Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 07-09 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER JULY 9, 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. Presentation: a. Frank Slawson, Chairman -All- America Committee 7. Approval of Minutes: *a. June 25, 1990 - Regular Session 8. Performance Guarantee Release: *a. Brookdale Christian Center, 6030 Xerxes Avenue North 9. Resolutions: *a. Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with Hennepin County to Qualify as an Urban County under the U.S. CDBG Program b. Revising Policy for Deferment of Special Assessments for Persons 65 Years of Age or Older and for Persons Who are Totally and Permanently Disabled and Establishing an Assessment Rate *c. Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Construction of Water Supply Well No. 10, Improvement Project No. 1990- 02, Contract 1990 -F *d. Accepting Proposal for Geotechnical Services Relating to Well No. 10, Improvement Project No. 1990 -02 e. Approving a Contract with SEH, Inc. to Provide Professional Services Relating to Stage I of Final Plan Development for Reconstruction of 69th Avenue North between Noble Avenue and Shingle Creek Parkway CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- July 9. 1990 *f. Approving Change Order No. 1 to Contract 1990 -D, Humboldt Avenue Improvement Project No. 1989 -27 -This change order provides for the installation of a new 14' wide sidewalk on Humboldt Avenue in front of the apartment buildings at 6640 and 6700 Humboldt Avenue North. *g. Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Diseased Shade Trees (Order No. DST 7/9/90) 10. Discussion Items: a. MTC Bus Shelters b. 1990 Planning Session Results c. Home Occupation *11. Licenses 12. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLET CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JUNE 25, 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 7:26 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 Coordinator Brad Hoffman, Public Works Coordinator Diane Spector, and Administrative Aide Patti Page. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Mayor Nyquist. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had not received any requests to use the open forum session this evening. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular agenda items. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from the consent agenda. Councilmember Cohen requested item 7d be removed from the consent agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 7 1990 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the minutes of the May 7, 1990, City Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 21 1990 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the minutes of the May 21, 1990, City Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 11 1990 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the minutes of the June 11, 1990, City Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS 6/25/90 _l_ RESOLUTION NO. 90 -122 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 06/25/90) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -123 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN METROPOLITAN CLINIC OF COUNSELING, INC. AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR AN EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -124 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT FROM THE BROOKLYN CENTER ROTARY CLUB The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -125 • Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1990 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR WAGE AND SALARY ADJUSTMENTS 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 Glico Harmony Foods Corp. 719 Swift Street Sears 1297 Brookdale Center ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Brooklyn Center Fire Department 6301 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Brooklyn Center Park & Recreation 6301 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. The Multiple Sclerosis Society 2344 Nicollet Avenue County Store Foods 3600 63rd Avenue N. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Brooklyn Air Heating & AC 5801 Lyndale Ave. N. i 6/25/90 -2- Northwestern Service, Inc. 791 Hampden Avenue • Ron's Mechanical 1812 E. Shakopee Ave. RENTAL DWELLINGS Initial: Cherie and Mark Wyman 3901 52nd Ave. N. Chris Knutson 5200 France Ave. N. William Steinhagen 4201 Lakeside Ave. N. #104 Cindy and Kim Norling 7008 Unity Avenue N. Renewal: Brookdale Towers Program Brookdale Towers Earle Brown Farm Apts. Earle Brown Farm Apts. Gary Olson 3715 69th Ave. N. Kenneth Ready, Jr. 1019 73rd Ave. N. Martha Lahti 5316 Knox Ave. N. Martha Lahti 5322 Knox Ave. N. The motion passed unanimously. _RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented a Resolution Regarding Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 90009. He explained application No. 90009 was submitted by Keith Sturm /Reliance Real Estate Services, Inc. and was a request for a variance from the retail parking formula to allow a retail use of the Gold's Gym building at 2920 County Road 10. He noted the applicant withdrew this application after the City Council adopted an ordinance amendment modifying . the retail parking formula. Councilmember Cohen noted the applicant had mentioned the previous variance which the City Council had approved in the past for that area. He inquired whether the language was specific enough in this resolution to deter similar applications in the future. Chief Lindsay entered the meeting at 7:30 p.m. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated he is not sure all circumstances in the previous variance were the same as in this application. He noted that would be a determination the City Council would have to make. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -126 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 90009 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Authorizing Citywide Recycled Paper Procurement Policy. He explained the County has mandated the City adopt a recycled paper procurement policy. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -127 • 6/25/90 -3- Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITYWIDE RECYCLED PAPER PROCUREMENT POLICY • The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Amending the 1990 General Fund Budget and Accepting Proposal for Emergency Repairs of Air Conditioning System for Civic Center. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -128 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1990 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR EMERGENCY REPAIRS OF AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM FOR CIVIC CENTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Accepting Proposal for Architectural Services Relating to City Garage Remodeling - Project No. 1990 -17. Councilmember Scott inquired when the project would begin. The Director of Public Works stated the project would begin later this summer with completion in the fall. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -129 Member Celia Scott introduced the following - resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES RELATING TO CITY GARAGE REMODELING - PROJECT NO. 1990 -17 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 90014 SUBMITTED BY LESLIE ANDRESEN REQUESTING SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO INSTALL AND OPERATE A HOME BEAUTY SHOP IN THE BASEMENT OF THE RESIDENCE AT 6821 PERRY AVENUE NORTH The City Manager noted this item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its June 14, 1990, meeting. The Director of Planning and Inspection referred the Mayor and Councilmembers to pages one and two of the June 14, 1990, minutes and information sheet. He then briefly reviewed the application. He noted the hours of operation would be Tuesday through Friday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; Wednesday 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.; and Saturday 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. He stated there would be no nonresident employees in this home occupation. He added there is a legal egress window in the basement. Be stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of this application subject to seven conditions which he reviewed for the Council. Councilmember Pedlar inquired if there was more than one egress window in the i 6/25/90 -4- i basement. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated he believed there was only one, but he could check. Councilmember Pedlar inquired if the Fire Chief has reviewed this application. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated the Fire Chief has not reviewed this application, but he can have it reviewed by the Fire Chief. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 90014 submitted by Leslie Andresen. 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 Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist stated he was sure the other Councilmembers knew his feelings with regard to home occupations and asked the City Manager to place home occupation permits on an upcoming agenda as a discussion item. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve Planning Commission Application No. 90014 submitted by Leslie Andresen subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is granted only for a home beauty /barber shop as proposed in the applicant's letter dated May 14, 1990. The use may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. • 2. The beauty /barber shop shall operate on an appointment -only basis. Hours of operation shall be 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Tuesday through Friday; 7 P.m. to 9 p.m. Wednesday; and 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturday. 3. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be off - street on improved space provided by the applicant. 4. The applicant shall provide the City with a current copy of the State shop license prior to issuance of the special use permit. 5. The applicant shall obtain required permits for plumbing and ventilation work. 6. The applicant shall install a 10 lb. fire extinguisher in the area of the beauty /barber shop. 7. There shall be no more than 10 people in the basement area at any given time. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION N0. 90016 SUBMITTED BY JOSEPH JACOBSEN REQUESTING SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO CONDUCT A SAW SHARPENING BUSINESS AS A HOME OCCUPATION IN THE GARAGE OF THE RESIDENCE AT 1821 IRVING LANE The City Manager noted this item was recommended for approval by the Planning 6/25/90 -5- Commission at its June 14, 1990, meeting. The Director of Planning and Inspection referred the Mayor and Councilmembers to pages two through four of the June 14, 1990, Planning Commission minutes and information sheet. He noted in the application the hours of operation were stated to be 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. He noted the Planning Commission recommended there be no saw sharpening on Sunday. He stated the applicant does not expect this business to create any traffic because he will be picking up and delivering the saws. He noted the Planning Commission recommended approval of this application subject to six conditions which he reviewed for the Council. Mayor Nyquist inquired if 8:30 a.m. is rather early on a Saturday morning. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated the applicant has noted the level of noise created by this business will be quite low, and if it is this low it should not be any problem to begin at 8:30 a.m. on a Saturday morning. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 90016 submitted by Joseph Jacobsen. 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. 90016. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to approve Planning Commission Application No. 90016 submitted by Joseph Jacobsen subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is granted only for a saw sharpening business as • proposed by the applicant. The use may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. Any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. The hours of operation shall be no earlier than 8:30 a.m., nor any later than 9 p.m. No work will be performed on Sundays. 4. The garage door shall be closed during operation of power equipment. 5. Any parking associated with the home occupation shall be off - street on improved space provided by the applicant. 6. No radio or TV frequency interference to neighboring properties caused by the home occupation shall be permitted. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Cohen stated when the City Council reviews the issue of home occupation permits, they should also discuss other "hobbies" which people do in their homes or garages. He noted these may be causing more problems within neighborhoods than the legal home occupations. • 6/25/90 -6- DISCUSSION ITEMS POLICIES RELATING TO DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS The City Manager noted the Public Works Coordinator has prepared a paper which describes the current City policy for deferral of special assessments. He noted the paper provides some alternatives which the Council may wish to consider. The Public Works Coordinator then went on to review the report which was prepared noting Minnesota Statutes limit deferrals to seniors and disabled persons whose property is homesteaded and for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments. She noted the statute specified the conditions upon which the right to deferred payment is terminated, but leave the other policy details to the discretion of the taxing authority. She stated the statute does not allow the City to defer assessments on the basis of income or any other criterion, except for seniors and disabled persons. The Public Works Coordinator then went on to explain how community development block grant (CDBG) funds may be used to pay all or a portion of special assessments for improvement projects. She noted a number of requirements and restrictions apply. She then went on to review a few of these requirements and restrictions. She concluded by noting the designation must be completed prior to undertaking the project, and it cannot be done after the fact. She noted this would mean the alley paving projects would not be eligible for CDBG funds. Mayor Nyquist noted the City would be entitled to use CDBG funds for improvement projects; however, this does not necessarily mean the City would receive additional CDBG funding. The Public Works Coordinator stated that was correct. A discussion then ensued regarding different types of assessment policies for each type of improvement project. The Director of Public Works stated under State law deferments are allowed for water main and sanitary sewer installation projects if the property owner is going to connect to the system at a later date. He noted the only type of deferment for other projects is the one for elderly and disabled persons. He then went on to review the proposed timetable for approving the policy and setting a public hearing for special assessments. A discussion then ensued regarding the maximum percent of income figures which would be used in computing the annual maximum payment. Councilmember Cohen suggested changing from 2% to 1 %. Councilmember Scott stated she would like to see some information on how it would work if the maximum percent of income were figured at 1 1/2 %. She added she did not feel the City Council should adjust the annual income limit. The City Manager stated staff can prepare a resolution for the next Council meeting, and the Council can fill in the blanks for the maximum percent of income after they have reviewed the report. POLICE DEPARTMENT BATTERED SPOUSE PROGRAM The City Manager explained the Director of Brooklyn Center's Domestic Abuse Program, Anne Marshall, has decided to retire and pursue other challenges. He noted he feels the Police Chief has put together a reasonable compromise which will get the department through the rest of 1990. He stated the City Council will have to make some difficult decisions at budget time and noted a final solution for this issue will need to be discussed. Councilmember Paulson inquired if Ms. Marshall had any comments she would like to add. 6/25/90 -7- Ms. Marshall stated the concept of a government run program would be the first in the United States. She noted Brooklyn Center is known State wide and • nationally for the domestic abuse project and the work it does. Councilmember Scott inquired if this project deals with the placement of children who must be removed from homes at the time of their parents arrest. Ms. Marshall stated her program is not geared towards children, but it has had to start addressing this issue over the past couple years. Councilmember Scott stated she would like information from the police department with regard to its procedure for placement of children. A brief discussion then followed regarding the project and what it has accomplished over the last few years. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -130 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1990 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO TRANSFER AN APPROPRIATION FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT DOMESTIC INTERVENTION PROGRAM TO THE POLICE PART -TIME SALARIES ACCOUNT AND TO AUTHORIZE A POLICE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERN POSITION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:05 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEMS (CONTINUED) HUMBOLDT AVENUE TRAIL EXTENSION The City Manager noted staff is ready to present a verbal report regarding the feasibility and cost estimate for extending the trail on the east side of Humboldt Avenue. The Director of Public Works briefly reviewed slides showing Humboldt Avenue near 65th Avenue before construction began. He then reviewed the slides which show Humboldt Avenue from 65th through 69th during the construction. He noted a 14' sidewalk is being installed from 65th Avenue to the north property line of Brooklyn Center High School. He stated staff is working to obtain easements to make a 14' sidewalk improvement from this north property line to 67th Avenue. He then went on to review the sidewalk and easement area between 67th Avenue and 69th Avenue along Humboldt Avenue. He noted at this time staff has developed two plans which he reviewed for the Council. Councilmember Scott inquired if it would not be possible to have a third plan which would be a 10' sidewalk which would be measured from the curb eastward 10 The Director of Public Works stated in this area the grade is quite steep, and the area would have to be leveled out in order to install a sidewalk. He noted whenever you build a sidewalk adjacent to the curb you must discount the first 2' as being unusable space. He added if the City were to install trees along this boulevard, it would be additional space that is not usable and then the sidewalk must be 14'. The Director of Public Works stated because of the easement and design difficulties in this area, he is recommending this portion of the project be put on hold until a thorough review can be completed. He stated he would like the City Council to direct staff to prepare a change order for the sidewalk in the area from the Brooklyn Center High School north property line to 67th Avenue. i 6/25/90 -8- Councilmember Paulson inquired if now would be the best time to complete the project since there are already crews working and the City would receive a better price. The Director of Public ; 7orks stated if the City had a plan they were comfortable with, now would be the best time to do the work. He noted, however, since a good plan has not yet been developed for this area, he would recommend not completing the trailway in this section. He noted once the trailway is installed the City and the residents will have to live with it for many years. A brief discussion then ensued regarding the timeline for developing the new plans for the area between 67th and 69th Avenues along Humboldt Avenue. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar directing staff to proceed with the change order for the area between Brooklyn Center High School north property line and 67th Avenue. Councilmember Cohen stated he would like to amend the motion by further directing staff to conduct a study of the proposed trailway for the area between 67th and 69th Avenues along Humboldt Avenue. Councilmember Scott and Councilmember Pedlar agreed to the amendment. Upon vote being taken on the foregoing motion and amendment, the motion and amendment passed unanimously. 69TH AVENUE CORRIDOR - IMPROVEMENTS AND REDEVELOPMENT The City Manager noted a draft resolution was prepared for this evening's meeting which defines the policy and goals relating to improvements and redevelopment within the 69th Avenue corridor. Councilmember Scott stated she does not agree with provision No. 4 in the resolution and noted she feels the property values will not decrease and they may increase after the improvement. Councilmember Cohen stated he does not believe the issue is whether the property values will increase or decrease but rather an issue based on fairness and equity. The Director of Public Works pointed out this provision would eliminate three assessments along 69th Avenue. He noted the other properties along 69th Avenue are all corner lots and these residents have a choice as to which street they will have assessed for improvement projects. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -131 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DEFINING POLICY AND GOALS RELATING TO IMPROVEMENTS AND REDEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE 69TH AVENUE CORRIDOR The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed with Councilmembers Celia Scott and Jerry Pedlar opposed. The Director of Public Works stated a draft copy of a contract with SEH, Inc. to provide professional services relating to stage I of the final plan development for reconstruction of 69th Avenue between Noble Avenue and Shingle Creek Parkway was also included with this evening's information. He noted this is a very complicated project and will require many informational meetings. He noted this 6/25/90 -9- is only a draft copy for the Council's review and staff will bring back the final copy for final approval at a later date. Councilmember Scott inquired if the City would be required to pay additional fees for all the special applications which need to be filed. The Director of Public Works stated at the next meeting SEH, Inc. should have an estimate for the cost of the application process and the project cost. Councilmember Cohen stated it appears SEH, Inc. will assume the responsibility for all errors. The Director of Public Works stated that was correct. ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES The City Manager stated a copy of the report of the 1990 Mission and Membership Services Task Force from the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) was included in the Council's packet. A discussion then ensued pertaining to the AMM and also pertaining to its goals and policy statement. Councilmember Scott stated she feels the AMM provides the "best buy" for the money when it comes to lobbying services. Councilmember Cohen agreed the AMM is generally more effective than the League of Minnesota Cities when it comes to lobbying. Councilmember Paulson stated he feels the AMM does a fine job. However, he felt there would be a much better way to implement its goals if a network system were set in place. Councilmember Cohen stated the AMM does not have the universal support system that is necessary to achieve a network system. A brief discussion then ensued regarding the AMM. OTHER BUSINESS The City Manager noted he had received a letter from the Metropolitan Transit Commission regarding its bus shelter program. He noted if any of the Councilmembers have any suggestions for new bus shelter areas, they should contact either himself or Sy Knapp. The City Manager noted he and the Director of Public Works were notified that Minnegasco is planning to do some work in the same areas that have been scheduled for the City sealcoating program. He noted Minnegasco was notified of the City sealcoat program for 1990, but they did not respond. The Director of Public Works stated he has met with representatives of Minnegasco to review the alternatives. He noted at this time it appears there are only two alternatives, one being for Minnegasco to do as much of the work as is possible before the start of the sealcoat program. The second alternative would be to put the entire sealcoat contract on hold until 1991. He noted this would require negotiating with Minnegasco for payment of additional costs due to the contract delay. He stated he would expect resolution of this issue by the end of the week, and he would keep the City Council informed. CONSIDERATION OF SPECIFIED LICENSES RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE - 5500 BRYANT AVENUE NORTH There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to approve the rental dwelling license for 5500 Bryant Avenue North. The motion passed unanimously. RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE - 4010 65TH AVENUE NORTH There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the rental dwelling license for 4010 65th Avenue North. The motion 6/25/90 -10- 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 10:32 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 6/25/90 -11- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7 - 9 -90 Agenda Item Number 080, REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Performance Guarantee DEPARTMENT APP a•� . Signature -title i rector of Planning and Inspection **************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: Ire No comments to supplement this report C ments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached The following performance guarantee is recommended for release: 1. Brookdale Christian Center 6030 Xerxes Avenue North Planning Commission Application No. 85005 Amount of Guarantee - $6,500 Letter of Credit Obligor - Brookdale Christian Center All site work has not been completed. The parking lot is striped; shrubs are in; and trash enclosure has been constructed. Recommend total release. Submitted by Gary Shallcross, Planner CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER c ouncil Meeting Date 719/90 Agenda Item Number yC� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with Hennepin County to Qualify as an Urban County under the U.S. CDBG Program DEPT. P VAL: t i EDA Coordinator Sif nature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: y ,r< No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _) The attached resolution continues Brooklyn Center's participation in the Urban County CDBG program. As a member of the Urban County, Brooklyn Center . is entitled to receive an annual allocation of federal CDBG funds to be used in Brooklyn Center of eligible projects of our choosing. Currently, we are receiving approximately $200,000 annually. In the past the money has been used primarily for the City's housing rehab program, although $1 million went towards the acquisition of the Earle Brown Farm. The resolution and contract is before the council because HUD requires a renewal every three years. The alternative is to compete for CDBG funding through the state with small cities around the state. The majority of that money is going outstate. Further, the City would not be assured of an annual allocation. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY TO QUALIFY AS AN URBAN COUNTY UNDER THE U.S. CDBG PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, and the County of Hennepin have in effect a Joint Cooperation Agreement, County Contract No. 70458, for the purposes of qualifying as an Urban County under the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant program; and WHEREAS, the City and the County wish to terminate the current Agreement and execute a new Joint Cooperation Agreement, County Contract No. A04700, to reconstitute Urban Hennepin County for purposes of the Community Development Block Grant program. BE IT RESOLVED that the current Joint Cooperation p n Agreement between the City and the County, County Contract No. 70458, be terminated effective September 30, 1990, and a new Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City and the County, County Contract No. A04700, be executed effective October 1, 1990, and the Mayor and the City Manager be authorized and directed to sign the Agreement 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. OFFICE OF PLANNING u DEVELOPMENT Development Planning Unit HENNEPIN 822 South Third Street, Suite 310 LjL Minneapolis, MN 55415 (612) 348 -6418 June 20, 1990 Mr. Gerald G. Splinter City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr. Splinter: Every three years Hennepin County must be certified by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as an urban county to continue to receive an annual entitlement grant through the Community Development Block Grant program. The process to gain certification for Fiscal Years 1991, 1992 and 1993 is now underway. The key element in the process is the execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement between the County and each community therein that wishes to participate in the program and therefore be eligible to undertake important local activities with CDBG funds. The accompanying three copies of the Joint Cooperation Agreement for Fiscal Years 1991, 1992 and 1993, Contract Number A04700, is provided for your execution should you elect to remain a participant in the Urban Hennepin County CDBG program for the next three years. A sample resolution for your governing body to pass to authorize execution of the agreement is included for your convenience. A certified copy of the authorizing resolution must be returned with all three copies of the executed agreement by Friday, August 17, 1990 to: Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development 822 South 3rd Street Suite 310 Minneapolis, MN 55415 That date is necessary to assure execution by the County Board and transmittal of a fully executed agreement to HUD by the imposed September 4, 1990 deadline. One will be returned to you by the same date. The new agreement incorporates the amendments that were appended to the last agreement. Also included are several changes to accommodate new requirements directed by HUD, such as emphasizing affirmative action to further fair housing and clarifying the relationship between_cooperating communities and the County as subrecipient and recipient. HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer June 20, 1990 Page 2 Of most significance is the elimination of the discretionary account. The unexpended funds which made up the account will now be added to the annual basic grant and programmed for use along with the development of the annual program. This change reflects the general improvement in expenditure rate and simplifies program administration. Should your community wish to remain in the Urban Hennepin County CDBG program for Fiscal Years 1991, 1992 and 1993, it need only pass a facsimile of the sample resolution, execute the agreement and return them as instructed. Should it decide not to execute the agreement it would not receive CDBG funding through the Urban Hennepin County program beginning with Fiscal Year 1991. We look forward to your continued participation with us in the CDBG program. Sincerely, P ob 4 ert Isaa Planning Supervisor Enclosure cc: HUD Brad Hoffman Contract No. Xm l-oD JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, #ate of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," and the CITY OF /a hereinafter referred to as "COOPERATING UNIT," said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the State of Minnesota, and is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59; WITNESSETH; COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY agree that it is desirable and in the interests of their citizens that COUNTY secure Community Development Block Grant funds as an Urban County within the provisions of the Act as herein defined and, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement, the g , parties mutually agree to the following terms and conditions. I. DEFINITIONS The definitions contained in 42 USC 5302 of the Act and 24 CFR Part 570.3 of the Regulations are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof, and the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them: A. "Act" means Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 as amended (42 U.S.C. 5301 et.seo. B. "Regulations" means the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act, including but not limited to 24 CFR Part 570. C. "HUD" means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. D. "Cooperating Unit" means any city or town in Hennepin County which has entered into a cooperation agreement which is identical to this Agreement, as well as Hennepin County which is a party to each Agreement. E. "Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds" means the document bearing that title or similarly required statements or documents submitted to HUD for authorization to expend the annual grant amount and which is developed by the COUNTY in conjunction with COOPERATING UNITS as part of the Community Development Block Grant program. F. "Metropolitan City" means any city located in whole or in part in Hennepin County which is certified by HUD to have a population of 50,000 ,0 or more people. I II. PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to authorize COUNTY and COOPERATING UNIT to cooperate to undertake, or assist in undertaking, community renewal and lower income housing activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing and authorizes COUNTY to carry out these and other eligible activities for the benefit of eligible recipients who reside within the corporate limits of the COOPERATING UNIT which will be funded from annual Community Development Block Grants from Fiscal Years 1991, 1992 and 1993. III. AGREEMENT A. The term of this Agreement is for a period commencing on the effective date of October 1, 1990, terminating no sooner than the end of the program year covered by the Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds for the basic grant amount for the Fiscal Year 1993 as authorized by HUD subsequent to the effective date and for such additional time as may be required for the expenditure of funds granted to the County for such period. B. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, this Agree- ment shall be terminated at the end of the three -year program period during which HUD withdraws its designation of COUNTY as an Urban County under the Act. C. This Agreement shall be executed by the appropriate officers of COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY pursuant to authority granted them by their respective governing bodies, and a copy of the authorizing- resolution and executed Agreement shall be filed promptly by the COOPERATING UNIT in the Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development, and in no event shall the Agreement be filed later than August 17, 1990. D. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall take all actions necessary to assure compliance with the urban county's certification required by Section 104(b) of the Title I of the Housing and Community Develop - ment of 1974, as amended, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and other applicable laws. IV. ACTIVITIES COOPERATING UNIT agrees that awarded grant funds will be used to under- take and carry out within the terms of this Agreement certain projects involving one or more of the essential activities eligible for funding under the Act. COUNTY agrees and will assist COOPERATING UNIT in the undertaking of such essential activities by providing the services specified in this Agree- ment. The parties mutually agree to comply with all applicable requirements of the Act and the Regulations and other relevant Federal and/or Minnesota g / so a statutes or regulations in the use of basic grant amounts s. Nothing in this • Article shall be construed to lessen or abrogate COUNTY's responsibility to assume all obligations of an applicant under the Act, including the develop- ment of the Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds pursuant to 24 CFR 570.300 et.sea. 2 A. COOPERATING UNIT further specifically agrees as follows: 1. COOPERATING UNIT will in accord with a COUNTY established schedule prepare and provide to COUNTY, in a prescribed form, an annual request for the use of Community Development Block Grant Funds consistent with this Agreement, program regulations and the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives. 2. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that, pursuant to 24 CFR 570.501 (b), it is subject to the same requirements applicable to subrecipients, including the requirement for a written Sub - recipient Agreement set forth in 24 CFR 570.503. The Sub - recipient Agreement will cover the implementation requirements for each activity funded pursuant to this Agreement and shall be duly executed with and in a form prescribed by COUNTY. 3. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that it is subject to the same subrecipient requirements stated in 2. above in instances where an agency other than itself is undertaking an activity pursuant to this Agreement on behalf of COOPERATING UNIT. In such instances a written Third Party Agreement shall be duly executed between the agency and COOPERATING UNIT in a form prescribed by COUNTY. 4. COOPERATING UNIT shall implement all activities funded for each annual program pursuant to this Agreement within eighteen (18) months of the authorization by HUD to expend the basic grant amount. (a) Funds for all activities not implemented within eighteen (18) months shall be added to the next annual basic grant amount received by COUNTY and allocated according to the procedures set forth in and comply with all conditions of this Agreement. (b) Implementation period extensions may be granted upon request in cases where the authorized activity has been initiated and /or subject of a binding contract to proceed. 5. COOPERATING UNIT shall use funds provided pursuant to Section V. of this Agreement to undertake no more than three (3) grant funded activities administered by the COOPERATING UNIT. Each activity shall have a budget of at least seventy -five hundred dollars ($7,500), or the total amount of the planning alloca- tion of COOPERATING UNIT if less than seventy -five hundred dollars ($7,500). A COOPERATING UNIT may assign less than seventy -five hundred dollars ($7,500) to an activity when the activity is one that is programmed by at least one other COOPERATING UNIT and administered by only one COOPERATING UNIT on behalf of the others, provided that the total activity budget is at least seventy -five hundred dollars ($7,500). 3 6. COOPERATING UNIT will take actions necessary to accomplish the community development program and housing assistance goals as contained in the Urban Hennepin County Housing Assistance Plan. 7. COOPERATING UNIT shall ensure that all programs and /or activi- ties funded in part or in full by grant funds received pursuant to this Agreement shall be undertaken affirmatively with regard to fair housing, employment and business opportunities for minorities and women. It shall in implementing all programs and /or activities funded by the basic grant amount comply with all applicable Federal and Minnesota Laws, statutes, rules and regulations with regard to civil rights, affirmative action and equal employment opportunities and Administrative Rule issued by the COUNTY. 8. COOPERATING UNIT that does not affirmatively further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or that impedes action by COUNTY to comply with its fair housing certification shall be prohibited from receiving CDBG funding for activities. - 9. COOPERATING UNIT shall participate in the citizen participation process as established by COUNTY in compliance with the requirements of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. 10. COOPERATING UNIT shall comply with all of the administrative guidelines of the COUNTY now in effect or as hereafter promul- gated. 11. COOPERATING UNIT shall prepare, execute, and cause to be filed all documents protecting the interests of the parties hereto or any other party of interest as may be designated by the COUNTY. B. COUNTY further specifically agrees as follows: 1. COUNTY shall prepare and submit to HUD and appropriate review- ing agencies on an annual basis all plans, statements and program documents necessary for receipt of a basic grant amount under the Act. 2. COUNTY shall provide, to the maximum extent feasible, technical assistance and coordinating services to COOPERATING UNIT in the preparation and submission of the request for funding. 3. COUNTY shall provide ongoing technical assistance to COOPERAT- ING UNIT to aid COUNTY in fulfilling its responsibility to HUD for accomplishment of the community development program and housing assistance goals. 4. COUNTY shall upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT agree to administer local housing.rehabilitation grant programs funded pursuant to the Agreement, provided that COUNTY shall receive twelve percent (12 %) of the allocation by COOPERATING UNIT to. the activity as reimbursement for costs associated with the administration of COOPERATING UNIT activity. 4 5. COUNTY may, as necessary for clarification and coordination of program administration, develop and implement Administrative Rules consistent with the Act, Regulations and HUD administra- tive directives. V. ALLOCATION OF BASIC GRANT AMOUNTS Basic grant amounts received by the COUNTY under the Act shall be allocated as follows: A. COUNTY shall retain ten percent (10 %) of the annual basic grant amount for the undertaking of eligible activities. B. The balance of the basic grant amount shall be apportioned by COUNTY to COOPERATING UNITS in accordance with the formula stated in part C of this section for the purpose of allowing the COOPERATING UNITS to make requests for the use of funds so apportioned. The allocation is for planning purposes only and is not a guarantee of funding. C. Each COOPERATING UNIT will use as a target for planning purposes an amount which bears the same ratio to the balance of the basic grant amount as the average of the ratios between: 1. The population of GOOPERATING UNIT and the population of all COOPERATING UNITS. 2. The extent of poverty in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of poverty in all COOPERATING UNITS. 3. The extent of overcrowded housing by units in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of overcrowded housing by units in all COOPERAT- ING UNITS. 4. In determining the average of the above ratios, the ratio involving the extent of poverty shall be counted twice. D. It is the intent of this section that said planning allocation utilize the same basic elements for allocation of funds as are set forth in 24 CFR 570.4. The COUNTY shall develop these ratios based upon data to be furnished by HUD. The COUNTY assumes no duty to gather such data independently and assumes no liability for any errors in the data furnished by HUD. E. In the event COOPERATING UNIT does not request its planning alloca- tion, or a portion thereof, the amount not requested shall be added to the next annual basic grant amount received by COUNTY and allocated according to the procedures set forth in and comply with all conditions of this Agreement. VI. FINANCIAL MATTERS A. Reimbursement to the COOPERATING UNIT for expenditures for the implementation of activities funded under the Act shall be made upon receipt by the COUNTY of Summary of Project Disbursement form and Hennepin County Warrant Request, and supporting documentation. 5 B. All funds received by COUNTY under the Act as reimbursement for payment to COOPERATING UNITS for expenditure of local funds for activities funded under the Act shall be deposited in the County Treasury. C. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall maintain financial and other records and accounts in accordance with requirements of the Act and Regulations. Such records and accounts will be in such form as to permit reports required of the County to be prepared therefrom and to permit the tracing of grant funds and program income to final expenditure. D. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY agree to make available all records and accounts with respect to matters covered by this Agreement at all reasonable times to their respective personnel and duly authorized federal officials. Such records shall be retained as provided by law, but in no event for a period of less than three years from the last receipt of program income resulting from activity implementa- tion. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall perform all audits as may be required of the basic grant amount and resulting program income as required under the Act and Regulations. E. COOPERATING UNIT shall inform COUNTY of any income generated by the expenditure of CDBG funds it has received and shall pay to COUNTY all program income generated except as derived from activities with an approved revolving account. When program income is generated by an activity that is only partially assisted with CDBG funds, the income shall be prorated to reflect the percentage of CDBG funds used. 1. COUNTY will retain ten percent (10 %) of all program income paid to COUNTY to defray administration expenses. 2. The remaining ninety percent (90 %) of the program income paid to COUNTY shall be credited to the grant authority of COOPERAT- ING UNIT whose project generated the program income and shall be used for fundable and eligible CDBG activities consistent with this Agreement. 3. COOPERATING UNIT is authorized to retain program income derived from projects with an approved revolving account provided such income is used only for eligible activities in accordance with all CDBG requirements as they may apply. 4. COOPERATING UNIT shall maintain appropriate records and make reports to COUNTY as may be needed to enable COUNTY to monitor and report to HUD on the use of any program income. 5. Any program income that is on hand or received subsequent to the closeout or change in status of COOPERATING UNIT shall be paid to COUNTY. 6 F. Should an approved activity be determined to represent an ineligible expenditure of grant funds, the COOPERATING UNIT responsible shall reimburse the COUNTY for such ineligible expense. 1. All reimbursements for ineligible expenditures shall be added to the next annual basic grant amount received by COUNTY and allocated according to the procedures set forth in and comply with all conditions of this Agreement unless decreed otherwise by a Federal regulatory body or by final determination of a court of competent jurisdiction. 2. When it is determined by the COUNTY that grant funds have been expended on an eligible activity and through no fault of the COOPERATING UNIT the project fails or is no longer eligible, the return of grant funds shall be reallocated in the same manner as program income in Section VI.E. of this Agreement unless decreed otherwise by a Federal regulatory body or by final determination of a court of competent jurisdiction. VII. REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION OR IMPROVEMENT The following provisions shall apply to real property acquired or improved in whole or in part using CDBG funds: A. COOPERATING UNIT shall promptly notify COUNTY of any modification or change in the use of real property from that planned at the time of acquisition or improvement including disposition and comply with 24 CFR 570.505. B. COOPERATING UNIT shall reimburse COUNTY the greaten of the actual sale proceeds or an amount equal to the current fair market value (less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non -CDBG funds) of property acquired or improved with CDBG funds that is sold or transferred for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG regulations. C. Program income generated from the disposition or transfer of property prior to or subsequent to the closeout, change of status or termination of this Agreement shall be treated as stipulated in Section VI, paragraph E of this Agreement. VIII. METROPOLITAN CITIES Any metropolitan city executing this Agreement shall defer their entitle- ment status and become part of Urban Hennepin County. 7 IX. EXECUTION COOPERATING UNIT, having signed this Agreement, and the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on _, 19 , and pursuant to such approval and the proper County official having signed this Agreement, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. Upon Proper execution, this COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA Agreement will be legally valid and binding. By: // Chairman of its County Board ��na: Deputy /Associate County Administrator 'Assistant County Attorney L/ Attest: Date: !.� `� y — Deputy County Auditor APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: CITY OF By: Assistant County Attorney Its Date: And: Its , CITY MUST CHECK ONE: The City is organized pursuant to: Plan A Plan B Charter 8 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date %/9/90 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION O SIDERATION i ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION REVISING POLICY FOR DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR PERSONS 65 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER AND FOR PERSONS WHO ARE TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED AND ESTABLISHING AN INTEREST RATE ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: V\ a-2 SY KNAP , DIRECTOR`OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: # r� O tt' .� ? �. No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes ) At its June 25, 1990 meeting, the City Council revised the City's policy for deferral of special assessments by senior citizens and persons retired due to total and permanent disability. Prior to considering any changes to the policy, the Council asked for additional information, specifically the impact of lowering the "maximum percent of income" from the current two percent to one and one -half percent. The attached memorandum from Public Works Coordinator Diane Spector provides this information. Council Action Required Two alternate resolutions are provided for Council consideration. Both alternates require the Council to choose and insert a maximum percent of income. They differ in the way the maximum annual income level for eligibility is established. One alternate defines that maximum as "...the two person level used by HRA for approving Section 8 rehabilitation grants." This alternate ties the income level to that established by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The second alternate would require the Council to annually establish an income level. If the Council should choose this alternate, a resolution to establish that level for 1990 is available. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF : 0 T �aT BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 KL j�j TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C E 1 � EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 July 5, 1990 TO: Sy Knapp FROM: Diane Spector(2 �1) SUBJ: Special Assessment Deferral Policy Additional Information The City Council at its June 25, 1990 meeting requested additional information regarding the City's special assessment deferral policy. Specifically, the Council wished to review the effect of establishing maximum percent of annual income of 1.5 percent. The current maximum is two percent of annual income. Comparison of a 1.5 Percent Maximum to Other Rates The table below is an expanded version of Figure 2, Comparison of Percent of Income Maxima, as presented in my June 20, 1990 memorandum. It shows the amount of principle which could be deferred by an eligible person at various income levels and at various percents of income. The example is based on the 1990 standard assessment for street improvements, $1,410, with a first year's payment of $317. Page Two July 5, 1990 Table 1 Comparison of Percent of Income Maxima Street Improvement Standard Assessment Annual Maximum Principle Income Percent Payment Deferral -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- --- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- $15, 000 2% $300 75 1.5% 225 410 1% 150 745 $12,500 2% $250 300 1.5% 300 580 1% 125 850 $10,000 2% $200 520 1.5% 150 745 1% 100 965 As was previously estimated, in an average year, there might be an equivalent of five assessable projects. On average, one deferral per project could "cost" about $1,500 if the maximum percent of income is two percent; at one percent that cost could be $4,250, and at one and one -half percent, it would be $2,900. Table 2 below provides a similar analysis, using as an example the proposed assessments for the 1989 alley improvement projects. Page Three July 5, 1990 Table 2 Comparison of Percent of Income Maxima 1989 Alley Improvement Proposed Assessments Amount Deferred At Amount Deferred At Annual Income = $15,000 Annual Income = $10,000 I% 1.5% 2% 1% 1.5% 2% Alley 1: Girard /Fremont Direct $2,360 $1 $1,500 $2,645 $2,360 $2,075 Indirect 130 - - 420 130 - Alley 2: Girard /Humboldt Direct $1,095 $665 $237 $1,380 $1,095 $810 Indirect - - - $125 - - Alley 3: Emerson /Fremont Direct $320 - - $605 $320 $35 Indirect - _ _ _ - - Alley 4: Lakeview /Twin Lake Direct $1,113 $777 $445 $1,335 $1,113 $890 Indirect - - _ $80 _ _ The estimated total which could be deferred, based on the demographic data presented in the 1989 Maxfield Housing Study, would be: At M 14 deferrals totalling $16,930 1.5%: 14 deferrals totalling 13,705 2%: 8 deferrals totalling 9,700 �6 A I ,,z f Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REVISING POLICY FOR DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR PERSONS 65 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER AND FOR PERSONS WHO ARE TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED AND ESTABLISHING AN INTEREST RATE WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 435.193 through 435.195 provides for the deferment of special assessments and specifies the conditions under which municipalities are authorized, on a voluntary basis, to defer such assessments; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center found and determined that deferral of special assessments for certain persons is in the public interest and passed City of Brooklyn Center Resolution No. 78 -87 providing for deferment of special assessments for persons 65 years of age or older and Resolution No. 85 -143 extending that provision to persons retired due t o ermane p nt and total disability; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to update the City's Deferment of Special Assessments Policy and desires to develop a policy that responds to ever changing economic conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the special assessment deferral policy is hereby amended to provide for deferral of special assessments certified after the adoption of this resolution under the following conditions: 1. The property upon which the assessment is deferred must be homesteaded; 2. The property is owned by a person at least 65 years of age on January lst of the year in which payment of the first installment of the subject assessment levy is due; or is owned by a person who is retired due to permanent and total disability. 3. The applicant must have a "financial hardship" defined as: a. An annual income at or below the two person level used by HRA for approving Section 8 rehabilitation grants; and b. The aggregate total of special assessment installments from previously- existing special assessment levies plus the first year of the current levy will exceed percent of the applicant's annual income. RESOLUTION N0, 4. The portion of the current levy which will be deferred will be that portion of the levy against the applicant's property which requires a first year installment payment which, when added to the applicant's annual payments from previously existing special assessment levies, would result in an aggregate total of special assessment installments totaling more than percent of the applicant's annual income. The portion of the current levy which can be paid without aggregating total installments above percent of the applicant's annual income shall not be deferred. 5. Special assessments levied due to the applicant's failure -to -pay charges for City services or failure to comply to City codes (i.e. delinquent utility assessments, assessments for weed removals, assessments for nuisance abatement, etc.) shall not be deferred, and installment payments for existing levies for such services shall not be included in calculating the maximum percent aggregate payment defined in paragraph 4 above. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that interest at the rate for that particular assessment levy shall be added to the deferred assessment and shall be payable in accordance with the terms and provisions of Minnesota Statutes 435.195; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is directed to provide application forms, as may be necessary, and is authorized to process said applications signed by the qualified persons prior to September 15 of the preceding year of date which payment is due and direct Hennepin County to defer the special assessments within said application, and BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED that the right to defer assessments in hereby terminated when the subject property owner no longer meets the criteria established in this resolution except that a surviving spouse of a qualified applicant need not meet the age requirement. 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. �kiieln�itc Pa,�t ct Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REVISING POLICY FOR DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR PERSONS 65 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER AND FOR PERSONS WHO ARE TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED AND ESTABLISHING AN INTEREST RATE WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 435.193 through 435.195 provides for the deferment of special assessments and specifies the conditions under which municipalities are authorized, on a voluntary basis, to defer such assessments; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center found and determined that deferral of special assessments for certain persons is in the public interest and passed City of Brooklyn Center Resolution No. 78 -87 providing for deferment of special assessments for persons 65 years of age or older and Resolution No. 85 -143 extending that provision to persons retired due to permanent and total disability; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to update the City's Deferment of Special Assessments Policy and desires to develop a policy that responds to ever changing economic conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the special assessment deferral policy is hereby amended to provide for deferral of special assessments certified after the adoption of this resolution under the following conditions: 1. The property upon which the assessment is deferred must be homesteaded; 2. The property is owned by a person at least 65 years of age on January lst of the year in which payment of the first installment of the subject assessment levy is due; or is owned by a person who is retired due to permanent and total disability. 3. The applicant must have a "financial hardship" defined as: a. An annual income at or below a level to be established annually; and b. The aggregate total of special assessment installments from previously- existing special assessment levies plus the first year of the current levy will exceed percent of the applicant's annual income. RESOLUTION N0, 4. The portion of the current levy which will be deferred will be that portion of the levy against the applicant's property which requires a first year installment payment which, when added to the applicant's annual payments from previously existing special assessment levies, would result in an aggregate total of special assessment installments totaling more than percent of the applicant's annual income. The portion of the current levy which can be paid without aggregating total installments above percent of the applicant's annual income shall not be deferred. 5. Special assessments levied due to the applicant's failure -to -pay charges for City services or failure to comply to City codes (i.e. delinquent utility assessments, assessments for weed removals, assessments for nuisance abatement, etc.) shall not be deferred, and installment payments for existing levies for such services shall not be included in calculating the maximum percent aggregate payment defined in paragraph 4 above. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that interest at the rate for that particular assessment levy shall be added to the deferred assessment and shall be payable in accordance with the terms and provisions of Minnesota Statutes 435.195; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is directed to provide application forms, as may be necessary, and is authorized to process said applications signed by the qualified persons prior to September 15 of the preceding year of date which payment is due and direct Hennepin County to defer the special assessments within said application, and BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED that the right to defer assessments in hereby terminated when the subject property owner no longer meets the criteria established in this resolution except that a surviving spouse of a qualified applicant need not meet the age requirement. 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��u; ntt 2 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MAXIMUM ANNUAL INCOME LEVEL FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERMENT ELIGIBILITY WHEREAS, Resolution Nos. 78 -87 and 85 -143 provided for the deferral of special assessments by certain senior citizens and persons retired due to permanent and total disability, and established the conditions under which deferral would be considered; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. provided for the annual adjustment of the maximum annual income level used as one condition of eligibility for deferment of special assessments; and WHEREAS, said adjustment is to be effective January 1 of each year for special assessments certified that year for payment the following year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the maximum annual income level for special assessment deferment eligibility for special assessments certified by the City of Brooklyn Center in 1990 for payment beginning in 1991 shall be $ 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 7/9/90 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WATER SUPPLY WELL NO. 10, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -02, CONTRACT 1990 -F ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: - �?_A_ 2 _ t Or SY KNAPP, eDlE WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) On May 21 the City Council approved plans and specifications, as prepared by consulting engineers Black & Veatch, for construction of the "Well No. 10" adjacent to T.H. 252, north of 70th Avenue, and ordered advertisement for bids for this project. Bids for this work were received and opened on June 28. Of the 3 bids received (see attached resolution) the lowest bid in the total amount of $98,990 was submitted by Bergerson - Caswell Inc. Black & Veatch's estimate of costs for this ro'ect was $110,000. p Although Bergerson - Caswell has not done any work for the City of Brooklyn Center in recent years, they are an "old- line" company with a reputation for good performance. Accordingly we recommend award of the contract to them. Council Action Required A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council. Notes The completion date for this work is specified for October 16, 1990. Black & Veatch is now preparing plans and specifications for the second phase of this project - i.e., construction of the wellhouse. The estimated cost for that phase of the contract is $555,000. Completion of the entire project is scheduled for May 16, 1991 (in time for the 1991 summer demand). Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WATER SUPPLY WELL NO. 10, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -02, CONTRACT 1990 -F WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1990 -02, Well No. 10 construction, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and City Engineer, on the 28th day of June, 1990. Said bids were as follows: Bidder Bid Amount Bergerson- Caswell Inc. $ 98,990.00 Keys Well Drilling Co. $109,500.00 E.H. Renner & Sons $155,545.00 WHEREAS, it appears that Bergerson- Caswell Inc. of Maple Plain, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder. . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract with Bergerson- Caswell Inc. of Maple Plain, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1990 -10 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the .office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. 3. All costs for this improvement shall be charged to the Public Utilities Fund. RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7/9/90 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** • ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES RELATING TO WELL NO. 10, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -02 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: t ° SY KNAPP, DIRECT F PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes ) Upon the advice of the City's consultant, the City Engineer has received proposals for performing geotechnical services relating to the drilling and subsequent wellhouse construction for Well No. 10. Of the three proposals received, the lowest submitted was that of Braun Engineering Testing, Inc. This is the same firm which supplied geotechnical services for the construction of Well No. 9. City staff has had a good relationship with Braun and was satisfied with the services provided for the above - mentioned project. Accordingly, staff recommends acceptance of the proposal submitted by Braun Engineering Testing, Inc. in the amount of $2,980. For reference, a copy of the proposal from Braun Engineering Testing, is g g g� attached. 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 ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES RELATING TO WELL NO. 10, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -02 WHEREAS, the City Council has accepted bids and awarded a well drilling contract for Well No. 10; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer and the City's consultant for Well No. 10 have deemed it prudent to obtain geotechnical engineering services relating to the construction of said well; and WHEREAS, the firm of Braun Engineering Testing, Inc. has submitted a proposal to provide the needed geotechnical engineering services and the City Council finds said proposal to be appropriate and acceptable. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The proposal submitted by Braun Engineering Testing, Inc. to provide the needed geotechnical engineering services for these improvements at an estimated total cost of $2,980 is hereby accepted. 2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into contract with Braun Engineering Testing, Inc. to provide the required services in accordance with their proposal. 3. The costs for providing geotechnical services shall be charged to the Public Utility Fund, in conjunction with the proposed improvement project for which these services are to be provided. 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. f B Quality Services Since 1957 m MINNESOTA CONSULTING ENGINEERS/ M inneapolis ENGINEERING TESTING GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS Hibbing Incorporated Cloud Ro chester Reply to address /phone #: Rochester 5t. Paul AFFILIATED OFFICES 245 East Roselawn Ave. NORT St. Paul, MN 55117 Williston Minot ( ) 612 487 -3245 MONTANA Fax ( 612) 487 -1812 Billings Bozeman June 29, 19 9 0 ILLINOIS Chicago J S. Braun. P.E. City of Brooklyn Center Cameron Kruse, P 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Geo. D. Kluempke, P.E. g Y Paul H Anderson B roonklyn Center, MN 55430 David R. Hausler, P E. Roger V. Blomquist. PhD. James J. Craig Jr.. P.E. Dale R. Allen, P.E. Attn : Mr. Mark Maloney, P.E. Tho mas R M Wey lumbe P.E. City E n g ineer Tho Blumberg y g Michael M. Heuer, P.E. Kurt E. Dvorak Norman RE: PN90 -112 PROPOSAL FOR SOIL BORINGS ayy A. Huber, uber, P.E R William K. Cody, P.E. & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AFFILIATED COMPANIES Proposed Well House #10 Braun Environmental Laboratories, Inc. N.E. of Camden Avenue Braun Pavement Technologies, Inc. & 70th Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN Dear Mr. Maloney: Y This is our ro osal for providing eotechnical services fo P P P g g r water works improvements as requested in your June 25, 1990 letter. This proposal describes our understanding and background round o g f the proposed project, the purpose of our work, the scope of work, the basis for the proposal and some general remarks. BACKGROUND We understand the City of Brooklyn Center proposes to construct a new well house and well discharge piping g P P g associated with constructing well #10. These facilities will be located between Minnesota Trunk Highway 252 and Camden Avenue North, just north of 70th Avenue North. Black and Veach, Engineers - Architects of Kansas City, Missouri are preparing contract documents for this project. The proposed project consists of constructing a new well house and well discharge piping. The well house will be a single -story concrete and masonry structure approximately 40 PN90 -112 - 2 - June 29, 1990 City of Brooklyn Center feet by 40 feet. The well house floor will be reinforced concrete slab -on -grade with an elevation of about 851.00. The roof will be pre- stressed concrete planks. The roof will be supported on load bearing masonry walls approximately 9 feet 4 inches high. walls will have brick and metal facia. Approximately 400 feet of buried piping is anticipated. All piping will be 16 inches in diameter cast ductile iron pipe and will be buried at least 7% feet. We have reviewed attachments to your June 25, 1990 letter as follows: Attachment A - pages A -1 through A -4 (Geotechnical Services) Attachment B - pages B -1 (Unit Cost) Attachment C - pages C -1 through C -2 (Insurance) Figure 1 - site plan showing the proposed well and well house with proposed boring locations PURPOSE The purpose of our work is to provide subsurface information to allow the design and construction of the proposed well house and pertinent well discharge piping. The subsurface information should address bearing capacity, settlement, and corrosivity of subsurface .soils. Groundwater levels are required to complete the design and construction of the project. SCOPE OF WORK Attachments A and Figure 1 addressed and outlined the scope of work required for this project. Three soil borings are proposed. One 15 feet in depth and two 30 feet in depth. A piezometer is required in one 30 -foot boring. The piezometer will be installed according to Minnesota Department of Health rules and regulations. Based on our experience in this area, we do not anticipate many laboratory tests. The costs shown herein are based on completing a few sieve analysis tests and /or tests to determine percent passing the #200 sieve on coarse grained soils. Tests for sulfides, pH, and electrical resistivity are proposed to indicate potential corrosivity of representative soils sampled. An engineering report would be furnished with our opinions and interpretations regarding subsurface conditions encountered in the borings. 1M n PN90 -112 - 3 - June 29, 1990 City of Brooklyn Center BASIS FOR PROPOSAL We will furnish these services on an hourly or unit cost basis as stated in the attached hourly or unit cost SCHEDULE OF CHARGES. We have assumed that the boring areas are accessible to a truck - mounted drill rig. The borings would thus be performed with equipment described in sections 201a and 203b. We estimate that the mobilization, demobilization, and drilling will require approximately 10 hours, so the estimated cost of field services is about $2,000.00. This includes the cost of piezometer materials at $475 and equipment and labor to install the piezometer at $522.00. The laboratory tests are proposed as outlined above. The laboratory tests will be conducted generally in accordance with section 300. The estimated cost for these services is about $300.00. Engineering services clerical and e g g n supervision will be charged in accordance with section 100. We estimate the cost of these services at $680.00. The total projected cost of the field investigation, laboratory tests, and engineering report is then $2,980.00. This projected cost will not be exceeded by more than 10% without additional authorization. Attachment B has been completed and is enclosed to.indicate our estimated costs. GENERAL We have reviewed the schedule outlined in your June 25, 1990 letter. Based on our current scheduling, we can complete the field investigation and preparation of a preliminary engineering report on or before July 16, 1990, provided we are notified to proceed on or before July 3, 1990. We understand you desire a preliminary report be submitted on that date with a final report to be submitted after receiving your comments. Attachment C outlined insurance requirements for this project and was attached to your letter of June 25, 1990. Our insurance policy meets or exceeds the dollar coverage requirements outlined in Attachment C. Since changes in salary and material costs, or modification of the project may alter the estimated time and /or costs, the projected costs shown above should be verified with us �TM PN90 -112 - 4 - June 29, 1990 City of Brooklyn Center unless authorization is given within 30 days of the date of this proposal. Terms on payment for services are net 30 days with interest added to unpaid balances, in accordance with the attached GENERAL CONDITIONS which are a part of this proposal. We appreciate the opportunity to present this proposal. This proposal is being presented in duplicate so that one copy may be signed and returned as an authorization to proceed. If there are any questions on this proposal, please do not hesitate to contact us at your convenience. very truly yours, BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. .Qi Lawrence F. Feldsien, P.E. Senior Project Engineer LFF:bat Enclosures: SCHEDULE OF CHARGES GENERAL CONDITIONS Attachment B cc: Black and Veach Attn: Mr. Timothy D. Swenson ----------------------------------------------------------- ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL Authorization to Proceed: Please proceed according to the above stated terms: Date Date City of Brooklyn Center amity of Rrooklvn Center Client's Name Client Name Authorized Signature Authorized Signature Mayor City Manager Title Title BRA �TM ATTACHMENT B UNIT COST AND TOTAL ESTIMATED FEE Item Description Quantit Unit Unit Price Item Total 201a Drill borings (r ig) 10 hr. 110.00 1 1 100.00 201f Rig overtime 2 hr. 36.00 72.00 202k 64" Auger 6 hr. 20.00 120.00 203al Truck /day 1 d_ y 75.00 75.00 203a2 Truck /mile 40 mi. 0.70 28.00 203b1 Rig /day 1 day 125.00 125.00 203b2 Rig /mile 40 mi. 0.75 30.00 203f Piez. Materials 475.00 475.00 305b Sieve Analysis 1 each 35.00 35.00 305c Passing #200 2 each 25.00 50.00 316a pH 2 each 10.00 20.00 316b Resistivity 2 each 32.00 64.00 316c Oxy -Redox 2 each 30.00 60.00 316e Sulfide 2 each 25.00 50.00 801a Survey & Util. 2 day 15.00 30.00 801b Survey & Util. 80 mi. 0.35 28.00 901 Sec. Data Nord P roc. 2.5 hr. 40.00 100.00 101 Tech I 3 hr. 29.00 87.00 107 Grad. Engineer 6 hr. 60.00 360.00 109 Reg. Engineer 1 hr. 74.00 74.00 * Consultant to determine recommended drilling program and identify type and number of laboratory tests required. Include cost for mobilization, boring, sampling, coring rock, laboratory testing, engineering analysis and report, supervision and all other associated work. W3JAG062240 B -I B R At N I CLIENT. At CLIENT's option, BRAUN will such work involves the presence, discharge, General restore the site at CLIENT's expense. release or escape of hazardous materials, 1.6 CLIENT shall be responsible for the CLIENT agrees to hold BRAUN harmless from C onditions cooperation of its employees and contractors all such claims to the extent that they are not in observing all radiation safety standards insured. where radiographic or gamma ray equipment or other nuclear devices are employed. Section 2: Reports and Records Section 1: Responsibilities 1.7 CLIENT shall notify BRAUN of any 2.1 BRAUN will furnish three copies of each 1.1 BRAUN will provide the Professional knowledge or suspicion of the presence of report to CLIENT without additional charge. Services described in the proposal or confir- hazardous materials at the worksite. If BRAUN 2.2 Reports, notes, calculations and other mation accompanying these General Condi- observes or suspects the presence of unan- documents, as instruments of service, remain tions. Tests and observations will be con- ticipated hazardous materials, it may terminate the property of BRAUN. BRAUN will retain ducted using standard test procedures, where its work without liability to CLIENT or others, principal documents relating to the services applicable, and BRAUN laboratory protocols. and it shall be paid for services provided performed for five ears following submission P Y 9 If CLIENT directs the manner of taking according to the Schedule of Charges. of the report. All samples remaining after tests samples or making observations or tests (in 1.8 CLIENT shall timely provide BRAUN with are conducted and field and laboratory number, type, location, depth or in any other all known information regarding existing and equipment which cannot be adequately way), CLIENT agrees to hold BRAUN harm- proposed conditions of the site and under- cleansed of hazardous materials remain the less from all claims, damages, and expenses taking and with new information which property of CLIENT. They will be discarded arising out of that direction. CLIENT acknowl- becomes available to it or its contractors and or returned to CLIENT, at BRAUN's discretion, edges the risk of variation that is inherent in which differs materially from information unless within 60 days of the report date testing by sampling and that samples or previously provided. CLIENT shall provide all CLIENT gives written direction to store or observations may not be representative of changes in plans to BRAUN. CLIENT shall transfer the materials, at CLIENT's expense. things not sampled, and, further, that the hold harmless BRAUN, its affiliates, and the 2.3 It CLIENT does not pay for BRAUN's representativeness of samples or observations respective directors, officers, employees, services as agreed, CLIENT agrees that all may change over time. agents and subcontractors, from all claims, reports and other work will be returned to 1.2 BRAUN will provide CLIENT with written damages, losses, and related expenses BRAUN upon demand, and that reports and reports containing professional opinions and involving subterranean structures which are other work will not be used by CLIENT for recommendations regarding conformance to not called to BRAUN's attention or correctly any purpose whatsoever. established criteria. shown on the plans furnished. 2.4 BRAUN will provide endorsements of its 1.3 BRAUN will reference its data and obser- 1.9 CLIENT shall include BRAUN as a reports to others, or letters of reliance, only vations to reference points set as part of beneficiary in any hold harmless or indemnity if those others agree to be bound by the surveying or construction staking by others. agreements between CLIENT and its contrac- conditions of the underlying contract for BRAUN will not survey, set or check the tors. Neither party shall assign this Agreement services, and these General Conditions in full, accuracy of construction staking, or stake or without the express written approval of the and only if BRAUN is paid the administrative reference locations of pilings, caissons or other. fee set forth in its then current Schedule of footings, unless such responsibilities are 1.10 Neither this Agreement nor the providing Charges. specifically included in the accompanying of services shall operate to make BRAUN an description of services. owner, operator, generator, transporter, treater, 1.4 Except as is specifically provided for in storer, or a disposal facility within the meaning Section 3: Services and the accompanying description of services, of the Resource Conservation Recovery Act, Compensation BRAUN will not be responsible for directing as amended, or within the meaning of any 3.1 CLIENT will pay for services as agreed the work of contractors or others, or for job other law governing the handling, treatment, upon, or according to the Schedule of Charges or site safety, those being the sole respon- storage or disposal of hazardous materials. if there is no other agreement. The price sibilities of others, nor will BRAUN be CLIENT agrees to hold BRAUN harmless from proposal for the work is predicated upon responsible for the failure of others to perform any such claim. CLIENT's acceptance of the conditions and in accordance with the contract documents, 1.11 CLIENT acknowledges that commonly allocations of risks and responsibilities and BRAUN's services shall in no way relieve used methods of exploration involve an described in the Agreement. A statement of others of their responsibilities. inherent risk of contamination of previously probable cost is not a firm figure unless stated 1.5 CLIENT shall furnish BRAUN with access uncontaminated air, soil and water and that as such. CLIENT agrees to pay invoices as to the site. It is understood by CLIENT that insurance for activities involving hazardous stated unless CLIENT notifies BRAUN in in the normal course of the work some damage substances, pollutants or contaminants or writing of a particular item that is alleged to to the site or materials may occur. While hazardous waste ( "hazardous materials ") be incorrect within 15 days from receipt of BRAUN will take reasonable precautions to either is not available or is prohibitively invoice. minimize damages, BRAUN has not included expensive. If CLIENT is requesting BRAUN 3.2 If BRAUN is delayed by factors beyond the cost of restoration in the estimated charges to undertake work which may result in claims its control, or if project conditions change, or and will not be liable for such damage. The beyond the applicable limits of or which are if the standards or methods of testing change, correction of damage is the responsibility of excluded from its insurance coverage, and BRAUN shall receive an equitable adjustment of its compensation. Unless an equitable increased insurance coverage, BRAUN will no event shall BRAUN be liable to CLIENT adjustment is made, BRAUN may terminate purchase additional insurance if obtainable, unless CLIENT has notified BRAUN of the this Agreement without liability to CLIENT or at CLIENT's expense in accordance with the discovery of error or omission within a others, and it shall be paid for its work to that Schedule of Charges, but BRAUN shall have reasonable time of such discovery, which shall time. no liability beyond the limits and conditions not exceed 30 days. � 3.3 CLIENT agrees to pay invoices on receipt, of the additional insurance. and to pay interest on unpaid balances 8.2 CLIENT and BRAUN each hereby waive Section 11: Entire Agreement beginning 30 days after invoice date at the on their own behalves and on behalf of their These General Conditions and the accom- rate of 1.5% per month, but not to exceed the respective insurers, all rights that each may panying proposal or confirmation are the maximum rate allowed by law. For extended have against the other by operation of the entire Agreement between BRAUN and projects, the billing rates may increase on each doctrine of subrogation. CLIENT and it supersedes all prior agree - anniversary of the date of this Agreement at ments. Any term, condition, prior course of an annual rate not to exceed 10 1/b. Section 9: Indemnification dealing, course of performance, usage of 3.4 In the event CLIENT fails to pay BRAUN 9.1 Except as to claims related to hazardous trade, understanding, purchase order, or other within 60 days following the invoice date, materials, BRAUN agrees to hold harmless and agreement purporting to modify, vary, supple - BRAUN may consider the default a total indemnify CLI ENT f rom and against all claims, ment or explain any provision of this Agree - breach of this Agreement and may, at its losses, damages, liability, costs, and reason- ment is null and void and of no effect unless option, terminate all of its duties without able attorneys' fees arising out of the sole subsequently placed in writing and signed by liability to CLIENT or others. negligence of BRAUN or its subcontractors. both parties. In no event, however, shall the 9.2 CLIENT agrees to hold harmless and printed terms or conditions stated on any Section 4: Resp onses CLIENT purchase or work order be consid- p indemnify BRAUN from and against claims CLIENT agrees to compensate BRAUN, at its described in Section 1.11, and all claims, ered an amendment or modification of this standard hourly rates, if BRAUN is required losses, damages, liability, costs, and reason- Agreement, even if such document is signed to respond or determines it necessary to able attorneys' fees arising out of the acts or by both parties. respond to a subpoena or other legal process omissions of CLIENT, its subcontractors and BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. or threat of legal process arising out of any others not under direct supervision and services rendered for or on behalf of CLIENT. control of BRAUN, whether insured or not. BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING OF CLIENT also agrees to reimburse BRAUN for To the extent necessary to indemnify and hold NORTH DAKOTA, INC. its attorneys' fees and other reasonable harmless BRAUN hereunder, CLIENT expenses incurred in connection with a expressly waives any immunity or exemption BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING OF response, unless CLIENT demonstrates that from liability for the personal injury or death MONTANA, INC. the amount of reimbursement claimed is of CLIENT's employees that may exist under, unreasonable under all of the circumstances. and it waives any right to receive contribution BRAUN ENVIRONMENTAL from BRAUN created by, the workers' com- LABORATORIES, INC. Section S: Continuity of Services pensation laws. CLIENT acknowledges that it is customary for BRAUN PAVEMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. the consultant which provides construction or Section 10: Limitation of Liability remediation recommendations to be retained 10.1 The total cumulative liability of BRAUN, to provide observation and related services its affiliates, and the respective directors, during construction or remedial work. If officers, employees, agents and subcontrac- BRAUN is not retained to provide continuing tors shall not exceed 100% of the compen- services, CLIENT agrees to hold BRAUN sation received by BRAUN as its professional harmless from all claims, damages, losses and fee under this Agreement, or the amount expenses, including attorneys' fees, arising out available from insurance, or the amount of of any interpretations, clarifications, substitu- $10,000, whichever is greater. tions or modifications provided by CLIENT or 10.2 CLIENT agrees to notify all contractors others. and others who may perform work in con- nection with BRAUN's services of the limita- Section 6: Disputes tions of liability herein, and to require as a 6.1 If BRAUN brings a lawsuit against CLIENT condition precedent to performing work, the to collect its invoices, then all its collection acceptance of like limitations in favor of expenses, including attorneys' fees, will be BRAUN. paid by CLIENT. 10.3 In the event CLIENT does not wish to 6.2 If CLIENT brings a lawsuit against BRAUN limit BRAUN's liability, BRAUN agrees to waive which is dismissed or as to which a verdict the limitation provided for in Sections 10.1 and is rendered for BRAUN, in whole or in part, 10.2 upon written notice from CLIENT CLIENT will pay BRAUN its costs of defense, received within five days after the date this including but not limited to attorneys' and Agreement is executed containing its agree - expert witness fees. ment to pay additional consideration equiv- alent to 10% of the total fee, such consideration 6.3 The parties agree that all disputes shall to be called "Waiver of Limitation of Liability be governed by the law of the place services Charge." This charge shall in no way be are rendered. construed as being a charge for insurance of any type but will be increased consideration Section 7: Standard of Care forthe greater risk involved in performing work In erformin its services BRAUN will use that for w there P 9 o which ere is no limitation of liability. degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised 10.4 Neither BRAUN nor CLIENT shall be under similar circumstances by reputable liable to the other for special, incidental, members of its profession practicing in the consequential or penal losses or damages, same locality. No other warranty is made or including but not limited to delay, loss of use, intended. loss of profits or revenues, or cost of capital. 10.5 BRAUN shall not be liable to CLIENT 0, ection 8: Insurance and Waiver for losses, damages or claims unless suit is of Subrogation commenced within two years of the date of 8.1 BRAUN will furnish a Certificate of injury or the date of the completion of the Insurance upon request. If CLIENT requests services by BRAUN, whichever is earlier. In BGC -001 Rev. 6/15/90 I Schedule of Charges Braun Engineering Testing, Inc. Braun Environmental Laboratories, Inc. Office Locations Minneapolis MN St Paul MN • Rochester.TIN • St Cloud ,TLY • Hibbing MN • Grand Rapids JLV • Apple Valley MN Blaine MN Bismarck ND • Minot ND • Billings .11T • Bozeman .SIT • Butte MT • Milwaukee tiV7 • Somerset W7 • Chicago IL 100 PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES e. Vane shear test (ASTM D 2573). $ 7.00 /hr. Field and Office Services, per hour Reg. Over Double f. Electrical resistivity testing. 10.00 /hr. Time Time Time 01. Engineering /Environmental g. Refraction Seismic surveying. (1) Technician 1 $29.00 $37.00 $44.00 h. Digitilt Inclinometer. (1) 02. Level I NDT Technician 33.00 41.00 49.00 i. Pore Pressure Indicator. (1) 03. Eng. Tech. 11 or Level II NDT 41.00 51.25 61.50 j. Pressure Meter. 250.00 /day 04. Environmental Tech II, k. Surcharge for use of 6 I.D. hollow -stem auger. 20.00 /hr. Industrial Hygienist Technician 1, Microscopist Technician 45.00 57.00 67.00 1. Continuous tube sample system (214" x 5') 20.00 /hr. 05. Engineering Assistant, m. Hydraulic piston sampler 10.00 /hr. Level III NDT or AWS /CWI, n. Groundwater Sampling IH Tech. 11, Environmental Tech 111 49.00 61.00 73.00 06. Senior Engineering Assistant, 1. Submersible Pump, Bailer, Conductivity Meter, pH Meter 20.00 /hr. Eng. I, !H Tech. III 53.00 65.00 78.00 2. Data Acquisition System 50.00 /hr. 07. Graduate Engineer, Geologist o. Waste Water Sampling Chemist, Industrial Hygienist 60.00 08. Hydrogeologist 67.00 1. ISCO Sampler 50.00 /day 2. Flow Recorder 20.00 /day 09. Registered Professional Field Anal sis /Air Quality Engineer Scientist, Safety p y y Officer, Senior Industrial 1. Organic Vapor Analyzer 16.00 /hr. Hygienist, Hydrologist 74.00 2. H -Nu Photoionization Analyzer 11.00 /h r. 10. Senior Staff: Engineer, Geologist, 3. Infrared Gas Analyzer 40.00 /hr. Hydrologist or Scientist, 4. Soil Vapor Sampler 300.00 /day Certified Industrial Hygienist 85.00 5. PetroTite Tank Tester 125.00 /tank 6. Explosimeter & Gas -Tech Monitor 15.00 /hr. 11. Department Manager 98,00 7. Surveying Equipment 10.00 /hr 12. Principal of Firm 125.00 q. Metal Detector /Line Locator 10.00 /hr. 13. Services Assisting Litigation (1) 03. Truck Rental, Mileage, Other Expense Charges and Misc. Services. 14. Computer Analysis (1) a. Auxiliary truck for transporting crew and supplies: NOTE: Reduced weekly & monthly rates available for continuous service. 1. per day 75.00 200 SITE EVALUATION SERVICES 2. per mile 0.70 01. Drill Rig and Personnel Charges' b. Drill Rig Truck: a. CME 45B, 55 or 75 drill rig taking penetration test borings 1. per day 125.00 (ASTM D 1586 -7) or power auger borings, using solid 2. per mile 0.75 or 2Y4" or 3' I.D. hollow -stem augers or rotary drilling c. Flotation Tired Drill Rig Carrier 35.00 /hr. methods, with crew chief and drill rig assistant. $110.00 /hr. b. Mobile B -24 skid - mounted drill rig - 2 crew people. 110.00 /hr. d. Flextrac-Nod unit) FN -160 Rubber Tracked Carrier (10 -foot wide unit) 40.00 /hr. c. CME 45 power auger taking power auger borings e. Low -Boy Tractor Trailer to haul 203c and 203d - determinations D t ons for soil classification and water level $250 /round trip plus $1 /mile. Standby - $80 /day. ons only, with crew chief and drill rig assistant. 95.00 /hr. f. Materials for specialized unrecoverable installations d. Two -man field crew on surveying, locating utilities, such as piezometers, well - points, settlement plates, etc. Rental of road signs, special insurance, permits. taking hand auger probings or other field tests. 85.00 /hr. Consumable supplies such as roller bits, drilling e. Additional crew man - when special conditions require fluid additives, grout, level B -C -D protection, etc. Cost - 0.8 (in addition to hourly charges in "a" through "d" above): g. Replacement of abandoned or ruined equipment 1. regular time basis 36.00 /hr. per 201. 2. overtime basis 44.00 /hr. Cost f. Overtime addition to all 2 -man crew operations for h. Subcontracted specialized services such as snow work on Saturday as necessary or requested by client plowing, grading for access, towing, etc. Cost _ 0.8 or in excess of 8 hours per day on weekdays. 36.00 /hr. i. Weider or shop person on fabricating, 'Hourly rates apply for travel and when conducting tests and are for regular assembly, or loading of specialized equipment. 45.00 /hr. time (8 hours or less on weekdays) and do not include truck or carrier j. Welder in field, includes portable welding rental or use, supplies consumed in drilling or abandoned in test holes equipment, truck rental, acetylyne (mileage extra). 75.00 /hr. (when more economical than recovering supplies at normal hourly rates) or per diem expenses on projects more than daily travel distance from k. Steam Cleaning location where equipment is based. 1. In -shop steam cleaning of drill rig and tools 125.00 02. Equipment Charges for Other Field Testing Services (in addition 2. In -field steam cleaning (includes truck, labor, and to drilling equipment, when required, or field crew). steam cleaner - mileage extra). 250.00 a. Thin walled sample tubes (ASTM D 1587). $18.00 each b. California Sampling Tubes 8.00 300 LABORATORY TESTS OF SOILS Per Test c. Diamond core drilling (ASTM D 2113) hourly rates 01. Moisture Content (ASTM D 2216) $9.50 plus diamond bit wear. Cost = 0.8 02. Moisture Content and Density 24.00 d. Dutch friction -cone soundings. 12.00 /hr. 03. Atterberg Limits: LL & PL (ASTM D 4318) 45.00 (1) Quoted on an individual basis. 3'1 90 04. Shrinkage Limit (ASTM D 427) $40.00 e. Origination and Trip Charge (1) 05. Grain Size Analysis f. Mobile Laboratory a. Through No. 200 Sieve with Gravel 1. Per day $35.00 ASTM C 136. D 1140 ( ) 50.00 2. Per mile 0.45 b. Through No. 200 Sieve w /out Gravel 02. Concrete or masonry (ASTM C 136, D 1140) 3500 a. Engineering Consulting Services as in c. No. 200 only (ASTM C 117, D 422) 25.00 "100" above. d. Added charge for 05a -c with greater than b. Concrete Mix Design 10% passing No. 200 15.00 1. Theoretical based on ACI 211 (aggregate test costs or verification of mix design e. Hydrometer analysis only (ASTM D 422) 50.00 not included) 50.00 /mix f. Mechanical /Hydrometer complete analysis (ASTM D 422) 2. Laboratory design mix and trial batch (does 7500 . not include aggregate tests or concrete 06. Organic Content (ASTM D 2974) 30.00 cylinder compression tests) (1) 07. Specific Gravity of fine grained soils (ASTM D 854) 60.00 c. Observation of concrete production or placement including batch plant inspections, slump, air O8. Permeability Testing content and cylinder casting at project site, a. Granular soils (Less than 10% fines) (ASTM D 2434) 175.00 hourly basis as in 100" above plus mileage. b. All other soils (Falling Head or Constant Head) 225.00 d. Laboratory moist - curing and compression testing of c. Permeability Testing with Permeants Quote concrete cylinders delivered to laboratories. 1. Standard Curing ASTM C 39 7.00 09. Unconfined Compression (ASTM D 2166) 42.00 2. Accelerated curing and testing ASTM D 684 27.00 10. Direct Shear (per normal load) (ASTM D 3080) a. Granular soil 125.00 e. Pullout testing for strength of inplace concrete (1) b. Cohesive soil 175.00 f. Concrete cylinder pick -up 1. 11. Consolidation Testing (ASTM D 2435) 2. Regular urly rate route, per stop 25.00 a. One - Dimensional Consolidation g. Sawing of core or concrete cylinder (ASTM C 31), (Strain vs. Pressure curve only) 125.00 per end 10.00 b. Time -Rate of Consolidation (P -e curve, h. Lapping (grinding) of core or concrete cylinder - Time curves, and Cv, Pe. & Cc values) 375.00 per end 20.00 c. Peat Testing Quote i. Concrete cylinder molds (includes labels 12. One - Dimensional Swell: Expansive soils (ASTM D 4546) 125.00 and data slips). 13. Triaxial Testing (per confining pressure) 1. 6" x 12" molds 1.30 /each 2. 3" x 6" molds 1.30 /each a. Unconsolidated - Undrained (ASTM D 2850) 250.00 3. 4" x 8" molds 1.30 /each b. Consolidated- Undrained (ASTM D 4767) 300.00 4. 4" x 4" "pop -out" 10.00 /each 5. Rental of steel mold for high strength concrete 5.00 /use c. Consolidated- Drained 400.00 6. Rental of specialty molds (1) 14. Hveem Stabilometer ( "R" value test) 180.00 j. Compressive strength of 2" x 2" mortar cube 7.00 15. California Bearing Ratio, per specimen 150.00 to 200.00 1. Mold rental (includes cleanup for reuse) 20.00 /use 16. Corrosion Resistance k. Concrete masonry units a. pH Determination (ASTM G 51) 10.00 1. Compressive strength 25.00 /ea. b. Electrical Resistivity of Soils (ASTM G 57) 32.00 2. Physical measurements and absorption 25.00 /ea. I. Compressive strength of concrete block or c. Oxidation- Reduction 30.00 brick prisms 45.00 d. Sulfate 15.00 1. Core - filled Block 65.00 e. Sulfide 25.00 m. Brick testing (ASTM C 216) 300.00 /set 17. Topsoil Testing n. Concrete coring - portable core drill with a. MN /DOT 3877A (W /O nutrients) 105.00 diamond bits at 2 to 12 -inch diameter, crew, and generator. Plus mileage, truck rental b. MN /DOT 3877B (WITH nutrients) 120.00 and bit wear (3 hour minimum) 75.00 /hr 18. Specialty Testing Quote 1. Bit wear, per inch of diameter per inch of 19. Sample Preparation 30.00 /hr core length 1.00 /in. /in. 2. Patch material 0.50 /lb. 20. Extrusion of Thinwall 11.00 3. Core truck per day 55.00 400 CONSTRUCTION CONTROL TESTING & OBSERVATION o. Compressive strength of concrete cores including 01. Earthwork (Excavation observations, compaction physical measurements - includes trimming 30.00 control testing, special foundation installations) p. Physical test of Portland Cement (ASTM C 150) (1) a. Engineering Consulting Services as in "100" above. q. Non - destructive on -site testing of inplace concrete. Hourly basis as in 100" above plus material costs b. Resident observations and testing services, including or equipment charge as follows - minimum 3 hours. soil compaction control testing. Proctor tests, earth- 1. Schmidt Hammer, ultrasonics, work observations and /or other field testing of soil. Schmidt out tests, Hammer, method Hourly rate as shown in "100" above. P maturity (1) 2. Windsor Probe Tests material costs 10.00 /probe 1. Nuclear moisture - density meter charge in 3. Equipment rental (1) addition to hourly rates in "100" above. $12.50/hr. r. Computer analysis of concrete cylinder strengths (1) c. Field laboratory rental, if required. (1) s. Concrete cylinder "Hot Box" during winter d. Intermittent testing services by soils Per test construction per month 35.00 technician or returning to laboratory for except as noted t. Specialty testi of concrete or mason units processing samples. P Y 9 Y ( 1. Compaction Test, Sand -Cone Method u. Standard curing and testing of 6" x 6" flexural ASTM D 1556, or Nuclear Method beams - ASTM C 78 and C 293, each 25.00 ASTM D 2922 (normal conditions) - 1. Mold rental, includes cleanup per beam 25.00 (plus standby and travel time) 18.50 2. Laboratory Proctor Test - Standard or v. Chloride ion concentration (FHWA) 30.00 Modified (ASTM D 698 or D 1557): 1. Bulk sample preparation 60.00 a) Method A 65.00 w. Air -void system analysis (ASTM 457) 375.00 b) Method B, C, or D 75.00 3. Max -min density of cohesionless soils x. Rapid chloride permeability AASHTO T 277 (ASTM 4253, 4254) 95.00 1. Single specimen 340.00 /ea. 4. Sample preparation 25.00 -75.00 2. Triple specimen 300.00 /ea. (1) Quoted on an individual basis. 3 y. Heat transfer and curing studies (1) i. Tension testing of specimens (1) 1. Mass concrete studies (1) j. Preparation of mechanical specimen Cost + 15% 03. Bituminous k. Hardness testing (1) a. Engineering Consulting Services as in 06. Aggregate Testing for concrete, bituminous, "100" above. roofing, etc. 1. Engineering Analysis (minimum) a. Engineering Consulting Services as in "100" above. per mix design $100.00 /mix b. Sieve Analysis (ASTM C 136) $36.00 b. Marshall Mix Design Single Point (Mn /DOT) 100.00 c. Analysis or determination of materials finer c. Rice Specific Gravity (ASTM D 2041) 30.00 than #200 sieve (ASTM C 117 or D 1140) 20.00 d. Extraction (ASTM D 2172) 5P d. Lightweight Particles (ASTM C 123) 33.00 1. Extracted aggregate gradation 30.00 e. Spall Material (Mn /DOT) 50.00 e. Marshall stability and flow (set of 3) 40,00 f. Percent crushed (Mn /DOT) 35.00 f. Marshall Density Testing g. Specific Gravity and Absorption Analysis 1. Single specimen 40.00 1. ASTM C 127 (coarse agg.) 30.00 2. Triple specimen 50.00 2. ASTM C 128 (fine agg.) 40.00 g. Thickness and density of pavement cores 20.00 h. Abrasion (ASTM C 131, C 535) 60.00 K Moisture content of bituminous 25.00 i. Soundness (ASTM C 88) - 5 cycles 110.00 i. Cold water abrasion (Mn /DOT) 250.00 j. Flatness and elongation 25.00 j. Abson recovery 75.00 k. Potential reactivity (ASTM C 289) 150.00 k. Asphalt penetration 25.00 1. Dry Rodded Density 20.00 I. Sample crushing 35.00 /sample m. Mill Abrasion 50.00 m. Bituminous Coring - see 402m 75.00 /hr. n. Shape Factor 200.00 1. Bit wear 1.00 /in. /in. o. Moisture Content 9.50 2. Patching 0.50 /4b. p. Moh's Hardness 40.00 n. Lottman Stripping 100.00 q. Scratch Hardness 40.00 o. Quality Management Testing r. Organic Impurities 25.00 1. Laboratory Mix Designs - (Mn /DOT (1) s. Clay Lumps 30.00 2. Field Process Control Testing (1) t. Freeze -Thaw 110.00 04. Roofing Components u. Insoluble Residue (1) a. Observations of production and placement on job site - hourly rates as in "100" above, minimum 07. Geosynthetic Liner Testing 2 hours at project plus mileage. a. Shear /Peel tests on field seams (1) b. Laboratory analysis of built -up roof sample, b. Material property testing (1) including number of plies, top and bottom coat 08. Other Testing Services bitumen application interply bitumen and tapping felts and voids analysis (4" x 36" specimen). 70.00 a. Pile driving observations or load testing, 1. With glaze 81.00 observation of caisson installation, hourly basis as in "100" above plus mileage. c. Single Ply Membrane Tests 1. Pile Driving Analyzer equipment rental 625.00 /day 2. CAPWACP Analysis 300.00 1. Tension and elongation 25.00 2. Peel test 25.00 b. Vibration Consulting Services (e.g. blasting, O5. Structural Steel and Metals NDE pile driving, construction, etc.) - hourly rate ( ) as in "100" above plus mileage (1) a. Bolt tension observations (hourly per "100 ") 1. Seismographic equipment (reduced weekly b. Visual weld observations (hourly per "100 ") and monthly rates for continuous service) 95.00 /day c. Welding procedure qualifications (hourly per "100 ") c. Window testing (1) d. Welder qualification (hourly per "100 ") (1) 1. Field testing (1) 2. Laboratory testing (1) 1. 3 /e" plate 16.00 ` 2. 1" plate 23.00 d. Subcontracted services such as equipment rental, special insurance, permits, etc. Cost + 15% e. Magnetic particle testing (hourly per "100 ") (1) e. Resale or rental of test equipment (1) 1. Consumable dry powder 6.00 /lb. 2. Fluorescent oil bath 8.00 /gal. 500 INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE 3. Fluorescent water bath 4.00 /gal. 4. Visible MT 8.00 /can 01. Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) 5. Fluorescent MT 8.00 /can a. Regular (each) $25.00 f. Liquid penetrant testing (hourly per "100 ") (1) b. Rush (24 -hour) (each) 30.00 c. Survey (each) 22.00 1. Developer 6.00 /can 02. Phase Contrast Microscopy PCM 2. Cleaner 6.00 /can PY ( ) 3. Penetrant 7.00 /can a. Regular (each) 20.00 g. Ultrasonic testing (hourly per "100 ") (1) b. Rush (24 -hour) (each) 25.00 1. Cellulose gum 6.00 /gal. c. Unanalyzed (set -up) 8.00 2. Cellulose gum (with certifications) 30.00 /gal. 03. Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) h. Radiographic testing (2 -man crew - regular a. Air (AHERA, EPA Level 11) (1) time) (O.T. factor 1.25, D.T. factor 1.40) 70.00 /hr. b. Water (1) (1) 1. 4' /z' x 10 film 2.25 c. Other 2. 4 x 17 film 3.85 04. Asbestos Abatement Specifications (1) 3. 14 x 17 film 11.90 05. On -Site Asbestos Monitoring 4. 8 x 10 film 4.00 5. 5 x 7 film 1.75 a. Daily (8 hours) M -F (1) 6. 7 x 17 film 5.95 b. Daily (o.t.) M -F (1) 7. Concrete radiography (min. charge + mileage) 200.00 c. Saturday (8 hours) (1) 8. Concrete radiography - 1 to 5 shots 75.00 /shot d. Saturday (o.t.) (1) 9. Concrete radiography - 6 to 10 shots 65.00 /shot e. Sunday (8 hours) (1) 10. Concrete radiography - 11 or more shots 55.00 /shot f. Sunday (o.t.) (1) 11. Mobile darkroom (does not apply to 06. Carbon Monoxide Monitor (continuous) 350.00 (1st day) concrete radiography) 35.00 /day 150.00 (each additional day) (1) Quoted on an individual basis. "Coliform samples not accepted on Fridays Minimum charge: $60.00 4 07. Radon 640.00 /ea. Water Solid 08. Gravimetric Analysis (Particulates) 20.00 Method Price Method Price 09. Organics (Air) 22. Halogens, Total ASTM ASTM D 808 -87 45.00 D 808 -87 45.00 a. Charcoal Tube 35.00 1st compound) 23. Hardness ( P ) 10.00 (each additional compound) (calculation) SM 23408 26.00 - - b. Organic Vapor Monitor 35.00 (1st compound) 24. Ignitibility SW 1020 15.00 10.00 (each additional compound) c. Silica Gel Tube 55.00 (1st compound) 25. Moisture, % EPA 160.3 15.00 EPA 1603 15.00 10.00 (each additional compound) 26. Nitro en d. Unusual Parameters (1) g 10. Equipment Rental /Supplies a. Ammonia (NH3) EPA 350.1 15.00 EPA 350.1 25.00 a. Filter Cassettes b. Kjeldahl (Total) EPA 351.1 21.00 EPA 351.1 31.00 1. Asbestos (25 mm 0.8 p MCE) 1.50 /ea. c. Nitrate only (NO3) EPA 353.2 22.50 EPA 353.2 32.50 (4.50 each if not returned) d. Nitrite only (NO2) EPA 353.2 15.00 EPA 353.2 25.00 2. AHERA (25 mm 0.45 p MCE) 2.50 /ea. (5.00 each if not returned) e. Nitrate & Nitrite 3. Metals (37 mm 0.8,u MCE) 1.25'ea. (NO3 & NO2) EPA 353.2 15.00 EPA 353.2 25.00 (4.00 each if not returned) f. Total Organic EPA 351.1 & EPA 351.1 & 4. Particulates (37 mm 5.0/1 PVC) 1.50 /ea. EPA 350.1 37.00 EPA 350.1 57.00 (4.00 each if not returned) 5. Silica (37 mm 5.0 low ash PVC) 1.50 /ea. 27. Oil & Grease EPA 413.1 40.00 SW 9071 50.00 (4.00 each if not returned) 28, Organic Matter - - AOAC 2.210 18.00 6. Miscellaneous (1) g b. Sorbent Tubes 29. Oxygen, Dissolved 1. Charcoal (Winkler) EPA 360.2 20.00 - - 50/100 mg 1.50 /ea. 30. pH EPA 150.1 5.00 SW 9045 10.00 200/400 mg 1.75 /ea. 31. Phenols, Total EPA 420.1 45.00 EPA 420.1 45.00 2. Silica Gel 50/100 mg 1.50 /ea. 32. Phosphate. Ortho EPA 365.2 & EPA 365.2 & 200/400 mg 2.00 /ea. (PO4) EPA 365.3 22.50 EPA 365.3 32.50 3. Organic Vapor Monitor 12.50/ea. 33. Phosphorus 4. Drager 5.00 - 6.00 /ea. a. Extractable - - BRAY -1 55.00 5. Miscellaneous (1) b. Total (P) EPA 365.4 21.00 EPA 365.4 31.00 c. Air Sampling Pumps 25.00 /day - 100.00 /wk. 34, Physical Description - 10.00 - 10.00 d. Drager Pump 20.00 /day 35. Redox (eh) ASTM e. Noise Dosimeters /Sound Level Meter 40.00 /day - 150.00 /wk. D 1498 -76 25.00 - - f. Velometer, Anemometer 60.00 /day 36. Silica (Si02) SM 4500 -SiE 25.00 - - g. Miran 40.00 /hr. - 150.00 /day 37. Soluble Salts - - ASA 62.2 25.00 In. 02 /Combustible Gas Monitor 15.00 /hr. 38. Solids a. Dissolved Total 600 INORGANIC LABORATORY ANALYSES (TDS) EPA 160.1 15.00 - - b. Solids, Suspended Water Solid Total (TSS) EPA 160.2 15.00 Method Price Method Price c. Settleable EPA 160.5 15.00 - - 01. Acidity EPA 305.1 $15.00 d. Solids, Total EPA 160.3 15.00 EPA 160.3 15.00 e. Volatile Suspended 02. Alkalinity (VSS) EPA 160.4 15.00 - - a. Total EPA 310.1 15.00 - - f. Volatile Total b. Bicarbonate SM 4500 (TVS) EPA 160.4 15.00 EPA 160.4 15.00 (with Total) 5.00 SM 4 c. Carbonate SM 4500 39. Specific Gravity SM 2710F 20.00 SM 2710F 20.00 (with Total) CO2B 5.00 - - 40. Sulfate (SO4) EPA 375.4 15.00 EPA 375.4 25.00 03. Appearance SM 2110 5.00 - 5.00 41. Sulfide 04. Ash, % - - ASTM a. Total (S -) EPA 376.1 25.00 EPA 376.1 35.00 D 482 -87 18.00 b. Reactive (S -) SW 7341 65.00 SW 7341 65.00 05. Biochemical Oxygen 42. Sulfur, % ASTM ASTM Demand (BOD) EPA 405.1 35.00 - D 129 -64 45.00 D 129-64 45.00 06. BTU ASTM ASTM 43. Temperature - 5.00 - 5.00 D 240 -87 45.00 D 240 -87 45.00 44. Carbon 07. Calcium Carbonate ASTM a. Total Organic (TOC) EPA 415.1 25.00 EPA 415.1 35.00 Equivalence C 602 -69 30.00 b. Total (TC) EPA 415.1 25.00 EPA 415.1 35.00 08. Cation Exchange 45. Turbidity EPA 180.1 15.00 - - Capacity - - SW 9081 55.00 46. Water Mix Screen - - - 10.00 09, Cation -Anion Balance SM 1030F 5.00 - - SAMPLE PREPARATION CHARGES 10. Chemical Oxygen 47. Compositing - 10.00 - 10.00 Demand (COD) SM 5220D 25.00 EPA 410.2 35.00 11. Chloride EPA 325.2 15.00 EPA 325.2 25.00 48. Filtering - 5.00 - 12. Chlorine Residual EPA 330.5 30.00 - - 49. Leachate a. ASTM - - ASTM 13, Chlorophyll A SM 10200G 30.00 - - D 3987 -85 60.00 b. E.P. Toxicity - - SW 1310 90.00 14. Coliforms, Total SM 9222B 25.00 - - c. TCLP - - - 120.00 15. Color EPA 110.3 15.00 - - d. TCLP Zero Headspace - - - 150.00 16. Conductivity EPA 120.1 10.00 ASA 62.2 20.00 17 Corrosivit 50. Metals Digestion - NC SW 3050 14.00 SM 2330B 50.0 - - Y 0 METALS ANALYSES 18. Cyanide a. Amenable to Al, Sb, As, Ba, Be, B, Cd, Ca, Cr, Co, Cu, Fe, Chlorination EPA 335.1 65.00 SW 9010 65.00 Pb, Mg, Mn, Hg, Mo, Ni, b. Reactive SW 7332 65.00 SW 7332 65.00 K, Se, Ag, Na, TI, Sn, c. Total EPA 335.2 45.00 SW 9010 45.00 Ti, V, Zn 19. Flash Point 51. AA Method (closed -cup) SW 1010 45.00 a. Flame AA Method EPA 200 12.50 SW 7000 12.50 20. Fluoride (F) EPA 340.2 25.00 SM 4500F 100.00 Series (1) 21. Formaldehyde NIOSH 3500 25.00 NIOSH 3500 35.00 b. Furnace AA Method EPA 200 25.00 SW 7000 '25.00 Series (1) 5 Water Solid Water Solid Method Price Method Price Method Price Method Price 52. Chromium, Hexavalent SW 7196 $30.00 SW 7196 $30.00 17. Polynuclear Aromatic 53 Lead in paint - 2500 Hydrocarbons (PAH) parts per trillion - 600.00 54. Mercury (Hg) EPA 245.1 30.00 EPA 245.1 30.00 - - 18. Dioxin Screen - 250.00 - 300.00 55. Potassium, 0 Exchangeable (K) ASA 71.3 55.00 GC /MS Analyses with tentatively identified compounds (TIC), add $50.00 /sample. 56. Selenium (Se) EPA 270.3 35.00 EPA 270.3 35.00 57. RCRA Metals (As, Ba, EPA 200 152.50 SW 7000 '152.50 1) Requires one metal digestion charge per sample Cd, Cr, Hg, Pb, Se, Ag) Series (1) (2) Special methods available on request 3) Modified method 58. Priority Pollutant EPA 200 277.50 SW 7000 `277.50 (4) Charge for Organic Vapor Monitor, $13 Metals (Sb, As, Be, Series (1) (5) Method modified to conform to CLP Statement of Work Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, Ag, TI, Zn) Special GC /MS testing available for solids probe: positive and negative chemical ionization. 700 ORGANIC ANALYSES Charges for parameters not listed above available on request. Normal turnaround time on all laboratory analysis is 2 -4 weeks. All analyses are Method Water Price Method Solid Price performed within EPA recommended holding times. Gas Chromatography (GC): Guaranteed and immediate priority analyses are available at an additional charge. Verbal results, available on all projects, are preliminary pending review of all quality 01. Volatile Organics, both control measures and issuance of the final written report. Halogenated & Non - Halogenated Compounds Samples will be retained for 30 days after submission of the final report. (2) Hazardous samples will be returned to the client after 30 days. a. (1 -5 parameters) MDH 465 $100.00 SW 8021 $110.00 Minimum charge: $60.00 EPA 601/ (MeOH extr) 602 b. (6 or more MDH 465 160.00 SW 8021 170.00 parameters) EPA 601/ (MeOH extr) 602 c. SDWA EPA 502.2 190.00 - - 800 EXPENSES d. Solid slurry SW 8021 (1 -5 parameters) - - (slurry) 140.00 01. Vehicle charge and mileage applying to Section 100 e. Solid slurry and other sections when not included in hourly (6 or more SW 8021 rates (other vehicle rates govern where listed) parameters) - - (slurry) 200.00 02. Acrolein & a. Per day (automobile and 4 x 2 pickup truck) $15.00 Acrylonitrile EPA 603 120.00 - - b. Per mile (automobile and 4 x 2 pickup truck) 0.35 03. Petroleum Products a. BETX/THC as c. Per day (4 x 4 pickup truck or mobile lab) 35.00 Gasoline /Fuel Oil SW 5030 (3) 130.00 SW 3810 (3) 130.00 b. Methyl Tertiary d. Per mile (4 x 4 pickup truck or mobile lab) 0.50 Butyl Ether (MTBE) 02. Per diem expenses when working away from 1. with can _ 20.00 _ 20.00 headquarters or branch locations Cost + 15% 2. without ut V C s scan 50.00 50.00 04. Polychlorinated 03.'Long distance telephone, air fare, shippin g Biphenyls (PCB's) charges and miscellaneous expenses Cost+ 15% a. Water /Solid EPA 608 120.00 SW 8080 140.00 b. Oil - - EPA 600/ 45.00 04. Subcontracted Professional Service Cost + 15% 4 -81 -045 c. Swab - - - 70.00 900 CLERICAL SERVICES 05. Organochlorine Pesti- cides /PCB's EPA 608 135.00 SW 8080 155.00 01. Secretarial services, per hour $25.00 06. Organophosphorus EPA 617 or 170.00 SW 8140 220.00 02. Data and word processing, per hour 40.00 Pesticides 622 07. Chlorinated 03. Report copies (3 copies furnished with Herbicides EPA 615 200.00 SW 8150 250.00 initial distribution of report) - minimum charge for additional copies 08. Triazines EPA 619 150.00 - 175.00 after initial report issued 30.00 09. Organics (air) a. Library retrieval for additional copies after a. Charcoal Tubes NIOSH 35.00 (1st Compound) initial distribution of report 25.00 10.00 (each add'I. compound) b. Report reproduction of extra copies 0.25 /page b. Organic Vapor 3M /NIOSH 35.00 (1st compound) Monitor (4) 10.00 (each add'I. compound) c. Postage, Courier, Federal Express, etc. Cost+ 15% c. Silica Gel Tubes NIOSH 55.00 (1st compound) 10.00 (each add'I. compound) d. Facsimile charges 0.35 /page + phone costs 10. Solvent Scan - 100.00 10.00 (each ident. compound) 11. Phenols EPA 604 160.00 SW 8040 175.00 12. Phthalates EPA 606 135.00 SW 8060 155.00 High Performance Liquid Chromatography 13. Carbamates Method 5 150.00 - 175.00 14. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) EPA 610 230.00 SW 8310 260.00 Gas Chromatography /Mass Spectrometry (GC /MS) 15. Volatiles a. Water /Solid EPA 624 (5) 225.00 SW 8240 (5) 250.00 b. Air - 250.00 - - c. SDWA EPA 524.2 255.00 - - 16. a. Base/Neutral ol se /Ne 0 a. BasNeutral Extractables EPA 625 (5) 250.00 SW 8270 (5) 300.00 b. Acid Extractables EPA 625 (5) 250.00 SW 8270 (5) 300.00 c. Base /Neutral/ Acid Extractables EPA 625 (5) 400.00 SW 8270 (5) 450.00 6 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7/9/90 Agenda Item Number ` E_ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH SEH INC. TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATING TO STAGE 1 OF FINAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF 69TH AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN NOBLE AVENUE AND SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAfPP, DIRECTOR, OF PUBLIC WORKS 4� ell MANAGER'S REVIEW RECOMMENDATION:. .. V No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes ) Attached hereto is the finalized proposal for "Stage 1 - Project Development" services relating to the 69th Avenue reconstruction project as discussed at the June 25 Council meeting. All changes requested by the City have been incorporated into this proposal, and SEH has now developed an estimate of the cost of those services, i.e. $195,000. It is emphasized that this is only an estimate of costs. Actual charges will be based on payroll costs times 2.13, plus mileage and expenses. Accordingly, it is incumbent on us to assure optimal usage of SEH's services so as to assure proper cost controls on this project. As requested, the proposal assures a review of the project status at the 50 %, 75% and 90% of estimated cost points. A status report will be submitted to the City Council at (at least) each of these checkpoints, and if any substantial deviation is noted, we will have an opportunity to take needed action at those times. In the Engineer's Re ort for this project, t the engineering, P p � g ring, legal and administrative costs for the 69th Avenue project were estimated at $460,000. Legal and administrative services were estimated at $46,000, leaving an estimate of $414,000 for engineering services. Of that amount, it is estimated that City staff charges will be approximately $44,000, leaving $370,000 for consultant services. If Phase I services are limited to $195,000, the balance of $175,000 represents a reasonable cost estimate for development of construction plans and specifications (Phase II) and for construction - related services (Phase III). City Council Action Required A resolution is submitted for consideration by the City Council. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH SEH INC. TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATING TO STAGE 1 OF FINAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF 69TH AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN NOBLE AVENUE AND SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY WHEREAS, on March 26, 1990 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 90 -66, ordering the reconstruction of 69th Avenue North between Noble Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has advised the Council that it is necessary to obtain professional engineering services to allow development of a plan for this improvement p t which will be compatible with the neighborhood, ighborhood, yet provide an adequate level of service for traffic within that corridor; and WHEREAS, the firm of Short - Elliott- Hendrickson Inc. (SEH), consulting engineers, has submitted a proposal to provide the needed engineering services and the City Council finds said proposal to be appropriate and acceptable. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the proposal submitted by Short- Elliott- Hendrickson Inc. (SEH) to provide professional services relating to Stage 1 - Project Development - of final plan development for reconstruction of 69th Avenue between Noble Avenue and Shingle Creek Parkway, Improvement Project No. 1990 -10, at an estimated total cost of $195,000 is hereby accepted. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with SEH Inc. on the basis of that proposal. 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. %AWE OF ENGINEERS ■ ARCHITECTS ■ PLANNERS 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE, ST PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110 612 490-2000 June 19, 1990 Mr. Sy Knapp, P.E. Director of Public Works City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr. Knapp: This letter is our proposal to you for engineering services for the preliminary design investigations for street and utility improvements to 69th Avenue from Noble Avenue to Shingle Creek Parkway. Based on our meeting on June 13, 1990, and subsequent telephone communications, we have developed a scope of work for preliminary design of improvements. The preliminary design phase will be referred to as Stage I - Project Development. Included in this letter agreement is Exhibit A outlining specific tasks that make up the scope of services to be performed by SEH, Exhibit B, which outlines the City's responsibility, Exhibit C - Project Schedule and Exhibit D - Manhour Estimate. We will also furnish any additional services as you may request. We estimate the cost of Stage I - Project Development to be $195,000 which includes preparation of the right -of -way plan, setting alignment and other work we have already completed. The time we spent calculating hours and fees is not included in the estimate but is part of our overhead expenses. Compensation will be based on payroll cost times a multiplier of 2.13 plus mileage and expenses. Reimbursable expenses incurred in connection with engineering services will be charged on the basis of actual cost. We will bill you monthly for services and reimbursable expenses. We will review the engineering services costs as they approach 500, 75% and 90% of the total estimated cost and discuss the amount of work left to be completed. SHORT ELLIOTT ST PAUL, CHIPPEWA FALLS, HENOPICKS13N INC MINNESOTA Mr. Sy Knapp June 19, 1990 Page #2 We appreciate the opportunity to present this proposal and look forward to doing the work. If you have any questions, please contact me. This proposal and Exhibits A, B, C, and D represent the entire understanding between the City and SEH. This proposal may only be modified in writing signed by both parties. If this proposal is acceptable to the City, we would appreciate you signing the enclosed extra copy and returning it to us. Sincerely, SHORT - ELLIOTT- HENDRICKSON, INC. Richard E. Moore, P.E. Manager, Municipal Engineering Department r Glen Van Wormer, P.E. Manager, Transportation Department SMM /cih APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON BY: (Mayor) DATE: BY: (City Manager) DATE: EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK I. GENERAL PROJECT SCOPE The project provides for street and utility improvements to 69th Avenue North between Noble Avenue and Shingle Creek Parkway. The scope of the consultant services is for preliminary design, referred to as Stage I, Project Development. A feasibility report dated April 4, 1989, and an Environmental Assessment Worksheet dated October 19, 1989, has been prepared for this project. The purpose of Stage I, Project Development is to identify, investigate and resolve design alternates and specific issues with the City, public, and agencies. 69th Avenue exists as a two lane roadway with 66 feet of roadway. SEH is to prepare a right -of -way plan that includes total parcel taking on the north side of 69th Avenue from Brooklyn Boulevard to Palmer Lake Road. The type and the amount of right -of -way taking from Noble Avenue to Shingle Creek Parkway basically divides the project into four parts. Each project "part" has a specific set of issues and possible alternates for design. Common to all segments of roadway is public and private utility design considerations, median openings, noise, landscaping, public input, and agency coordination. Each design alternative will require some alternate investigation of other design elements. The project division can be generally described as follows: Exhibit A - 1 SEGMENT 1 - FROM NOBLE AVENUE TO INDIANA AVENUE 69th Avenue from Noble Avenue to Brooklyn Boulevard is Hennepin County right -of -way. The final design must comply with Hennepin County requirements. There are access issues for the commercial properties at Brooklyn Boulevard and 69th Avenue. The City is considering some redevelopment in this area which could impact access and right -of -way takings. Two design alternates for this segment are included in this agreement for purposes of estimating manhours. SEGMENT 2 - INDIANA AVENUE TO FRANCE AVENUE The total right -of -way taking proposed for this segment will extend the existing right -of -way approximately 90 feet. Design is restricted to a 50 foot setback from house to sidewalk and is anticipated to utilize a minimum boulevard Width for bituminous trail on the north and concrete sidewalk on the south. The City is also investigating Possible redevelopment of the property on the south side. Issues include median closures, noise and landscaping. Two design alternates for this segment are included in this agreement for purposes of estimating manhours. SEGMENT 3 - FRANCE AVENUE TO PALMER LAKE DRIVE The right -of -way proposed to be taken for this segment extends the existing right -of -way approximately 130 feet. This segment has the greatest flexibility in design alternates. Six design alternates for this segment are included in this agreement for purposes of estimating manhours. Issues include median closures, noise, landscaping, and the cemetery entrance treatment. Exhibit A - 2 SEGMENT 4 - PALMER LAKE DRIVE TO SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY Design considerations for this segment include compensating storage for roadway fill, coordination with DNR, Corps of Engineers, and Watershed, connections to the existing bike trails, landscaping of surplus property, and an entrance for the Earle Brown Townhouse. II. SCOPE OF SERVICES The following are specific tasks that make up the scope of services: A. PROJECT INITIATION 1. SEH will review existing information including City utility maps, construction record drawings, previous agency contacts, and neighborhood meeting minutes and comments. 2. SEH will videotape. the project corridor and take Still pictures at selected locations. B. SOIL BORINGS 1. SEH will coordinate and request a proposal from a selected geotechnical consulting firm to perform soil borings, calculate R- value, resistivity and perform other necessary laboratory tests. 2. SEH will stake boring locations for the geotech- nical consulting firm. 3. SEH will interpret boring logs and investigate alternative soil improvements for roadway con - struction and prepare alternate cost estimates. C. ALIGNMENT 1. SEH will work with Hennepin County to arrive at a satisfactory design for 69th Avenue between Brooklyn Boulevard and Noble Avenue. Exhibit A - 3 2. SEH will assist the City in engineering consider- ations of redevelopment issues in relation to 69th Avenue alignment. 3. SEH will identify and investigate access issues for Pilgrim Cleaners and the gas stations located at 69th Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard. 4. SEH will prepare justification for location of median closures /openings along 69th Avenue for commercial businesses and cross streets. 5. SEH will examine alternate design alignments for the project length using a minimum 50 foot setback from existing houses. Design alignment alternates Will include consideration of the affects on existing trees, public and private utilities, the affects of noise and traffic to the remaining properties along the corridor. 6. Alternate designs will be compared on the basis of cost as requested by the City. 7. SEH will consider alternates for access to and from the cemetery entrance. 8. SEH will prepare an alternate design for a rural cross section for Segment 4 from Palmer Lake Drive to Shingle Creek Parkway. D. SURVEYS 1. SEH will conduct surveys to gather additional information not previously surveyed. Surveys to be performed are as follows: a. Monument Survey Exhibit A - 4 i b. Additional Topographic Survey C. Profile and Cross Sections d. Utility Locations 2. SEH will survey existing public and private utility structures. Repair and reconstruction recommendations will be made to the City. 3. SEH will evaluate and make a recommendation to the City regarding the need for Mark Hurd Orthophotos. E. BASE PLAN LAYOUT 1. SEH will add the additional survey information to the existing topography map. 2. Develop cross sections and profiles of the existing roadway. F. ROADWAY DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN PALMER LAKE BASIN 1. SEH will examine alternative methods for soil improvements in the Palmer Lake basin. 2. SEH will prepare cost estimates for alternates. 3. SEH will consider design constraints of staying within the ordinary high water and make adjust- ments if necessary. 4. Based on the recommendations, SEH will prepare plans and specifications for the soil improvements and provide the City with a separate cost estimate for this work. The soil correction contract is to be awarded in 1991. Exhibit A - 5 G. UTILITIES 1. Storm Sewer a. SEH will review the Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan, review record drawings, and estimate drainage areas for the project area. b. SEH will investigate the ability to utilize the existing storm sewer system, and investigate the advantages of designing a new storm sewer system for 69th Avenue, and consider a combination of both. C. SEH will investigate and make recommendations for storm water runoff outlet treatment in accordance with Watershed and DNR require- ments. d. SEH will prepare cost estimates for alternate comparisons. 2. Sanitary Sewer a. SEH will investigate the lift station at Palmer Lake Drive and gravity outfall overload problem. b. SEH will conduct a capacity analysis of the immediate downstream area. The analysis will include the outfall sewer from the lift station to Drew Avenue and south on Drew Avenue to 67th Avenue. SEH will also investigate the pumping capacity and wet well capacity of the lift station. C. SEH will make recommendations to the City for improvement. Exhibit A - 6 3. Watermain a. SEH will review the soil resistivity infor- mation. b. SEH will investigate locations for construc- tion of watermain between Palmer Lake Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway, alternate location includes along new alignment or along the existing roadway. C. SEH will review service connections to the new main and make recommendations. d. SEH will consider location of watermain in connection with other design alternates. 4. Private Utilities a. SEH will assist the City in investigation of relocation of overhead power lines. b. SEH will identify and investigate conflicts with existing underground utilities. C. SEH will coordinate preliminary design information with private utilities. H. ROADWAY DESIGN SEH will calculate alternate pavement designs and provide cost comparisons. I. PLAN PROFILE SEH will prepare plan and profile drawings for alternates as requested by the City. Exhibit A - 7 J. HYDRAULICS /WATER RESOURCES 1. SEH will delineate wetland boundary to determine impact of project on wetland vegetation, habitat and storm water storage. 2. SEH will estimate the increase in runoff due to the project and determine the volume of compen- sating storage required to maintain flood levels. 3. SEH will consider construction methods and erosion control provisions which will minimize wetland impacts. 4. SEH will coordinate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Depart- ment of Natural Resources, Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District, the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission to determine permit requirements and prepare applications for submittal by the City. 5. SEH will develop a preliminary mitigation plan to compensate for wetland impacts and submit the plan for initial agency review. Items a, b, & c are required by the DNR. a. Compensating storage b. Habitat diversity C. Wetland restoration and upland conversion d. Recreation and aesthetic aspects 6. SEH will design sediment traps for all project - related storm water discharge points into the wetland so as to enhance the water quality entering the Palmer Lake Park. Exhibit A - 8 K. RIGHT -OF -WAY EASEMENTS 1. SEH will prepare property descriptions necessary for permanent right -of -way, permanent easement and temporary easement acquisition. 2. SEH will prepare an amended right -of -way plan if necessary. L. LANDSCAPING 1. SEH will evaluate project considerations with City officials and SEH staff, establish project goals and objectives. 2. SEH will evaluate existing site conditions, prepare photographic analysis of above ground utilities, buildings, and all relevant landscape features. 3. SEH will develop landscape plan alternatives which address the effects of existing vegetation and corresponding alternate alignments. Alternate landscape plans will consider cost comparison ranges for 3 levels, low, medium and high. 4. SEH will prepare illustrations of special landscape treatment for the following areas: a. Near intersection /trails b. Near Palmer Lake Park C. Near residential homes d. Median strips, concrete treatments f. Open areas near Palmer Lake Basin 5. SEH will coordinate landscaping efforts with a forester if deemed necessary. The cost for forestry consulting services is not included in this agreement. Exhibit A - 9 M. AGENCY COORDINATION 1. SEH will participate in and help conduct neighbor- hood meetings as directed by the City of Brooklyn Center. Twelve neighborhood meetings are included in this agreement for purposes of estimating manhours. 2. SEH will coordinate and meet with the DNR, Shingle Creek Watershed District, State of Minnesota, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and Corps of Engineers. 3. SEH will coordinate with all involved utilities as necessary. 4. SEH will assist the City in coordination with the Hennepin County portion of the roadway between Noble Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard. N. TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS 1. SEH will identify and make recommendations for locations of pedestrian crossings. 2. SEH will identify and investigate preliminary detour plans for the construction stage. 3. SEH will make necessary contacts with other agencies to identify other construction projects scheduled for the same time period for purposes of coordinating traffic issues. Exhibit A - 10 EXHIBIT B CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES A. EXISTING INFORMATION 1. The City shall provide previous reports, surveys, record drawings, aerial photos and contours of the area and other data already in the City's possession. 2. The City shall assist SEH by placing at his disposal all available information pertinent to the project. B. RIGHT -OF -WAY 1. The City will guarantee access to and make all provisions for SEH to enter upon public and private lands as required for SEH to perform the work under this Agreement. 2. The City will provide SEH with property descriptions for the purposes of preparing easement descriptions. 3. The City shall acquire all necessary permanent and temporary easements for the purpose of constructing the project. 4. The City will contact the U.S. Post Office to discuss the possibility of right -of -way acquisition. C. ALIGNMENT 1. The City of Brooklyn Center will work with Hennepin County to determine and resolve the alignment issues west of Brooklyn Boulevard. 2. The City will inform SEH of their decisions regarding redevelopment at the intersection of 69th Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard. Exhibit B - 1 3. The City will advise SEH of changes in the treatment of Segment 2 as it relates to possible redevelopment. D. GENERAL 1. The City will provide such legal, accounting, and insurance counseling services as may be required for the project. 2. The City will give prompt written notice to the Engineer whenever the City observes or otherwise becomes aware of any defect in the project. 3. The City will supply any necessary staff to assist the Engineer in public utility investigations and review of existing vegetation. 4. The City will advise SEH when resolution of design alternates are final and give direction for final design phase of project. Exhibit B - 2 EXHIBIT C ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The Council accepts agreement for Engineering Services July 9, 1990 SEH commences work July 10, 1990 Neighborhood informational meeting Aug. thru Dec., 1990 Completion of Stage I March, 1991 Complete Plans & Specifications for Palmer Lake Basin Soil Correction March, 1991 Negotiate Contract with SEH for Stage II Final Design March /April, 1991 SEH begins final plans and specs. April /May, 1991 Construction Begins on Palmer Lake Basin Soil Correction Project June 1991 Right -of -way acquired , July 31, 1991 Final plans and specifications Dec. 1, 1991 Construction begins March /April, 1992 Construction complete Sept. 30, 1992 Exhibit C - 1 �. � o � Outl �v g:16a Project^ 6gTH�277.F �evzszon: 2 � _-_____________________________________________________________________________ | Heading/Task Resource :Total | / :Hours | ____-_____________________+______+________________________________-____________ |69TH()277.PJ | 3080| 1 PROJ INITIATION | 66| | REVIEW EX DATA | 401 | PROJ ENG1 | 8| | PROJ ENG2 | 8| | HYDRO ENG | 8| | SR TECH | 16| | VIDEO TAPE | 18| | PROJ ENG1 | 21 | LEAD TECH | 8 | CAMERA | 8� t PHOTOGRAPH | 8| | LAND ARCH | 8| | SOIL BORINGS | 761' | DEVELOPE SCOPE | 26| | PROJ MGR3 | 20| | PROJ ENG1 | 41 | WORD PROC | 21' | STAKE LOCATIONS | 38| | PROJ MGR3 | 2| | SURVEY CHF| 9| | SURVEY AS11 9| | SURVEY AS2| 9| GEOD | g| INTERPRET LOGS | 12| | PROJ MGR3 | 8| | PROJ ENG2 | 4| | SURVEYS | 545| | CK MONUMENTS | 72| � SURVEY CHF| 18| | SURVEY AS1| 18| | SURVEY AS2| 18| | GEOD | 18| | ADDITIONAL TOPO | 1441 | SURVEY CHF! 36| � SURVEY AS1| 361' | SURVEY AS2| 36| � � ^ GEOD | 36| � | EX PROFILES | 36| | SURVEY CHF| g| | SURVEY AS1| g| | SURVEY AS2| 9| | GEOD | 9| . | X-SECTIONS | 144| | SURVEY CHF| 361 | SURVEY AS11 36| | SURVEY AS21 36| | GEOD | 36| ______________________________________________________________________________ Exhibit D - l Across: 1 Down: Outline Project: 69TH0277.F 05 -28-90 9:16a Revision: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ' Heading /Task Resource 1Total :Hours 1 --------------------------+------+--------------------------------------------- UTILITY LOCATION ; 72; SURVEY CHF" 1 18. SURVEY AS1. 18. SURVEY AS21 18. GEOD ! 181 STRUCTURE SURVEY 72; SR TECH 271 TECH ; 271 PROJ ENG1 1 18. MARK HURD RECOM. 5. PROJ ENG: 31 SR TECH 1. WORD PROC if ALIGNMENTS 5761 SEGMENT 1 1 132; COUNTY REQMNTS ; 32; PROJ MGR: 8. PROJ ENG1 81 PROJ ENG2 1 16. ACCESS ISSUES ; 20; PROJ MGR: . 4. PROJ ENG: . 8. PROJ ENG2 . 81 ALTERNATES (2) 56. PROJ MGR: . 4; PROJ ENG2 1 16. LEAD TECH . 121 SR TECH . 241 1 COST ESTIMATES ; 241 PROJ ENG: 1 8. 1 PROJ ENG2 1 8. 1 COMP 286 1 81 1 SEGMENT 2 ; 164; REDEVELOPEMENT ; 24; PROJ MGR: . 41 1 PROJ ENG: . 81 1 PLANNER 1 121 NOISE 24; PROJ ENG: 1 41 PLANNER 1 201 ' MEDIAN OPENINGS 1 121 PROJ MGR: 1 41 PROJ ENG2 1 e 1 ALTERNATES (2) 1 801 PROJ ENG: . 121 1 PROJ ENG2 1 201 LEAD TECH 1 161 SR TECH 1 321 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Exhibit D - 2 Across: 1 Down: Outline �6-28-9� g:16a Project: 69TH0277.F Revision: . _______________________________________________________________________________ Heading/Task Resource :Total � / !Hours | _____-_____________-______+______+____-_____-_________________________________- | COST ESTIMATES | 24| | PROJ ENG1 | 8| | PROJ ENG2 | 8| | COMP 286 | 8| | SEGMENT 3 | 1261' | MEDIAN OPENINGS | 12| � PROJ MGR1 | 8| | PROJ ENG2 | 41 | CEMETARY ENT. | 8| | PROJ MGR1 | 21' | PROJ ENG2 | 6| | ALTERNATES (2) | Be: | PROJ ENG1 | 12| | PROJ ENG2 | 24| | LEAD TECH | 20| | SR TECH | 32| | COST ESTIMATES | 18{ | PROJ ENG1 | 6| ( PROJ ENG2 | 6| | COMP 286 | 6| | SEGMENT 4 | 1541 | EX RURAL SECTION | 24| | PROJ ENG2 | 8| LEAD TECH | 16| | CONNECT EX TRAIL | 16| | PROJ ENG1 1 8| | LEAD TECH | 8| | TOWNHOUSE ENT. | 14| | PROJ MGR1 | 21' | PROJ ENG2 | 41 | SR TECH | 8: | ALIGNMENT | 88� | PROJ ENG1 | 121 | PROJ ENG2 | 241 | LEAD TECH | 2()| | SR TECH | 32| | COST ESTIMATES | 12| | PROJ ENG1 | 4| | PROJ ENG2 | 4| | COMP 286 | 4| | BASE PLAN LAYOUT | 8�| | PLOT NEW TOPO | 8| | SR TECH | 4| | COMP 386 | 4| | DRAFT NEW TOPO | 48| | TECH | 241 � | COMP 386 | 24| � � | PLOT EX PROFILES | 8| � ___________________-__________________________________________________________ Exhibit D - 3 Outline Across: 1 Down: O6-28-90 9:16a Project: 69TH0277.F Revision: � _______________________________________________________________________________ | Heading/Task Resource !Total | | !Hours | ____-_____________________+______+_________________________-_____-_-__________- | SR TECH | 4| | COMP 386 | 4| | PLOT EX XSECTlON | 161 | SR TECH | 8| | COMP 386 | 8| | SURCHARGE PLAN | 63| | ALT SOIL IMPROVE | 31| | PROJ MGR3 | 10| | PROJ ENG2 | 4| | SR TECH | 16| | WORD PROC | 1| | COST ESTIMATES | 241 | PROJ MGR3 | 8| | PROJ ENG2 | 41 | COMP 286 | 12| | CK HIGH WATER | 8| | PROJ ENG2 | 4| | SR TECH | 41' | UTILITIES | 2781 | STORM SEWER | 1341 | REVIEW EX DATA | 8| | PROJ ENG1 | 8| | EST DRAIN AREAS | 24| PROJ ENG1 | / TECH | 8| | STORM SEWER OPTS | 50| | PROJ ENG1 | 241 / HYDRO ENG | 2| | LEAD TECH | 241 | ALT COST COMPS | 52| | PROJ ENG1 | 4| | LEAD TECH | 24| | COMP 286 | 241 | SANITARY SEWER | 47| | INVESTIGATE PROB | 241 | PROJ MGR2 | 4| | PROJ ENG1 | 8| | LEAD TECH | 12| | CAP. ANALYSIS | PROJ ENG1 | 2| | LEAD TECH | 8| | MAKE RECOMMEND. | 13| | PROJ MGR2 | 4| | PROJ ENG1 | 8| | WORD PROC | 1| | WATERMAIN | 321 | RVW SOIL COND. | 2| | PROJ MGR3 | 2| r --------------- - ---------- Exhibit D - 4 Across: 1 Down: Outl� g:16a Project: 69TH0277.� __ __ ~_ Revision: � ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Heading/Task Resource |Total | -- ' 'Hours | ______-_______-______-____+__-___+-___________________________________________- | ALT LOCATIONS | 22| | PROJ MGR2 | 2| | PROJ ENG1 | 4: | PROJ MGR3 | 16| | RVW SERVICE CONN | 8| | LEAD TECH | 8| | OVERHEAQ\PRIVATE | 651 | RELOCATION INVST | 24| | PROJ MGR2 | 8| | PROJ ENG1 | 16| | CK CONFLICTS | 16| | LEAD TECH | 16| | COORDINATION | 25| | PROJ ENG1 | 24| | WORD PROC | 1| | ROADWAY DESIGN | 12| | PAVEMENT DESIGN | 4| | SIGMA N18 | 41 | PROJ ENG2 | 21 | COMP 386 | 2| | TYPICAL SECTION | 8| | COST COMPARISONS | 8| | PROJ ENG2 | 41' COMP 286 | 41 | HYDRAULICS | 218| | WETLAND IMPACTS | 361 | HYDRO ENG | 16| | LIMNOLOGST| 201 | RUNOFF INCREASE | 321 | HYDRO ENG | 16| | COMP 386 | 16| | EROSION CONTROL | 16| | HYDRO ENG | 16| | PERMIT APPLIC | 48| | HYDRO ENG | 241 | � LIMNOLOGST| 241 | MITIGATION PLAN | 56| | ' HYDRO ENG | 201 | LIMNOLOGST| 2()1 | 8R TECH | 16� ' | SEDIMENT TRAPS | 301 | HYDRO ENG | 18| ' | SR TECH | 12 . | R/W EASEMENTS | 92| | REVIEW NEEDS | 4| � PROJ ENG2 | 41 | WRITE DESC. | 28| | SR TECH | 16| _______________________________________________________________________________ Exhibit D - 5 Outline Across: 1 Down: � Project: 69TH0277.F 06-28-90 9:16a Revision: :: � ----------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- | Heading/Task Resource ;Total : 'Hours | _-___-_____________-______+______+-______-___________________________________-_ | WORD PROC | 4| | COMP 386 | 8| | CK DESCRIPTIONS | 4| | PROJ ENG2 | 4| | AMEND ROW PLAN | 56, � PROJ ENG2 | 8| � | SR TECH | 24| | COMP 386 | 241' | LANDSCAPING | 364| | EVALUATE EX SITE | 12| | LAND ARCH | 121 | LANDSCAPE ALT | 2681' | SEGMENT 1 | 201 | LAND ARCH | 16| | COMP 286 | 4| | SEGMENT 2 110| | LAND ARCH | 86 / COMP 286 | 24| | SEGMENT 3 | 110| � | LAND ARCH | 86� � / COMP 286 to 24| � | SEGMENT 4 | 28| / LAND ARCH | 24| COMP 286 | 4| | PREP SKETCHES | 84| | NEAR TRAILS | 14| | LAND ARCH |' 141 | NEAR PARK | 121 | LAND ARCH | 12| � | NEAR HOMES 1- 8| | LAND ARCH | 8| | MEDIANS | 36| | LAND ARCH | 361' | OPEN AREAS | 141' | LAND ARCH | 14| | AGENCY COORD | 7101 | CITY | 342| | PROJ MGR1 | 10()| | PROJ ENG1 | 100| | PROJ ENG2 | 100| | HYDRO ENG | 8| � | LAND ARCH |' 201 � | WORD PROC | 14| | COUNTY | 16| | PROJ MGR1 | 8| | PROJ ENG2 | 8| | STATE | 8| | PROJ MGR2 | 4| -------------------------- Exhibit D - 6 Across: 1 Down: Outline 06-28-90 g:16a Project: 69TH0277.F Revision: � _______________________________________________________________________________ | Heading/Task Resource ',Total � ~�~ | 'Hours | _____________________-____+______+_________-____________________________-______ | PROJ ENG1 | 2| | PROJ ENG2 | 21 | DNR | 10| / PROJ ENG1 | 21 | LIMNOLOGST| 8| � | WATERSHED | 1V| | PROJ ENG1 | 21' � | HYDRO ENG | 8| | NEIGHBORHOOD | 324| | PROJ MGR1 | 72| | PROJ ENG1 | 72| | PROJ ENG2 | 72| | LAND ARCH | 36| | HYDRO ENG | 61 | LIMNOLOGST| 6| | TECH | 36| | WORD PROC | 24| | | | . | | � | | � � | | . | | . | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | � | | | | | | | | / | | | � | | � | | | � | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | � | | | | | | ______________________________________________________________________________ Exhibit D - 7 � � CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7 /9/90 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO CONTRACT 1990 -D, HUMBOLDT AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -27 DEPT. APPROVAL: rotZ SY APP, DIAECTOO OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) At the June 25 meeting, the City Council informally approved extension of the 14 foot wide sidewalk on the east side of Humboldt Avenue to 67th Avenue North. Following that action, Engineering staff contacted the owner of the apartment building at 6640 Humboldt Avenue to request an easement as needed to allow construction of that sidewalk. The owner's response was to say that he is willing to grant (at the City Assessor's appraised value) that easement if the City also extends the sidewalk past his other apartment building at 6700 Humboldt (i.e. - between 67th Avenue and the south property line of the Humboldt Square Shopping Center). After reviewing this request, we see no objections to proceeding to that point, leaving open our options for extension of the trail past the Humboldt Square. Accordingly, we have negotiated an agreement for the required easements from the property owner at a total cost of $2,306.57 and a change order with the contractor for the required construction at a total cost of $18,891.60. Council Action Required A resolution approving both the acquisition of the easements and approving the change order is provided for consideration by the City Council. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO CONTRACT 1990 -D, HUMBOLDT AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -27 WHEREAS, the City Council on June 25, 1990 authorized pursuit of easement acquisition across the westerly side of Lot 1, Block 3, HI CREST SQUARE; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it in the best interest of the City to pursue the request of the property owner, Mary K. Harrington, in completing this construction along the westerly side of said properties, Lot 3, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 3, HI CREST SQUARE; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has advised the City Council that it is necessary to acquire easements from the following properties to allow for construction to be completed in accordance with authorized extension of sidewalk construction: Approximate Legal Area of Appraised Owner & Address P.I. D. No. Description Easement(s) Value Mark K. Harrington 6640 Humboldt Ave. N. 36- 119 -21 -22 -0043 Lot 1, Block 3 765.5 SF $1148.27 HI CREST SQUARE Mary K. Harrington 6700 Humboldt Ave. N. 36- 119 -21 -22 -0038 Lot 3, Block 1 772 SF $1158.30 HI CREST SQUARE WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has advised the City Council that purchase agreements have been reached to acquire these easements at the City Assessor's appraised values as shown above; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared Change Order No. 1 to Contract 1990 -D, increasing the quantities of the contract in the amounts as shown. Construction Cost $18,891.60 5% Contingency 944.58 Subtotal Construction $19,836.18 Easement $ 2,306.55 Engineering 8% 1,586.88 Administration 1% 198.36 Legal 1% 198.36 Capitalized Int. 608.12 Total Funds Encumbered $24,734.47 RESOLUTION NO. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The acquisition of said easements at the appraised values is hereby approved. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to acquire said easements on that basis. All costs for right -of -way acquisition shall be charged to the project. 2. Change Order No. 1, Contract 1990 -D, as prepared by the City Engineer, is hereby approved. 3. There is appropriated the sum of $24,734.47 for the additional cost. This appropriation will be financed from the Local MSA Account No. 2611. 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 7/9/90 Agenda kern Number y C/ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED SHADE TREES ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNA . P, DIREC10IR OP 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. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED SHADE TREES (ORDER NO. DST 07/09/90) 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 VIRGIL HILLSTROM 5341 E. TWIN LK BLVD 151B ANTOINE POMERLEAU 5821 EWING AVE N 225A VIOLA HARTY 5827 EWING AVE•N 225B ROBERT WILLS 5725 DREW AVE N 226 MARION GREENDAHL 3600 ADMIRAL LANE 227 DAVID HOLMES 5649 LOGAN AVE N 228 GEORGE NORRIS 2018 55TH AVE N 229 FRANK SLOVAK 5442 OLIVER AVE N 230 JAMES QUAYLE, JR. 5524 MORGAN AVE N 231 JAMES QUAYLE, JR. 5524 MORGAN AVE N 232 GREG AHO 6337 UNITY AVE N 233A CITY OF BC 6337 UNITY AVE N 233B DUANE CHRISTENSEN 5400 SAILOR LANE 234 DUANE CHRISTENSEN 5400 SAILOR LANE 235 CITY OF BC NORTHPORT PARK 236 CITY OF BC NORTHPORT PARK 237 CITY OF BC NORTHPORT PARK 238 CITY OF BC NORTHPORT PARK 239 CITY OF BC NORTHPORT PARK 240 CITY OF BC NORTHPORT PARK 241 CITY OF BC NORTHPORT PARK 242 CITY OF BC NORTHPORT PARK 243 CITY OF BC NORTHPORT PARK 244 THOMAS BREKKE 6530 CHOWEN AVE N 245 PERNELL REITAN 6049 EWING AVE N 246 ABKO XXIV, INC. 6121 BROOKLYN BLVD. 247 ABKO XXIV, INC. 6121 BROOKLYN BLVD. 248 . BERTEL JOHNSON 6107 BROOKLYN BLVD 249 BERTEL JOHNSON 6107 BROOKLYN BLVD 250 ROBERT WEDEKIND 5624 ALDRICH AVE 251 DANIEL LARSON 827 57TH AVE N 252 RESOLUTION NO. PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY ADDRESS TREE NUMBER DANIEL LARSON 827 57TH AVE N 253 LEROY CHOSA 6425 FREMONT AVE 254 ELEANOR STAVLO 6400 EMERSON AVE 255 PATRICK BURDETTE 5340 EMERSON AVE 256 PETER DRAGIEFF 6431 EMERSON AVE N 257 RICHARD CROSSMAN 7219 PALMER LAKE DR 258 RICHARD CROSSMAN 7219 PALMER LAKE DR 259 JAMES MOSSER 3606 WOODBINE LANE 260 WAYNE FABRELLO 3801 WOODBINE LANE 261 DONALD HINRICHS 3700 72ND AVE N 262 JAMES BARTZ 3613 72ND AVE N 263 KENNETH BADOIS 3506 72ND AVE. N 264 STEPHEN WRZOS 3512 72ND AVE N 265 STEPHEN WRZOS 3512 72ND AVE N 266 DELLES SOLBERG 3604 VIOLET AVE 267 K. NESCO /P. HARTLEY 3806 VIOLET AVE 268 ALICE PICARD 7107 EWING AVE 269 MYRON BATSON 7000 DREW AVE N 270 JOHN MC ELROY 4400 WOODBINE LANE 271 JOHN MC ELROY 4400 WOODBINE LANE 272 ALLEN HOVER 4306 71ST AVE N 273 JAMES ALMQUIST 4106 71ST AVE N 274 W.VERNON /C.HORSTMAN 6843 SCOTT AVE. 275 BLANCHE BAKER 4925 BEARD AVE N 276 DELMA PRIEM 4943 ABBOTT AVE 277 MARY JANE GUSTAFSON 4935 ABBOTT AVE 278 THOMAS KOLWALSKI 4927 ABBOTT AVE 279 ELBERT PURDHAM 6321 HALIFAX DR. 280 JOESEPH /MARY FAUST 5530 EMERSON AVE 281 RICHARD CAMERON 5527 DUPONT AVE N 282 RONALD SHODEEN 5448 DUPONT AVE N 283 PETER KRAEMER 6836 ORCHARD AVE N 284 CITY OF BC WILLOW LANE PK 285 CITY OF BC WILLOW LN PARK 286 CITY OF BC WILLOW LN PARK 287 CITY OF BC GARDEN CITY PK 288 CITY OF BC GARDEN CITY PK 289 HARRIET BERG 620 53RD AVE. N. 290 RUTH BEGGS 6230 COLFAX AVE N 291 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. RESOLUTION NO. 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 voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7/9/90 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: DISCUSSION ITEM - MTC BUS SHELTERS DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP, DIRECTOR'OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW ECOM� �R MENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes ) In accordance with the attached letter from MTC, the following locations have been identified as potential locations for bus shelters (numbers indicate locations on the attached map): 1. Humboldt & 73rd 2. T.H. 252 & 73rd 3. T.H. 252 & 70th 4. Earle Brown Commons 5. N. Lilac Drive & Fremont (Brookwood) 6. Logan & 57th 7. Brookdale 8. Brooklyn Blvd. & Noble 9. France & 69th 10. Brooklyn Blvd. & 68th 11. Brooklyn Blvd. & 65th 12. Beard & 65th 13. Brooklyn Blvd. & 63rd 14. Xerxes & 63rd 15. Brooklyn Blvd. & 61st 16. Brooklyn Blvd. & 53rd 17. France & 50th Because MTC is planning to install only 89 shelters in the entire metro area, we request that the Council review this list and reduce it to 5 to 8 priority locations for submittal to MTC. We also recommend that the City recommend against the use of advertising on these shelters. M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S I T C O M M I S S I O N 560 -6th Avenue North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55411 -4398 612/349 -7400 June 19, 1990 Gerald Splinter City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr. Splinter: The Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) is in the process of reactivating its bus shelter program. Due to budgetary constraints, the MTC's shelter development program was suspended in 1982. At present, the MTC maintains 628 passenger waiting shelters throughout the metropolitan area. Federal funding is now available to assist in building an additional 89 shelters. Local money must be used to fund 20% of the construction costs of the shelter program and to fund ongoing maintenance costs. The MTC shelter policy encourages the construction of passenger waiting shelters for bus stops which serve 40 or more boarding or transferring passengers gers on a typical weekday, with special consideration given to bus stops serving the elderly and the handicapped. Under the MTC's shelter program, the MTC will pay the total cost of the shelter installation if ridership is more than 40 passenger hoardings per day. In cases where ridership is less than 40 passengers per day, the MTC will consider the shelter installation only if the community provides a portion of the local capital and maintenance costs. Providing a concrete base pad upon which the shelter could be placed, and agreeing to provide minor maintenance such as cleaning, would be ways in which the community could provide this local capital and maintenance cost sharing. At this time, the MTC staff has not identified any new bus stop locations in your community that have more than 40 passenger boardings per day. We are, however, encouraging you to contact us if you are aware of any sites that you would like us to investigate further to determine if the site meets the passenger boarding criteria in the MTC shelter policy. In addition, we would encourage you to contact us if your city would be interested in participating in a cost-sharing arrangement with the MTC for the construction and maintenance of bus shelters at locations that do not have the minimum of 40 passenger boardings per day. Also, please contact us whether your community would be receptive to allowing advertising to be placed on MTC bus shelters as a means of providing a funding source to offset a portion of the ongoing maintenance costs of the shelters. t Ir ♦ f If you are interested in pursuing bus shelters for your community, please contact my Executive Assistant, Greg Failor, at 349 -7501, to schedule a meeting to discuss the matter with MTC staff. I look forward to hearing from you on this matter. incerely, J h pell ief Administr for JJC:sle cc: Mayor Dean Nyquist MTC Commissioners • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date /2/so Agenda Item Number �2/ b REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: 1990 PLANNING SESSION RESULTS DEPT. APP Signature tle City Manager MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below/attached- SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached At your May 3, 1990, planning session at which approximately 40 citizens participated, the 1989 priorities were reviewed and re- assessed. The City Council reviewed the results of this session on June 5, 1990, and asked our facilitators to summarize the results of the computer polling. In addition, the Council requested a break out of City Council polling. Attached are copies of both pollings. The first table (attached) is labeled Priority Evaluation - Council. This table's scatter map indicates the City Council's polling on the "Importance" and "Satisfaction" on the various priorities. I have added to this table the "Council Ranking" and the overall "Planning Group Ranking." The remaining attached tables are the sub -group comparisons of votes priority by priority and the Council's scatter maps for each priority. RECOMMENDATION: After discussion, adopt a priority listing by motion. PRIORITY EVALUATION COUNCIL M P 0 100 + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + —A— — — + R S ' I T ' 0 R I 75 + + + + + I f w T P CE Y T Q B F T C 50 + — — — — + — — — — + — —D— — + — — — — + i 0 0 O R CL , A 25 + + + + + B D ' G ; D ' i C R ; F E 0 + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + S 1 3 5 7 9 S SATISFACTION HOW SATISFIE ? Figure 0 -1 —A PRIORITY FOR B.C. STRATEGY SATISFACTN MOST IMPT TO ADDRESS HON SATISFIED? PlnNniNs C ovNCiI Cooivc; Cwov Group Group Vote Itea P R•►+kIN9 Ran,kil Average Average I A CRIME /DRUGS 1 100.0 7.6 4 B HOUSING: 57.0 6.4 2 C BUDGET /FINANCES 63.0 5.0 5 D ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT /REDEVELOPMENT 47.0 6.0 3 E COMMUNICATIONS 5 60.0 5.0 7 F DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES 7 7.0 7.2 6 G PUBLIC FACILITIES 6 17.0 6.0 Voters = 5 Display = CEN8 DSP 05 -03 -1990 Vert Vote Data = CEN8 .VTA 05-03-1990 Hor2 Vote Data = CEN8 .VTB 05-_03 -1990 Vote Methods = CEN8 .MTH Participants = CEE PAR MATRIX - COMBINATION OF TWO VOTES SUBGROUP COMPARISONS Subgroup Comparisons A- CRIME /DRUGS M P O 100 + - - - - + - - - - + - - - + -1- - + R S ' I T ; 3 A2 4 O R I 75 + + + + + I M T P Y T 50 + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + F T ' O O ' R A 25 + + + + + B D D ; C R E 0 + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + S 1 3 5 7 9 S STRATEGY SATISFACTN HOW SATISFIED? Figure S —A PRIORITY FOR B.C.' STRATEGY SATISFACTN MOST IMPT TO ADDRESS 101 SATISFIED? Average Average Entire Group 89.0 7.1 Subgroups 1 COUNCIL 100.0 7.6 3 ADVISORY COMMISSION 90.0 6.9 3 OTHER 85.0 6.6 4 STAFF 87.0 7.7 Voters = 38 Display = CEMB .DSP 05 -03 -1990 Vert Vote Data = CEMB .VTA 05 -03 -1990 Harz Vote Data = CEM8 .VTB 05-03-1990 Vote Methods = CM ATH Participants = CEN .PAR Subgroup Comparisons B— HOUSING M P O 100 + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + - — — — + R S 1 1 It 3 I T O R I 75 + + + + + I M T P ; 4 B2 Y T ; 1 50 + — — — — + — — — — — — — — + — — — + F T ; ; I s O O i Q R A 25 + + + + + B D 1 • D C R E 0 + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + S 1 3 5 7 9 S STRATEGY SATISFACTN HOW SATISFIED? Figure S —B PIINITY M S.C. STHTEGY SATISFAM !LOST IMP'T T4 ADDRESS HOT SATISFIED? Iverage Average Entire Gnaw fi3.0 6.3 Subgroups 1 COQICIL 3T.0 6.4 2 ADVISORY COMISSIOI 64.0 6.5 3 OTHER 69.0 6.4 i STAMP 60.0 6.0 Voters = 31 Display = CUI .DSP 95-03 -1530 Vert vote Data = CBIt .VT1 OS- 03 -I990 Hari Vote Data = C311 .vTI 03-03 -1990 vote Iethods a C111 .M Participants = CBI .PAR . Subgroup Comparisons C— BUDGET /FINANCES M P O 100 + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + R S ; ; I T O R I 75 + + + I M ; T P ; 1 4 Y T ; 3 C 50 + — — — — + — — — — + 2 — — — + — — — — + F T 0 O R A 25 + + + + + B D D C R ; E 0 + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + S 1 3 5 7 9 S STRATEGY SATISFACTN HOW SATISFIED? Figure S —C PRIORITY FOR B.C.- STRATEGY SATISFACTN MOST IMPT TO ADDRESS HOW SATISFIED? Average Average Entire Group 54.0 5.4 Subgroups 1 COUNCIL 63.0 5.0 2 ADVISORY COMMISSION 48.0 5.4 3 OTHER 54.0 4.9 4 STAFF 60.0 6.2 Voters = 38 Display = CEN8 ASP 05-03 -1990 Vert Vote Data = CEN8 .VTA 05-03 -1990 Harz Vote Data = CENS VTH 05-03 -1990 Vote Methods = CEN8 ATH Participants = CEN .PAR Subgroup Comparisons D— ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/REDEVELOPMENT M P O 100 + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + R S { ' I T { { O { { R I 75 + + + + + I M ; { ' T P { { Y T ' 50 + — — — — + — — — — + — —12 — + — — — + F T D 4 { O O { 3 ' R { { ' A 25 + + + + + B D ; 1 ' D { { i C R { { { E 0 + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + S 1 3 5 7 9 S STRATEGY SATISFACTN HOW SATISFIED? Figure S —D PRIORITY FOR B.C.. STRATEGY SATISFACTN MOST IMPT TO ADDRESS HOV SATISFIED? Average Average Entire Group 44.0 5.9 Subgroups 1 COUNCIL 47.0 6.0 2 ADVISORY COMMISSION 47.0 6.1 3 OTHER 38.0 5.3 4 STAFF 43.0 6.3 Voters = 38 Display = CE18 .DSP 05 -03 -1990 Vert Vote Data = CEN8 .VTA 05-03-1990 Horz Vote Data = CENB VTB 05-_03-1990 Vote Methods = CEN8 ATH Participants = CEN .PAR Subgroup Comparisons E- COMMUNICATIONS M P 0 100 + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + R S I T I i 0 R I 75 + + + + + I M T P 1 i Y T 50 + — — — — + — — — + — — — + — — — — + F T ; 23 ; 0 0 E R A 25 + + O + + B D D C R i E 0 + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + S 1 3 5 7 9 S STRATEGY SATISFACTN HOW SATISFIED? Figure S —E PRIORITY FOR B.C.. STRATEGY SATISFACTN MOST INPT TO ADDRESS HOW SATISFIED? Average Average Entire Group 40.0 5.1 Subgroups 1 COUNCIL 60.0 5.0 2 ADVISORY COMMISSION 41.0 4.5 3 OTHER 42.0 4.6 4 STAFF 27.0 6.5 Voters = 38 Display = CENS .DSP 05 -03 -1990 Vert Vote Data = CEN8 .VTA 05 -03 -1990 Harz Vote Data = CE1,8 .VTH 05- 03-1990 , late Methods = CENB .NTH Participants = CEN .PAR Subgroup Comparisons G— PUBLIC FACILITIES M P O 100 + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + R S I T O 1 R I 75 + + + + + I M ; O T P Y T 50 + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — — — + F T ' 0 O G R 3 A 25 + + + 2 + B D i 1 D C R ' E 0 + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + S 1 3 5 7 9 S STRATEGY SATISFACTN HOW SATISFIED? Figure S —G PRIORITY FOR B.C. STRATEGY SATISFACTN MOST IHPT TO ADDRESS HON SATISFIED? Average Average Entire Group 31.0 5.4 Subgroups 1 COUNCIL 11.0 6.0 2 ADVISORY COMMISSION 28.0 5.5 3 OTHER 31.0 6.5 4 STAFF 61.0 3.9 Voters = 38 Display = CEHB DSP 05-03 -1990 Vert Vote Data = CENB .VTA 05-03 -1990 Harz Vote Data = CENS .VTB 05 -03 -1990 Vote Methods = CENB .NTH Participants = CEH .PAR Subgroup Comparisons F— DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES M P O 100 + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + R S I T O R I 75 + + + + + I M T P ' Y T ' 1 50 + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + F T O O R ; ;2 3 A 25 + + + F + + B D D i C R — — — — — — — — , E 0 + + + + S 1 3 5 7 9 S STRATEGY SATISFACTN HOW SATISFIED? Figure S —F PRIORITY FOR B.C.- STRATEGY SATISFACTN MOST IMPT TO ADDRESS BON SATISFIED? Average Average Entire GrouD 22.0 5.9 Subgroups 1 COUNCIL 7.0 7.2 2 ADVISORY COMMISSION 32.0 5.2 3 OTHER 31.0 5.6 4 STAFF 7.0 6.6 Voters = 38 Display = CENS 'DS? 05- 03-1990 Vert Vote Data = CEN9 VTA 05- 03-1990 Borz Vote Data = CENS .VTB 05 -03 -1990 Vote Methods = CENB ATH Participants = CEN PAR MATRIX - . COMBINATION OF TWO VOTES COUNCIL'S SCATTER MAPS FOR EACH PRIORITY & SET OF STRATEGIES ' a A— CRIME /DRUGS S a COUNCIL M P 0 100 + — — — — + — — X — — — — x °1 X— — X R S X I T A O ; ; R I W 7 5 + + A t I M V ; ; 0 T P Z Y T ' O — — F T 0 0 0. ' R A 25 + + + + + B D D ' C R ' E 0 + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + — + S 1 3 5 7 7,G 9 S SATISFACTION HOW SATISFIE ? Figure V -1 —A PRIORITY FOR B.C. STRATEGY SATISFACTN MOST IMPT TO ADDRESS BON SATISFIED? Average Average COUNCIL 100.0 7.6 Voters = 5 Display = CEN8 .DSP 05- 03-1990 Vert Vote Data = CENS .VTA 05 -03 -1990 Harz Vote Data = CEN8 .VTB 05-03 -1990 Vote Methods = CEN8 .NTH Participants = CEN .PAR C— BUDGET /FINANCES COUNCIL M P 0 100 + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + R S I T 0 X X X R W 75 + + + + + I M T P Z 1 1 Y T 50 + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + F T O ; 0 0 (L R X ; X A — 25 + + + + + B D ; ; D C R E 0 + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + S 1 3 5 7 9 S SATISFACTION HOW SATISFIED? Figure V -1 —C PRIORITY FOR H.C: STRATEGY SATISFACTN NOST INPT TO ADDRESS HOW SATISFIED? Average Average COUNCIL 63.0 5.0 Voters = 5 Display = CEN8 .DSP 05 -03 -1990 P Y Vert Vote Data = CEN8 .VTA 05 -03 -1990 Horz Vote Data = CBN8 .VTH 05- 03-1990 Vote Methods = CBN8 .NTH Participants = CBN .PAR E— COMMUNICATIONS COUNCIL M P O 100 + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + R S I T O i X R I 75 + + + + + I M V ; X X ' T P Z n , Y T H 50 + — — — + — — — + — — — — + — —— X F T O i i O 0 d E R X 1 A 2 25 + + + + + B D 1 1 i ; D C R ; E 0 + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + S 1 3 5 7 9 S SATISFACTION HOW SATISFIED? Figure V -1 —E PRIORITY FOR B.C: STRATEGY SATISFACTN HOST IMPT TO ADDRESS HON SATISFIED? Average Average COUNCIL 60.0 5.0 Voters = 5 Display = CEN8 .DSP 05-03-1990 Vert Vote Data = CENa .VTA 05- 03-1990 Harz Vote Data = CENS .VTB 05 -03 -1990 Vote Methods = CEN8 .NTH Participants = CEN PAR B— HOUSING COUNCIL M P O 100 + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + R S ' I T 0 A LV R I () 75 + �� + + I M Z It ( X ; X X T P Y T 1 O 50 + — — — — + — — — — + — + — —X— — + F T ; a 0 0 ; R i X A 25 + + + B D D C R ; E 0 + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + S 1 3 5 k 7 9 S SATISFACTION HOW SATISFIED? Figure V -1 —B PRIORITY FOR B.C: STRATEGY SATISFACTN MOST IMPT TO ADDRESS HOW SATISFIED? Average Average COUNCIL 57.0 6.4 Voters = 5 Display = CEN8 .DSP 05 -03 -1990 Vert Vote Data = CEN8 VTA 05 -03 -1990 Horz Vote Data = CE18 .VTB 05 -03 -1990 Vote Methods = CEN8 ATH Participants = CEN .PAR D— ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT /REDEVELOPMENT COUNCIL M P O 100 + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + R S I T ; O R I W 5 + + + + I M () xx T P Z Y T 50 + — — — — + — — — — x — — — — F T 0 O O R ; x ; A — 25 + + + + + B D x D C R ' E 0 + — — — — + — — — + — — — — + — — — + S 1 3 9 S SATISFACTION HOW SATISFIED? Figure V -1 —D PRIORITY FOR B.C.. STRATEGY SATISFACTA MOST IMPT TO ADDRESS HON SATISFIED? Average Average COUNCIL 47.0 6.0 Voters = 5 Display = CEN8 DSP 05- 03-1990 Vert Vote Data = CEN8 .VTA 05-03-1990 Aorz Vote Data = CEN8 VT3 05- 03-1990 Vote Methods = CEN8 ATH Participants = CEN PAR G— PUBLIC FACILITIES COUNCIL M P 0 100 + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + R S ; I T ' 0 { R I V 75 + + + + + I M Z + T P Q ' Y T 0 50 + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + — — + F T d. 0 0 ; G R X A 25 + + + + B D i ( jx X D ' X C R ; E 0 + — — — X — + — — — — — — + S 1 5 7 9 S SATISFACTION HOW SATISFIE ? Figure V -1 —G is PRIORITY FOR B.C: STRATEGY SATISFACTN MOST IMPT TO ADDRESS BOO SATISFIED? Average Average COUNCIL 17.0 6.0 Voters = 5 Display = CEN8 DSP 05 -03 -1990 Vert Vote Data = CEN8 .VTA 05-03-1990 Harz Vote Data = CEN8 .VTB 05 -03 -1990 Vote Methods = CEN8 ATE Participants = CEN PAR F DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES COUNCIL M P O 100 + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + R S ' I T O R I 75 + + + + + I M W V T P Z ; Y T 1 50 + — — — — + — — — — + — — — — + — — + F T X , 0 o 0 R ; I t i A 25 + + + F + + B D ; X X D ' C R E 0 + — — — — + — — — + — —X— — X`"— —X— — S 1 3 5 7 S SATI ACTION HOW SAT Figure V— — ie PRIORITY FOR B.C.' STRATEGY SATISFACTN MOST IMPT TO ADDRESS HOW SATISFIED? Average Average COUNCIL 7.0 7.2 Voters = 5 Display = CENB DSP 05 -03 -1990 _ Vert Vote Data = CEN8 VTA 05- 03-1990 Harz Vote Data = CENS .VTB 05-03-1990 Vote Methods = CEN8 ATH Participants = CEN PAR CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7 -9 -90 Agenda Item Number f4 C REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Discussion Item Relating to Home Occupation Ordinance DEPARTMENT APP Signature - title Director of Planning and I pecti on MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: " No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X The Mayor has requested that the matter of home occupations be put on the City Council agenda as a discussion item. For purposes of assisting the Council with some background information, I have • attached a letter I wrote to Ms. Rita Seymour, former Brooklyn Center Post News editor, about a year ago responding to various questions she had about home occupations in Brooklyn Center. She was apparently planning to do an article about home occupations, but left the employment of the Post News before the article was written. Attached to the letter are copies of current ordinance provisions relating to home occupations. It should be noted that Brooklyn Center has acknowledged some type of home occupation or home business in its Zoning Ordinance since the 1940's when it allowed limited home businesses such as an "office or studio of a professional man" and the "boarding or rental of rooms to not more than three people." Home occupations or home businesses have been liberalized over the years to allow special categories of more intense home occupations. An important factor in any of these home occupations, either special or permitted, is that they be incidental and secondary to the residential use of the property. As the letter notes, home occupations are an attempt to compromise between two divergent points of view on how private property might be used. I hope the attached will provide the Council with some pertinent information that might assist them in their discussion of this subject. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF :FROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 [B TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 August 24, 1989 Rita Seymour Brooklyn Center Post News 8801 Bass Lake Road New Hope, MN 55428 Dear Rita: You have asked me a number of questions regarding home occupations in Brooklyn Center which hopefully, I can answer to your satisfaction. First of all, home occupations are regulated or governed by the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance generally defines a home occupation as"... any gainful occupation or profession carried on within a dwelling unit, by a family member residing within a dwelling unit, which is clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the dwelling unit and the lot upon which it is constructed " The important part of this definition, as I see it, is that the home occupation must be clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the property. As I'm sure you are aware, zoning regulations tend to separate uses into compatible and similar zoning districts, generally separating uses into residential, commercial, industrial and open space zones. The theory is that these zones should be separated from each other providing certain protections and assurances that uses will not adversely impact each other. Residential zones are strictly for residential uses and are often further separated by having various residential zones based on the bulk and density of the residential uses, thus multiple - family zones are separated from single - family zones. In Brooklyn Center we have seven different residential zoning districts. Commercial zones are reserved for commercial activity and Brooklyn Center has two such zones, the C1 or service /office zone which allows various service /office uses as permitted uses and is considered a less intense commercial zoning district, and the C2 or general commerce zone which allows all the C1 uses and more intense commercial developments such as retail uses, certain restaurants, repair uses and educational uses as permitted uses. Industrial zones are reserved for industrial uses such as manufacturing, servicing, wholesaling and warehousing and storage uses. We have two such industrial zones, the I -1 (Industrial Park) zone and the I -2 (General Industry) zone. Rita Seymour Page 2 August 24, 1889 The pure approach to zoning, as mentioned above, is to separate these zones and not to allow a mixing of these uses within these zones. For instance, a manufacturing facility would not be permitted in a residential zone, whether it be a single- family zone or a multiple - family zone. Conversely, a residential use of any type would not be introduced or permitted in an industrial zone. The same is true for commercial uses being separated from the residential and industrial zoning districts. Again, from a strict constructionist point of view, no commercial or business activities should ever be carried on within a residential zoning district. This, as well as many zoning regulations, is in direct conflict with the concept that a person should be able to do as one pleases on their own private property. Home occupations are, therefore, an attempt on the part of City Councils to compromise and regulate these two divergent points of view. The compromise is to allow some home business activity provided it is incidental and secondary to the residential use of the property. The residential use of the property must be clearly the principal activity. To convert a residence into a solely business business use only would not be allowed, even if it is the type of business acknowledged by the Zoning Ordinance as an allowable home occupation. Brooklyn Center's Zoning Ordinance establishes two types of home occupations, one, a "permitted home occupation ", the other, a "special home occupation ". Permitted home occupations are further regulated by the provisions contained in Section 35- 405 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached) and include such home occupations as dressmaking, secretarial services, professional offices, answering services, individual music or art instruction, individual hobby crafts, day care and similar activities. These home occupations are to be low keyed and do not generally involve customer traffic and are most often conducted without any impact on a residential neighborhood. Special home occupations are more intense uses than the permitted category and are further regulated by Section 35 -406 of the Zoning Ordinance ( attached) . These home occupations can only be established after the City Council has granted a special use permit for the conduct of such a home occupation. This involves a review, public hearing and a recommendation by the Planning Commission as to how the proposed special home occupation meets the Standards for Special Use Permits contained in Section 35 - 220, Subdivision 2 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached). The City Council must make a final determination on such a matter. The types of home occupations falling into the category of special home occupations include those that involve the use of accessory structures, the use of equipment not customarily found in a home, the employment of not more than one person who is not a member of the family and these home occupations include such things as barber and beauty services, shoe repair, photography studio group lessons, saw sharpening, small engine repair and similar activities. These home occupations are again, more intense and often draw customers (and traffic) to the home. A use, such as a professional office, which draws customer traffic to the home such as a doctor, dentist or chiropractic office falls into the category of a special home occupation even though it is a professional office because of the customer traffic generated. It should be noted, that no over - the- counter retail sales are permitted as part of any home occupation and automobile and truck repair are also not allowed as either permitted or special home occupations. Rita Seymour Page 3 August 24, 1989 I hope this provides you with some good background data without being too technical or boring. You have also asked other questions about home occupations such as how many and what types of home occupations there are in Brooklyn Center. We really do not have an accurate count of how many home occupations there are in Brooklyn Center primarily because the permitted category does not necessarily require a record or an approval by the City. Some people inquire about home occupations and the Planning and Inspection Department staff will respond in writing after review of the various aspects of the home occupation with a determination of whether it is a permitted or a special home occupation. If it is a permitted home occupation, nothing further is done except if a sign is involved, then a sign permit would be required (please note that home occupation signs are limited to no more than 2.5 sq. ft. in area). If it is determined that a home occupation is in the special category, a person is advised that they must obtain a special use permit from the City Council (following review, public hearing and a recommendation by the Planning Commission) before they can conduct their home occupation. They are also advised to submit their proposal in writing indicating how they can meet the Standards for a Special Use Permit. A nonrefundable filing fee of $50.00 is required prior to the Planning Commission and City Council review. I have no count on the number of permitted home occupations within the City. We do not keep a running tally of the number of special home occupations granted either (we could review our records to get you an an estimate of the number). Special home occupations are generally issued only to the applicants and are not necessarily transferable. They are subject to the laws governing special use permits, but are generally considered to be more like a license or grant rather than a property right tha* runs with the land. You've also inquired regarding the comment made by Mayor Nyquist at a recent City Council meeting about going too far with home occupation permits. I believe it would be best to inquire of him as to specifically what he means. You have asked me if I see home occupations as a problem. One of my main concerns is really the equal protection type of concern. Once the City Council has granted a special home occupation by finding it is consistent with the City's Standards for Special Use Permits, it is difficult to deny a similar home occupation in the future. The fact that a group of neighbors are opposed to having, say a beauty shop, conducted in their neighborhood while the same type of home occupation for a beauty shop is operating in essentially the same way in another neighborhood leaves the City Y Council with little, if any, ability to deny such a permit. This can become a problem. I believe the Mayor's concern also goes toward the kind of home occupations allowed. For instance, we allow nonresident employees. I think the Mayor would like to see the types of home occupations also restricted, however, I'd suggest again you review this with him. We will be reviewing the regulations relating to home occupations with the Planning Commission in the near future with an eye on limiting or further restricting such uses. When this will be completed is difficult at this time to determine. Rita Seymour • Page 4 August 24, 1989 I hope this satisfactorily addresses your questions. If you need further clarifications, or other questions come up, please contact me. Sin rely, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection RAW:mll Enclosures Ron, I have a number of questions regarding home occupation permits in BC. I thought it might be easier for me to write my questions and give you time to reply. Thank you! 1. Do you know how many permits there are for home occupations (at this time) in Brooklyn Center? What types of businesses operate from homes in BC? Could you name some? Could you provide a few names of some people I can contact to ask about their home occupations? M i is going 2. The M Monday night said he believes the city g g too far" with these permits. Do you see it as a problem? Why would it be a problem? What kinds of businesses are most likely to result in problmms for neighbors, city? 3. Splinter said the planning commission is going to study this issue. When will you do that? What areas will you look at? When might you report your findings to the council? 4. What is the current regulation (s) for home occupations in BC? What kind of restrictions t= do people have? How do you make a decision as to whether a permit is mssued or not? How long is a permit good for? Can a permon have a life -long permit? Are there any occupations that could not receive a permit? 5. In our opinion, are here too man home occ �" —� -� Y P t Y P permits in Brooklyn Center? 6. If your planning commission changes any regulations regarding future permits, what will these new regulations do to the existing businesses in residential zones ? — (In homes) . 7. Do people ha &e to pay any type of fee for being issued a permit? Do they have to be licensed by the state or do they need any other type of permit? Ron, I know I ve asked a zillion questions and this is why I thought it'd be easier to put them on paper. Please answer as many as possible, and I will call Wednesday late afternoon or Thursday to see if you wd&e have completed these questions. I appreciate your time, and sorry for the typos! If you need more time, I can wait until Friday morning. That's my deadline. Thanks again, i 4zt� 6c �� 35 -400 12. In instances where an existing one or two family structure in a residential zoning district is deficient in its setback from the front, �\ side, or rear property line by not more than 30% of the setback requirement, the structure may be expanded along the existing building line, provided there is no greater encroachment into the required yard area. This provision in no way permits the expansion of a conforming structure resulting in a setback less than established by this ordinance. Section 35 -405. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS: 1. No home occupation shall produce light, glare, noise, odor or vibration perceptible beyond the boundaries of the lot. 2. No home occupation shall involve the use of any accessory structures or installations. 3. No home occupation shall involve the use of equipment qu pment other than that customarily found in a residential dwelling unit. 4. No home occupation shall involve the retail sale of merchandise produced off the lot. 5. No home occupation shall involve the employment on the lot of persons who are not members of the family residing on the lot. 6. No home occupation providing day care shall serve more than twelve (12) children in the R1 district, five (5) children in the R2 and R3 districts, or five (5) children, including children of the family occupying a dwelling unit in other residential districts (R4 through R7). This subsection is not intended to supersede any lease arrangements which may be more restrictive. 7. No home occupation shall cause traffic congestion on the lot containing the home occupation or on the streets adjacent thereto. 8. No automobile parking related to the home occupation shall be permitted on the street. Section 35 -406 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATIONS: 1. All special home occupations shall require approval of a special use permit pursuant to Section 35 -220 of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance. 2. No s p al home occupation shall use more than one accessory structure or installation and such structure or installation must be a permitted use under Section 35 -310 and Section 35 -311 of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance. 3. A special home occupation may use equipment not customarily found in a residential dwelling unit. 35 -406 - 4. No special home occupation shall employ, at any one time, more than one person who is not a member of the family occupying the dwelling unit. 5. No special home occupation may include the teaching of more than ten (10) students at one time who are not members of the family occupying the dwelling unit. 6. No special home occupation shall cause traffic congestion on the lot containing the special home occupation or on the streets adjacent thereto. 7. No automobile parking related to the special home occupation shall be permitted on the street provided, however, that upon a finding that the special home occupation is not feasible without on street parking, the City Council may authorize parking on the street based upon a consideration of Section 35 -220.2 and of the following: a. The amount of the applicant's street frontage. b. The rights of adjacent residents to park on the street. C. Preservation of the residential character of the neighborhood. 8. No special home occupation shall produce light, glare, noise, odor or vibration erce t' able beyond e P the boundaries P y ies of the lot. 9. No special home occupation shall include the retail sale of merchandise produced off the lot. Section 35 -410. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS IN R3, R4, R5, R6 AND R7 DISTRICTS. 1_ All storage shall be contained wholly within an enclosed building. 2. The incineration of waste matter shall be conducted in approved equipment located within the building wherein the permitted use is conducted. Equipment shall be considered "approved" when approved by the zoning official and sanitarian. 3. Where a proposed R3, R4, R5, R6, or R7 development abuts an Rl or R2 district other than at a public street line, buffer provisions shall be established. There shall be rovided a protective strip not t less t wide P than 25 feet w i e in the case of 6 R and R7 uses and not less than 15 feet wide in the case of R3, R4 and R5 uses. The protective strip _shall contain an opaque fence or a Council approved substitute. The protective strip shall be landscaped and not be used for arkin es, driveways, P g, gara g off-street r st g rag The screening device design must be approved by the City Council as being in harmony with the residential neighborhood and rovidin sufficient screening of the multiple dwelling area. A proposed fence shall be no less than four feet in height and shall not extend within 10 feet of any street right -of -way. . r 35 -900 But shall not include the following: 1. Garages, open porches, and open patios. Floor /area ratio - The numerical value obtained through dividing the gross floor area of a building or buildings by the total area of the lot or parcel of land on which such building is located. Garage, private - An accessory building or an accessory portion of the dwelling building intended for or used to store private passenger vehicles of the families resident upon the premises and in which no business, service or industry connected directly or indirectly with automotive vehicles may be carried on. Garage - school bus - A building, or portion of a building, used for the storage of school buses (defined in M.S.A. Section 169.01, Subdivision 6), or where any such vehicles are kept for remuneration or hire, excluding major repair of such vehicles. Green Strip - An area containing only vegetation such as grass, trees, flowers, hedges, and other related landscaping materials, and maintained expressly for such purpose. Group Day Care Facility - A facility licensed by the Minnesota Department of Public Welfare to provide child care for six or more children at one time. This term also includes, but is not limited to, facilities having programs for children known as nursery schools, day nurseries, child care centers, play groups, day care centers, cooperative day care centers and Head Start programs. Home Occupation - Subject to the further limitations of Section 35 -405 of the Zoning Ordinance, a home occupation is any gainful occupation or profession, carried on within a dwelling unit, by a family member residing within a dwelling unit, which is clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the dwelling unit and the lot upon which it is constructed, including, without limitation, dressmaking, secretarial services, professional offices, answering services, individual music or art instruction, individual hobby crafts, and day care and similar activities. Home Occupation Special - Subject to the further limitations of Section 35 -406 hereof, and subject to approval by the City Council, a special home occupation is any gainful occupation or profession carried on within a dwelling unit or any permitted accessory buildings or installations on a lot, by a family member residing within the dwelling unit, which is clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the dwelling unit, the accessory structures, and the lot upon which it is constructed, including, without limitation, barber and beauty services, shoe repair, photography studios, group lessons, saw sharpening, motor driven appliances and small engine repair, and similar activities. Hotel - A building which provides a common entrance, lobby, and stairways, and in which lodging is commonly offered with or without meals for periods of less than a week. l l Licenses to be approved by the City Council on July 9, 1990: AMUSEMENT DEVICES - OPERATOR Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. N. Brookdale East Cinema 5801 John Martin Drive Children's Palace 5900 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Days Inn 1501 Freeway Boulevard Ground Round, Inc. 2545 County Road 10 Holiday Inn 2200 Freeway Boulevard K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Drive LaCasita Restaurant 2101 Freeway Boulevard Scoreboard Pizza 6816 Humboldt Ave. N. T. Wright's 5800 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Chief of Police r AMUSEMENT DEVICES - VENDOR `o Theisen Vending Co. 3804 Nicollet Ave. N. dylef of Police v GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLES Twin City Sanitation 279 Meadowood Lane Walz Bros. Sanitation, Inc. P. 0. Box 627 C/�n Sanitarian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Blaine Heating, Air Cond. & Electric 13562 Central Ave. NE Key etalcraft Inc. Y 8201 Pleasant Ave. S. Building Official �i� SWIMMING POOL The Village at River West 507 - 70th Ave. N. � Sanitarian GENERAL APPROVAL: � \) .���� D. K. Weeks, City Clerk (3k--