aging, and because additional street sweeping will probably be required to meet water quality standards, it is very likely that these costs will more than double within the next five years. D. "Local Plan" Development In addition to requiring development of comprehensive watershed management plans by the Watershed Commissions, the SWMA also requires each city to follow up with the development of a "Local Plan" for storm water management. This step must be completed within the next three years, by early 1993. A minimal local plan which would meet statutory requirements could probably be developed at a cost of $25,000 to $50,000. However, it should be recognized that, while Brooklyn Center may be described as being "fully storm sewered," it must also be noted that many areas of the City are served with storm drainage systems which are best described as "skeletal" or "minimal." A number of areas of the city are served by undersized drainage systems. Accordingly, rather than conducting a minimal study to satisfy only the statutory requirements for a "local plan," it is recommended that a comprehensive study be undertaken to systematically review the City's entire storm drainage system. This plan would incorporate the elements of storm water management which are required by law and would be consistent with the comprehensive plans developed by the Watershed Commissions. As will be discussed below, a comprehensive, systematic plan is necessary to take full advantage of the alternate funding sources allowed by law. A minimal plan would not provide the City with the level of documentation necessary be able to fund outside the tax levy the variety of construction and maintenance activities which are or will be required. Without a detailed plan which would review all aspects of surface water management, the City could not use one of these alternate funding mechanisms to, for example, pay the costs of constructing storm sewers in the alleys which were repaved in 1989. Without a comprehensive plan, these types of funds could not be used to pay a share of the cost of routinely upgrading storm sewers during future improvement projects. It is estimated that such a study would cost between $100,000 and $200,000. It is recommended that $75,000 be "adopted" for 1991 to allow for initiation of that study in 1991, with completion in 1992 or 1993. II. FUNDING ALTERNATIVES FOR THE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Nearly all costs related to surface water management are nbw charged to the General Fund and funded via the City's ad valorem tax levy. 4 Statutory authority exists for several other types of mechanisms for funding these management activities. The City Council reviewed those options at its February 26, 1990 meeting, and expressed an interest in pursuing either or both a watershed management special tax district or a storm water utility. Following is a brief summary of those two funding options: Option A: Watershed Management Tax District Section 473.882 (1), Minnesota Statutes, enables local governments to establish a watershed management tax district to pay the costs of: developing a storm water management plan, making the capital improvements detailed in the plan, and maintaining the facilities described in the plan. This district must be established by ordinance. This special tax levy was, prior to the 1989 legislative special tax session, outside the levy limits. However, it is for 1991 to be included within the levy limitations. If the City were to levy $75,000 to begin work on the local management plan plus $36,688.50 for the Watershed District apportionments, the total 1991 levy would be $111,688.50. The additional cost in 1991 to the owner of a home appraised at $80,000 would be about $5.12. While this special tax district has the advantage of being easy to administer, it is not a stable source of revenue. Any tax can potentially be modified or eliminated, and this levy is no exception. Until this special session, this levy was a useful mechanism for funding these types of costs. Legislation can at any time impose additional administrative requirements which could prove burdensome. Finally, statutory changes could be made to change what types of costs could be funded by such a tax, which might make it a less flexible mechanism. Option B: Storm Water Utility The City Council may establish a storm water utility, under the same statute which authorizes water and sewer utilities. The City may build, maintain, and operate storm sewer systems using revenue raised through user charges and /or special assessments. There is only one limitation on the use of such monies. After adoption of a local storm water management plan, utility monies may not be used to construct improvements which are not consistent with that plan, nor to operate or maintain those facilities. Utility funds may be used to operate or maintain facilities which were constructed Prior to adoption of the plan but which are inconsistent with the plan. Statute requires that user charges be proportionate to the cost of furnishing the service, or some other equitable basis. A number of communities have established a storm water utility, and are using the Roseville model for apportioning charges. The table below uses this model and is an example of the range of charges and the amount of revenue which could be raised using a residential rate of $4.35 per quarter. Actual charges would be based on the need for operating revenue and the amount needed to establish a capital projects reserve fund. 0 Preliminary Estimate of Area By Land Use S Estimate of Annual Revenue Using Representative Quarterly Charges Quarterly Total Average Average Area Area Charge Annual Total Area Quarterly Land Use Class (sf) (acre) Per Acre Revenue Parcels (Acres) Charge --- -------- ------ --- - ----- ------- --------- ---- - - - - -- - ---------------- ------ ------------------------------- Cemetery 1 392,000 8.999 $3.25 $116.99 1 8.999 $29.25 Golf Course 1 763,780 17.534 3.25 227.94 12 1.461 4.75 Parks 2 15,598,946 358.103 9.75 13,966.00 38 9.424 91.88 Single /Double Family 3 82,993,994 1,905.280 4.35 /lot 128,272.80 7372 0.258 4.35 Schools 4 4,405,089 101.127 16.25 6,573.25 7 14.447 234.76 Multiple Family 5 10,302,532 236.514 32.50 30,746.77 773 0.306 9.94 Churches 5 2,695,201 61.873 32.50 8,043.53 27 2.292 74.48 Govt Bldgs 8 Comm Ctr 5 3,469,635 79.652 32.50 10,354.74 16 4.978 161.79 Commercial 6 10,593,925 243.203 65.00 63,232.79 128 1.900 123.50 Industrial 6 9,903,663 227.357 65.00 59,112.77 63 3.609 234.57 Vacant 7 0.000 As assigned Sngl /Dbl Family 1,549,104 35.563 4.35 /tot 378.45 87 0.409 4.35 Multiple Family 2,271,732 52.152 9.75 2,033.92 44 1.185 11.56 Commercial 2,333,785 53.576 9.75 2,089.48 25 2.143 20.89 Industrial 3,492,048 80.166 9.75 3,126.49 24 3.340 32.57 Open Space 47,700 1.095 9.75 42.71 2 0.548 5.34 -- -- ------ --- -- ----- --- - -- - ------- - -- - -- --- - - - - -- --- -- - - - - -- TOTAL 150,813,134 3,462.193 $328,318.63 8,619 $9.52 Less vacant land 9,694,369 222.552 7,671.04 182 ------ ------------- - - - - - -- ------- -- ------- -------- ----- - ----- 141,118,765 3,239.641 $320,647.58 8,437 $9.50 NOTE: based on estimate of area of various land use types. An advantage of the storm water utility approach is that it is unlikely to be statutorily modified, and is thus a more stable source of revenue. It is somewhat more administratively burdensome, with additional accounting and review required. However, because other LOGIS cities have adopted such a utility, LOGIS already has the ability to include it on the utility bill. It can be implemented in Brooklyn Center with only minimal additional programming. III. SUMMARY It is clear that the City will be required to incur additional future costs to manage storm water activities. Given general fund tax levy constraints, we must find alternate sources of revenue. Other metro area cities have implemented storm water utilities, and have found them to be a satisfactory method of financing. Staff from other cities have noted that a utility is an option that they will consider seriously in the immediate future. It is my recommendation that the Council consider establishing this utility, and that its development coincide with the 1990 public utility rate study. Respectfully submitted, ia�S o CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/13/90 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: TRUNK HIGHWAY 100 RECONSTRUCTION - STATUS REPORT ON MNDOT STUDY ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:; No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes ) During the past 6 months MNDOT representatives, with the assistance of Barton • Aschman Associates, Inc. (MNDOT's consulting engineers for this project) and with review and comments from a Citizen Advisory Committee and a Technical Advisory Committee, have been conducting a preliminary design study for the potential upgrading of T.H. 100 between Glenwood Avenue (in Golden Valley) and 50th Avenue in Brooklyn Center. A preliminary draft report entitled "Scoping Document- Alternatives Summary," summarizes the current alternatives which have been identified for further consideration in each of the four segments of the project corridor, i.e.: Segment 1 - Bassett Creek to 39th Avenue North Segment 2 - 39th Avenue North to Twin Lakes Segment 3 - Twin Lakes to 50th Avenue North Segment 4 - Glenwood Avenue to Bassett Creek Note This segment is numbered out -of- sequence because it was an add -on to the first 3 segments. The draft copy of MNDOT's report is currently being re- written, with substantial changes. We expect to receive a revised copy by the end of next week (approximately August 17). Because it will be a voluminous report, the City will receive only a few copies. However, these will be made available for public review at the Engineering Department. The purpose of the official hearings which will be conducted by MNDOT will be to receive public review and comments regarding their study and report. Following these meetings, MNDOT will review the input received, and will then develop a final "Scoping Document. That document will describe, in detail, the studies which will .` be included in their Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for the proposed improvements. Following completion of the EIS, detailed plan preparation will proceed, subject to availability of funds for such planning and for construction. At this time, MNDOT expects that initial contracts for construction could be awarded as early as 1993. However, because total project costs range between $30 to $50 million, depending on which alternates are selected, it is obvious that implementation and completion of all segments may well extend into the mid and late 1990's. With regard to Segment 3 (the portion which lies within Brooklyn Center) the report contains schematic plan layouts for the 5 alternates (3A through 3E - copies attached) which MNDOT has selected for public discussion at 2 public meetings which they will conduct, probably in late September or early October, 1990. Of these alternates, MNDOT has selected Alternatives 3A and 3E "to be carried forward to the preliminary design /environmental analysis phase of the project." Of the alternates, City staff believes that "Alte'rnative 3E" is the one which best meets the needs of Brooklyn Center citizens and property owners. This matter is submitted to the City Council for review and discussion at the August 13 meeting. If the Council so directs, City staff will conduct a public information meeting for Brooklyn Center citizens and property owners some time in early September (i.e. - before MNDOT's office meetings) so that the public is informed of these proposals in advance of MNDOT's meetings. City Council Action Required • Review ... Discussion Comments ... Direction to City staff ... i J '��I'^' 169 `• 4 „ - � ��� a t • _' Y :•:I-'`O ` � 1 A A.f :� ®/ITN 1V(. N.': �'Y q "' K Y t � OR. �l[�' 1• ..' . ' . '� . ' . (1,)� — � Flsh u F.A.u. Lake r F•A.I. 52 G„ 91 'S °_ n •..i_ :_._••_':_'_ >__:':'•'.' _ { MISSISSIPPI ST. •r.'r g ':i':•. �. %ASS r nR0 Avr. l� :'/�nlrrler :'......:: 252 1; dar p b ...,,;. o Lake S FitIIDLEY t � lrinnd 'LAVE. N. .p 1N n$ '. r L `• '�.j i Moo e n / o 0 L Ruc F.A.1. �/ Lakc`gs{t U Lake - F j + /e♦ �� a 194 J Lakc o ROOKLY 4srw Av. 694 Ss Ye Ln a Lake 25 4JR0 P A,U. AvE, CENTER N. 94 8 Z c J Pike .` Q =vk '6 ?N' AVC, Pik, ,� 84ss Luke lAK( \ 51111 AVE. N. W 1 • + O :'19TH .... ` V •'•�. ? ,.1 Co `cJ E : V NE W ©; q Mud bars : s �r ♦ SprN Y a l� to F sr. OD HILL TOP (� • i Lake i69 � < .. 'BRIGHTON' i <', b•.� ..a �(� JE d - 41 ,rov. S Hull 00d l' 7 w rT� _ r N �:.:.1` Z. Po nolaau - -- t' ♦o ` : _i eor. ro.ort S(Lvir 5 L a Llne / NAMEI E Co; l Lak 52 1 • :'COL M RIA oFiar �. J ne W �' (o� 49tH 4vE. HEIG HTS LD PLYMOUTH Sake RD.' 4q TN AVE, N. • ' .' �^ - 0. va. u.u+ Lake ♦, `I � '� 401 AVE. LJaki 1 11 .,•.•. z C - 1 F',W HOPE ...rj * ;, AVE. . N • �T 6 .., ,. - �.•.z, L.r F Z 67 A 1 :I,:_ F.A.U,i L JIP, '; 'J9 7 wile 491 N r� y ,.: ',v CRYSTAL '{ 9 ,,• 44 n, AV - R .'�' .•l i •: JTtll•:' ivF�'•; • «.E. .•al .<• I cb - le f.A rrocKFaw plake Roa(oao v RD. Q .iAo A. It BINSDALE.' Soo .Ul .• `-' '.' J.:. J. y , - L-a -4 RD. 4 ►V' r.a.U.' .. '.s.� EI .�7N0 - „ P0. O . . 9'- Y,A 1. iAVE. ss SA IN �J. 1. 999 V F. A.u. 8 a �'• Y U.'� �'•. 1: •: •..' y f ? .I ,.7 -_ - J.1R0 AVE. N.f. AN ON 4 i. Cr sLn1 S nn { I � - CDDI L'n k e Yp D. .I INO AVE. N 51 1 ANi NONY Py IMI AVE. L N. J6 N' - 4 !A � •• V_' \ rp 1 M1 Medicine 1v 4 / LOrRY AVE. N.F. J . �Oi r 169 :• ..... ... I A.U. EOWkl AVE. F.A.U. .a `� , F.4.1. F.A.P. i 14. C L13 ♦ : - N ""4 73' �' .I• r� + MEDICINF•:':':' AKf O.'•' G O M 1 E A P O L I S �w. w t6trl'.'� 1D114 AVE. N Av �. N. ar u,•6d» B .E. N _ _ Snyder gl MEDICINI c ° . F.A,U..,. A.� . ,.( 3 1 Lake ti 280 ^- �' i 5M Y( -\ LAKE :' .L.��... 11 4 �� > X CC � T vor. pit v, Y 4 '� � 6 � �'� t.A.11. O { O V Fv 4 0 All 'ND. NROADeAT �I, AU 1 u GOLUEN VA cA S ueenry C�} {' w 11 �65 rv. 4 ►' $ ra. n,rrs lake a %` NL Farkert d H PLYMOUTH Gleason i Lake - k• vE. Gre Twin ?lr Aal IN AvE. - ( _ e 0 Trons. NA Lake A O.A.U. I TN AVE. Qv D O• iot (__ 7 /` (� _ a 491 u - ,S- C'0. Nrr.' F.A.P. � � (� •. ,. N. Y S ! rAE1AU IAl J'� 2 A.__,, 'P:•: '. v iR. 15 4.p ry 7.- 10 g Wirth L. -:' F.A.U. 1p 65 ,•� B ^ii '' 29D GD44 •'.RIDGE000NT - � .. 10 � •rr'll i,'.i 1: ... 391 (�1 ,,•VO•.'. \ iws��� .,.,'., �. 7 J• [S] � - F,.0 .'.'1�, 0>r1 `..� rlrj Al4 � ��./ %� � . A.P: :.'...' ,..�� I 12 I9� � / ' F p' G. ►.0 I!.Nf r F.A.P. �-w :9 V 1 2'394, �1:'' �2 91 b N JI i w 4 . 101 :' o WtndrorT c 4 Lake : ` G Lake F.A.U. 1BOJ 52 " ♦ M[NNETONKA u { (" � `/ 1 0( die (jof 1 .,Cedar Y `S� 6S f NNK AI IN l 191 169. :Nannnn `A4E �O� Lake lale.i L ` 1 t55 ?srN 1r1 S sr. �L 1j lid Era r 4 C� A Lake DO ei4J'�5. �. 26 Soo • Op ` i k: } W. 7 ui re IN ST, � f. 20tH ST. S NFTOWA" AL VD. } 19 1 r--_ -. _ — - O - E.� lieC St. ♦q 5 F,A.U. CSI . 'f .A.U.` T.H. 100 RECONSTRUCTION GLENWOOD AVE. TO 50TH AVE. No Figure 1 I Q Pro 1 ject L ocati Basta Aschman Associates, Inc. � on 11 1 DOUGf.3 DA. � 1 ' 1 me" 7 IC CRYSTAL DDT _ - l t ( uEi3D DUST. 1 I 1 I GOLDEN VALLEY 1 1 O p J oD i \ 1 f GOLDEN VALLEY W � i Di WEENY we 1 � 1 SOUTH \ PROJECT LIMITS g el i gOBBINSOAIE f l BROOKLYN CENTER SEGMENT 1 SEGMENT s SFCMFN �,"•� I NOR t 2 �! PRJECT 1 LIMITS If �.�� uT•uxin E— a xon " p NCMwUIED wi cxwDE IxTEMEGi1Ox SFC�`cNr i� � �� � 11 x0 SGIE T.H. 100 RECONSTRUCTION GLENWOOD AVE. TO 50TH AVE. No. Figure 2 Existing Features Within OBarton- Aschman Associates, Inc. Project Corridor (Segments 1 -4) STOP SIGN CONTROL Cq �\ A F POTENTIAL INDIANA AVE. OVERPASS (OPTION 3) � P O Phi AM C _ Aid T.H. 100 C C M LILAC DR. PM j POTENTIAL Q •"`— Q FRONTAGE ROA. 14/ Q CONNECTION TO ` U �,, A i INDIANA AVE. Q = o m (OPTION 2) t� E y O � ♦`` ° v2 0 �> O ` R6'/A f �� STOP SIGN p m CONTROL O ti L NOTE. POTENTIAL INDIANA AVE. CONNE • � ► N ORTH CONNECTIONS APPLY TO ALL SEGMENT 3 ALTERNATIVES. °. NO SCALE POTENTIAL 46th AVE. CONNECTION T,H, 100 RECONSTRUCTION TO INDIANA AVE. (OPTION 1) GLENWOOD AVE, TO 50th AVE,No. Figure 18 Alternative 3A Diamond Interchange at France Ave. Barton- Aschman Associates. Inc. �a z y CZ w a Q i Q1 O _O O C F- o cz E c cz a0 C � L �� �jjOo Z 0) u "8 � a Q S n, 0 0 o O z ° LL- of a o Z coo U _L N oZ r ~" c ~ O U) C CD C IL T f a a O a Zz O OU O Z' Z ■ U) C) �p• e' tk oK � r a 1 2 t a a) ¢ f•- 0 0 H U 33 l —r 1 • ���e ��' t z N CO > _0 w aJ Q CZ 0 � > L W a Q m O �. U In U. CZ Y... CD LL Z LL < +r O C>6 . . U Q W 0 00 LL [Jd W X wo o W o 0 • CZ � �> _ -j u) w �' F' 0 U to Q u >o`' (3) V t- d +-. z • oN 0 r C U cr LL Q o 0 o O z T MM cc w pJ d r 1 O 0 LL = Q O � Z O Z P�� m ��b t �J tib y to 35 C ; r Z CV Q /O O& a `- U� a cc L CZ N W ,d? LL z i ., U Q Q cz wo us x O o p C cz a o oZ O w U =J 7 .�p9 0 O O U- o o _ \ \ \O \ S 0 \ �J \\ Q \ _ z P J� z V ` z U P � Q Q a � p - m 36 _ N Z N ce) (ZS j w U Q NAl" e o a l o cm C N t � � C15 U U � M cz C U o W Wo cz 00 Cn Q D rZ C C� U i S W CLS cz d � T T ` Z ` "`�"""`„ a Z O Q . N L ' r 4/ 1 °• U � r m o CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/13/90 Agenda Item Number /1� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: 1991 CITY MANAGER'S PRELIMINARY PROPOSED BUDGET DEPT. APPROVAL: s Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached / v SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Attached is the 1991 City Manager's Preliminary Proposed Budget. This preliminary proposed budget is designed to give the City Council sufficient summary information to establish a preliminary 1991 property tax levy and budget total by the state mandated September 1 deadline. Under current state requirements, taxing entities, such as cities, must establish preliminary budget and levy figures by September 1 of each year. The county then mails notices to property taxpayers and notifies them of required hearings to be held by cities, school districts, and counties between November 15 and December 20. Cities must finalize their property tax levies and budget prior to December 28, 1990. The 1991 City Manager's Preliminary Proposed Budget has been prepared based on preliminary estimates of revenues and expenditures. These preliminary figures will be finalized in September and October and are subject to change. The preliminary 1991 proposed maximum budget levy of $5,619,134 would increase taxes on an average Brooklyn Center home ($74,000 value) by approximately $25 per year or $2.08 per month. Please understand these estimates are based on preliminary expenditure, value, and revenue estimates. September and October will give us more reliable figures. I recommend the Council approve the attached resolution setting the 1991 preliminary property tax levy at $5,619,134 and the preliminary 1991 budget total at $11,484,488. Under state law, the preliminary property tax levy figure cannot be exceeded once the Council approves it. The budget figure can be exceeded later if the Council authorizes. Because you can only lower the proposed property tax levy, I have recommended the 1991 property tax levy figure be set as high as is allowed under state levy limits and special levy requirements, including the use of Certificates of Indebtedness. This will allow the Council as much flexibility as is possible when considering the final 1991 budget in November and December. I have made preliminary cuts from department requests to reach a proposed expenditure level which roughly represents 1990 budget levels plus funds for 1991 estimated salary increases, inflation on contracts, materials and supplies and other miscellaneous increases. This preliminary proposed budget contains $103,168 less in expenditures than proposed revenue figures. The City Council has earlier indicated an interest in considering the expansion of programs and budgets in the following areas: 1) Covering the 1990 appropriation shortfall and /or expanding the Battered Spouse Program in 1991. 2) Make progress in meeting the police personnel needs in the updated master plan; 3) Consider an . expanded forestry program. 4) Consider an expanded citizen communication program. 5) Consider funding a portion of Twin Lake treatment projects. 6) Expanded efforts to influence the legislature to give City needs a higher priority. The $103,168 mentioned above is available for application to these and other projects. Any additional funding would have to come from reprioritizing 1990 budget priorities. is It is my intention to submit to the Council the City Manager's Final Proposed Budget for 1991 in early November. That document will have more reliable figures on which you can make intelligent and informed policy decisions. This preliminary document is designed strictly for the Council to establish the required preliminary property tax levy and budget figures to comply with state notice requirements. RECOMMENDATION I recommend your favorable consideration of the attached resolution establishing preliminary 1991 levy and budget figures prior to September 1, 1990. 1 further recommend the Council have "work sessions" on the 1991 proposed budget in November prior to the state mandated budget hearing process. (HHOBCS) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA COMBINED ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET ----------------- - - - - -- FOR ALL BUDGETED CITY FUNDS --------------------------- (GENERAL AND DEBT RETIREMENT) 1991 PROPOSED SUMMARY 1 . (ISOERAA) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA`; ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET ,ww FOR ALL BUDGETED CITY (GENERAL AND DEBT RETIR 1991 PROPOSED ----------------------------------------------- SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED REVENUE AND APPROPRIATIONS ----------------------------------------------- REVENUE: 1991 1990 1991 Percent --- - - ---- Revenue Revenue Increase Increase Estimate Estimate (Decrease) - Decrease ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- I. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 5,639,134 5,023,151 615,983 12.26% II. LODGING SALES TAX 390,600 354,000 36,600 10.34% III. BUSINESS LICENSES & PERMITS 184,900 181,575 3,325 1.83% IV. NON- BUSINESS LICENSES & PERMITS 130,100 125,200 4,900 3.91% V. INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE 2,248,069 2,316,662 (68,593) -2.96% VI. GENERAL GOVT. SERVICE CHARGES 126,800 177,330 (50,530) - 28.49% VII. PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICE CHARGES 17,000 14,000 3,000 21.43% VIII. RECREATION FEES 733,253 760,594 (27,341) -3.59% IX. OTHER REV ENUE 0 o 0 0 0.00/ X. FINES AND FORFEITURES 285,000 267,000 18,000 6.74% XI. MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 1,729,632 1,254,051 475,581 37.92% TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE 11,484,488 10,473,563 1,010,925 9.65% APPROPRIATIONS: 1991 1990 -- - - - --- Proposed Adopted 1991 Percent Approp- Approp- Increase Increase riations riations (Decrease) - Decrease -- I. GENERAL FUND ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- A. GENERAL GOVERNMENT 1,970,861 1,889,242 81,619 - 4.32% B. PUBLIC SAFETY 3,723,218 3,442,453 280,765 8.16% C. PUBLIC WORKS 2,053,906 1,975,370 78,536 3.98% D. HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 110,768 104,751 6,017 5.74% E. RECREATION 1,925,376 1,870,619 54,757 2.93% F. CONS. OF NAT. RESOURCES 0 26,559 (26,559) - 100.00% G. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 183,000 168,000 15,000 8.93% H. UNALLOCATED DEPT. EXPENSES 847,996 632,450 215,546 34.08% ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- TOTAL GENERAL FUND 10,815,125 10,109,444 705,681 6.98% ---- - - - - -- - - - - - -- -- --- - - - - -- II. DEPT REDEMPTION FUNDS 669,363 364,119 305,244 83.83% ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS 11,484,488 10,473,563 1,010,925 9.65% 2* (HHRORAR) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA_ COMBINED ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR ALL BUDGETED CITY FUNDS (GENERAL AND DEBT RETIREMERT) y '� -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 1991 PROPOSED --------------------------------------- RESUME OF REVENUE AND ESTIMATED REVENUE --------------------------------------- 9/1/89 Esti- 1991 1991 1991 1988 1989 mate of Esti- Increase Increase Actual Actual 1990 mated (Decrease)- Decrease Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue From 1990 From 1990 I. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES Ad Valorem Levy 3,430,896 3,354,509 5,008,151 5,619,134 610,983 12.20% Penalties & Interest 9,533 28,759 15,000 20,000 5,000 33.33% --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- Total 3,440,429 3,383,268 5,023,151 5,639,134 615,983 12.26% - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- II. LODGING TAXES 170,860 177,304 354,000 390,600 36,600 10.34% --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- III. BUS. LICENSES & PERMITS 184,484 190,204 181,575 184,900 3,325 1.83% --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- IV. NONBUS. LIC. & PERMITS 145,299 175,044 125,200 130,100 4,900 3.91% - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- V. INTERGOVERNMENTAL REV. 3,175,663 3,623,652 2,316,662 2,248,069 (68,593) -2.96% --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- VI. GEN. GOVERN. CHARGES 236,812 130,427 177,330 126,800 (50,530) - 28.49% --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- VII. PUBLIC SAFETY CHARGES 13,618 17,414 14,000 17,000 3,000 21.43% --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- VIII.RECREATION FEES 687,524 677,894 760,594 733,253 (27,341) -3.59% --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- X. FINES & FORFEITURES 243,952 278,812 267,000 285,000 - 18,000 6.74% XI. MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Sale of Certificates 0 0 0 700,000 700,000 Excess Revenue Over Expenditures (103,168) (103,168) Fund Balance Transfer 250,000 0 474,551 292,000 (182,551) - 38.47% Other Revenue 975,409 899,834 779,500 840,800 61,300 7.86% --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- Total 1,225,409 899,834 1,254,051 1,729,632 475,581 37.92% --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- TOTAL REVENUE 9,524,050 9,553,853 10,473,563 11,484,488 1,010,925 9.65% 3 (AAAROAAE) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA COMBINED ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR ALL BUDGETED CITY FUNDS (GENERAL AND DEBT RETIREMENT) ----------------------------- 1991 PROPOSED ----------------------------------------- RESUME OF APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES ----------------------------------------- 1988 1989 1990 1991 1991 1991 Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Increase Increase Unit Expend- Expend- Approp- Approp- - Decrease - Decrease Number itures itures riations riations From 1990 From 1990 - - - - -- -- - - - - -- --- - - - - =- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- I. GENERAL FUND BY FUNCTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT ------------------------------------------------ A. GENERAL GOVERNMENT 1,719,830 1,749,925 1,889,242 1,970,861 81,619 4.32% --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- B. PUBLIC SAFFETY 2,675,205 3,103,225 3,442,453 3,723,218 280,765 8.16% --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- - - - - -- - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- C. PUBLIC WORKS 1,765,192 1,765,439 1,975,370 2,053,906 78,536 3.98% --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- D. HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 88,333 107,367 104,751 110,768 6,017 5.74% --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- E. RECREATION 1,706,569 1,814,391 1,870,619 1,925,376 54,757 2.93% --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --------- F. CONS OF NATURAL RESOURCES 17,256 17,247 26,559 0 26,559) --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- G. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 162,271 168,305 168,000 183,000 15,000 8.93% --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- H. UNALLOCATED EXPENSES 310,452 689,276 632,450 847,996 215,546 34.08% --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- Total General Fund 8,445,108 9,415,175 10,109,444 10,815,125 705,681 6.98% --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- II. DEBT SERVICE FUNDS BY FUND -------------------------- A. 1969 Bldg. & Improvement Bond Redemption Fund 178,000 167,700 0 0 0 0.00% B. 1980 Park Improvement Bond Redemption Fund 191,541 205,191 364,119 363,363 (756) -0.21% C. 1991 Cert. of Indebtedness Redemption Fund 0 0 0 306,000 306,000 --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- Total Debt Redemption 369,541 372,891 364,119 669,363 305,244 83.83% --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- III. TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES 8,814,649 9,788,066 10,473,563 11,484,488 1,010,925 9.65% 4 i =ail (WWRTATB) PROPOSED RESOLUTION PROPOSED RESOLUTION PROPOSED RESOLUTION Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 90- RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 1991 PROPOSED BUDGET -------------------------------------------- BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the appropriations for budgeted funds for the calendar year 1991 shall be: GENERAL FUND Unit No. Organizational Unit Amount - - - - -- ------------------------------ - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- 11 Council $ 76,276 12 Charter Commission 1,500 13 City Manager's Office 389,927 14 Elections and Voters' Registration 26,924 15 Assessing 191,221 16 Finance 372,184 17 Independent Audit 15,000 18 Legal Counsel 192,600 19 Government Buildings 481,094 20 Data Processing 224,135 31 Police Protection 2,698,273 32 Fire Protection 648,663 33 Planning and Inspection 285,932 34 Emergency Preparedness 70,562 35 Animal Control 19,788 41 Engineering 440,465 42 Street Construction and Maintenance 1,006,872 43 Vehicle Maintenance 423,569 44 Traffic Signs and Signals 37,000 45 Street Lighting 143,000 46 Weed Control 3,000 51 Health Regulation and Inspection 89,236 52 Social Services 21,532 61 Recreation and Parks Administration 299,286 62 Adult Recreation Programs 297,812 63 Teen Recreation Programs 13,975 64 Children's Recreation Programs 81,523 65 General Recreation Programs 87,253 66 Community Center 456,872 6 9 Parks Maintenance 688,655 70 Convention and Tourism Bureau 183,000 80 Unallocated Departmental Expense 847,996 Total General Fund $10,815,125 1980 PARK IMPROVEMENT BOND REDEMPTION FUND 363,363 1991 CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS REDEMPTION FUND 306,000 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR BUDGETED FUNDS $11,484,488 ; and 5' RESOLUTION N0. - 90_ - - -- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the source of financing the sums appropriated are expected to be: General Property Taxes $ 5,619,134 Penalties and Interest on Property Taxes 20,000 Sales Taxes on Lodging 390,600 Business Licenses and Permits 184,900 Nonbusiness Licenses and Permits 130,100 Intergovernmental Revenue %Z- 2,248,069 General Government Charges for Services 3 126,800 Public Safety Charges for Services 17,000 Recreation Fees 733,253 Fines and Forfeits �. �' _ 285,000 Fund Balance 292,000 Miscellaneous Revenue 'µ 'N k4. 1,437,632 e r — t .. °. TOTAL ESTIMATED SOURCE OF FINANCING u $11,484,488 ------------------------------------ Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member thereof: and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 6 � � (IRTATL) PROPOSED RESOLUTION PROPOSED RESOLUTION pRUpU3ED RESOLUTION Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 90- � ---_---- � RESOLUTION T0 AUTHORIZE A PROPOSED TAX LEVY FOR 1991 BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS � -----_----------------------------_--------------_-------------_--------- � WHEREAS, The City of Brooklyn Center i3 annually required � Chart -» r and au 0 state l t ~ - approve � resolution setting forth �O annual tax levy to the Hennepin COVOtv Auditor; and WHEREAS, Minnesota statutes currently in force require certification of a proposed tax levy t0 the Hennepin C0UDtv Auditor on or before September l, 1990 and a final tax levy OO or before December ' 8, 1990. Center: - ' ~ NON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED b« t�� City Council of the City of Brooklyn � � I. There i3 hereby approved for expenditures from general taxes, the � following sums for the purpose indicated: � GENERAL FUND $4,949,771 1991 CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS REDEMPTION FUND 306,000 --------- $5,255,771 � The foregoing does not include levies already certified to the COUntv � Auditor for the payment of outstanding loans, which levies for the year 1991 are - rS as follows: � 1980 PARK IMPROVEMENT BONDS REDEMPTION FUND $ 383,363 --------- � TOTAL EXPENDITURES FOR THE YEAR lQQ] FROM GENERAL TAXES $5,619,134 2. Of the above a0OVDt3, $807,033 has been determined to be a special levy and is exempt from the overall levy limitations set forth in L@4S Of 1973, Chapter 650 as amended. � 3. There is hereby levied upon all taxable v lying within the City � Of Brooklyn Center, in addition to all levies heretofore cer to the County ' `' A as indicated in paragraph one hereof, the sum of �5, �55,77l, �D� t�8 City Clerk shall cause 8 copy of this r830lUtiOD t0 be certifi to the County Auditor s0 that said SV0 shall be spread upon the tax rolls and will be payable i n the year 1991. ^- � . ATTEST: ' � . Clerk The motion Of the adoption Of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded ' member thereof: ' , and Upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor and the following voted against the 380e: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. � 7 � | ' � (RRP3011) RO1 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ANNUAL BUDGET 1991 p � � 'n 4 4 t C Y REVENUE PROJECTIONS TYPE: AD VALOREM LEVY (3011) INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY: DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 1991 LEVY LIMIT COMPUTATION: 1. Unreduced Pay 1990 Levy Base Before 1990 LGA Cut (Per Dept. of Revenue) $ 6,661,520 2. Increase by 3 %. 199,846 3. Equals 6,861,366 4. Adjustment for Growth in Households 13,723 5. Reduce by 1.53% 1990 LGA Cut (Per Dept. of Revenue) (107,919) 6. Reduce by Estimated 1991 LGA Per Dept. of Revenue) enue ) (1 955 069 7. Equals Maximum Allowable 1991 Levy 4,812,101 8. Add Special Levies: a. Debt Retirement - Regular 363,363 b. Debt Retirement for New Certificates of Indebtedness 306,000 c. Special Assessments on City Property 37,840 d. Drug Task Force ($2 per Capita Times 28,578) 57,156 e. Unfunded Accrued Liability of Pension Funds 42,674 807,033 10. TOTAL ALLOWABLE TAX LEVY $ 5,619,134 i 8 L (HHBCCI) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET;, FOR ALL BUDGETED CITY FUNDS` --- --- -- ------------ -- -- -- 1991 ty'� PROPOSED ------------------------------------------------ TO BE FINANCED WITH CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS ------------------------------------------------ Certificates of Indebtedness are to be dated January 1, 1991 and will mature on December 31, 1991, 1992, and 1993 at an annual projected interest rate of 8 %. Principal at January 1, 1991 $ 700,000 Interest Payment on 12 -31 -91 $ 56,000 Principal Payment on 12 -31 -91 250,000 (250,000) Debt Retirement Levy For 1991 Budget $ 306,000 Principal at January 1, 1992 450,000 Interest Payment on 12 -31 -92 $ 36,000 Principal Payment on 12 -31 -92 225,000 (225,000) Debt Retirement Levy For 1992 Budget $ 261,000 ----- - - - - -- ----- - -� - -- Principal at January 1, 1993 225,000 Interest Payment on 12 -31 -93 $ 18,000 Principal Payment on 12 -31 -93 225,000 (225,000) Debt Retirement Levy For 1993 Budget $ 243,000 Principal at January 1, 1994 $ 0 9 k t^ W (HHBCCI) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR ALL BUDGETED CITY FUNDS --------------------- - - - - -- 1991 PROPOSED ------------------------------------------------ TO BE FINANCED WITH CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS ------------------------------------------------ DEPARTMENT CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEM DEPT TOTAL -------- - - - - -- --------------------------- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- CITY MGR (13) Office Furnishings & Equipment $ 500 FINANCE (16) Office Furnishings & Equipment 1,790 GOVT BLDGS (19 Office Furnishings & Equipment $ 322 Other Equipment 425 747 - DATA PROCESS(20) Office Furnishings & Equipment 80,768 POLICE (31) Other Equipment 1,135 Mobile Equipment 66,920 Less DARE Vehicle from Special Levy (11,000) 57,055 FIRE (32) Furniture and Fixtures 1,720 Other Equipment 62,870 Mobile Equipment (Pumper) 255,000 319,590 ----- - - - - -- PLAN & INSP (33) Other Equipment 75 EMERG PREP (34) Other Equipment 800 ENGINEERING (41) Office Furnishings & Equipment 2,850 Mobile Equipment 350 3,200 ( 42 ) Mobile Equipment ----- - - - - -- STREET MTNC 128,400 VEHICLE MTNC(43) Other Equipment 5,000 REC &PRKS ADM(61) Office Furnishings & Equipment 1,500 Mobile Equipment 16,000 17,500 ----- - - - - -- ADULT REC (62) Other Equipment 400 TEEN REC (63) Furniture and Fixtures 1,867 COMM CENTER (66) Furniture and Fixtures 1,148 Other Equipment 14,250 15,398 PARKS MTNC (69) Other Equipment 11,900 Mobile Equipment 43,750 55,650 UNALLOCATED (80) Office Furnishings & Equipment 2,150 Total Equipment to be Financed With C.I.'s $ 690,890 10 13 Licenses to be approved by the City Council on August 13, 1990: GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE Aagard Sanitation 875 Prior Ave. N. Darling & Co. P. 0. Box 12785 Midwest Grease Buyers, Inc. P. 0. Box 26 Robbinsdale Transfer 3601 48th Ave. N. t T & L Sanitation 8201 Logan Ave. N. ' • , , ti . v ���� SanitarianZ ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Brookdale Unocal 76 5710 Xerxes Ave. N. Sanitarian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS A- Aaron's div. of Waste Inc. 2511 Highway 7 Master Mechanical, Inc. 9864 James Circle /q McQuillan Bros. Plumbing & Htg. Co. 452 Selby Ave. Building Official PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE C. D. Flodstrom 5200 77th Ave. N. / 4. 4 Sanitarian �" ~ SIGN HANGER Crosstown Sign Inc. 10166 Central Ave. NE Building Official SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT 5900 Shingle Fx _ Neatables � ngle Ck. Pkwy. � ; i . Sanitarian SWIMMING POOL Chippewa Park Apartments 6507 Camden Ave. N. �'i►� -- Sanitarian _ TAXICAB � I Blue and White 1086 East York 1 ief of Police GENERAL APPROVAL: D. K. Weeks, City Clerk