HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 10-15 CCP Regular Session �
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
OCTOBER 15, 1990
7 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Invocation
4. Open Forum
5. Approval of Consent Agenda
-All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be
routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one
motion. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event
the item will be removed from the consent agenda and
considered in its normal sequence on the agenda.
6. Approval of Minutes:
*a. September 24 199 -
p 0 Regular Session
7. Proclamation:
a. Declaring October 22 -28, 1990, as Red Ribbon Campaign
Week in Minnesota
*b. Declaring October 21 -27, 1990, as National Business
Women's Week
8. Performance Bond Releases:
*a. City County Credit Union, 6010 Earle Brown Drive
*b. Irwin Ketroser, 6525, 27, 29 Willow Lane
9. Mayoral Appointments:
*a. Election Judges for November 6, 1990, General Election
10. Final Plat Approvals:
*a. Korman Addition
11. Review of Annual Budget for North Metro Convention and
Tourism Bureau
12. Resolutions:
*a. Approving Purchase Agreements for 69th Avenue Right -Of-
Way, Improvement Project No. 1990 -10
*b. Accepting Proposal from Delta Environmental
Consultants, Inc. to Conduct Contamination Survey Re:
69th Avenue Right -Of -Way Acquisition
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- October 15, 1990
*c. Accepting Proposal to Install New Water Service Line to
Willow Lane Park, Improvement Project No. 1990 -23
- Funding for this improvement is provided in the 1990
General Fund Budget for the Parks Maintenance Division
69
*d. Accepting Bid and Proposal for Central Park Athletic
Field Irrigation System, Improvement Project No. 1990-
07, Contract No. 1990 -1
*e. Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of
Diseased Shade Trees (Order No. DST 10/15/90)
f. Increasing the Fee to be Charged for the Processing of
Returned Checks Issued to the City of Brooklyn Center
g. Approving Purchase of a Storage Cabinet for the Police
Department Using Drug Forfeiture Funds
h. Recommendation to the Supreme Court Advisory Committee
on the Rules of Criminal Procedure to Rescind the
Amendments to Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure
8.04 and 11.07
i. Approving Revised Cost Distribution for the
Construction of the Twin Lake /Ryan Lake Improvement
Project and Amending the 1990 General Fund Budget
13. Planning Commission Item: (7:30 p.m.)
a. Planning Commission Application No. 90025 submitted by
Kathleen Holst requesting a special use permit to
operate a home beauty shop in the basement of the
residence at 6107 Bryant Avenue North
-This item was recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission at its September 27, 1990, meeting.
14. Discussion Item:
a. Staff Report Regarding Special Assessments to
Properties at 5500 Bryant Avenue North
b. Charter Commission Recommendations
*15. Licenses
16. Adjournment
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY
OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
SEPTEMBER 24, 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 :05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Todd Paulson, Jerry Pedlar, and
Philip Cohen. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of
Public Works Sy Knapp, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and
Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, City Engineer Mark
Maloney, Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone, Public Works Coordinator Diane
Spector, and Administrative Aide Patti Page.
INVOCATION
The invocation was offered by Reverend Bob Cilke of the Brooklyn Center Prayer
Breakfast Committee.
OPEN FORUM
Mayor Nyquist noted he had received two requests for open forum session this
evening. He then recognized Ms. Friestad, 6100 Summit Drive. Ms. Friestad
stated she lives in the Earle Brown Commons and stated she has been speaking
with City staff since April regarding the air conditioning unit at the Heritage
Center. She explained the residents of Earle Brown Commons had been told there
would be results by September 30; however, at this point nothing has been done.
She then introduced Harvey Anderson, also a resident of 6100 Summit Drive. Mr.
Anderson stated the noise which the air conditioning units make is very
annoying. He stated he wears hearing aids in both ears, and they pick up the
noise of the air conditioning units over that of the human voice. He stated he
felt it would be best if the equipment could be moved to the other end of the
building; however, he understands it would be impossible to do that at this
point. He stated he trusts the City Council will find some other means to limit
the noise.
The City Manager stated staff has been reviewing this problem and has decided on
a course of action. He noted there would be two phases in which to correct the
noise. He noted initially a concrete wall will be built around the unit, and
this should be complete by October 15. He stated after the wall is built, tests
will be conducted; and if there is still a noise problem, they will go on to
phase II.
Mayor Nyquist then recognized Bruce Krueger and Jagdish Trivedi, 5500 Bryant
Avenue North. Mr. Trivedi stated he just found out last Friday about the
special assessments on his property. He noted he purchased this property in the
spring of 1990 and has been doing extensive work to the apartment building. He
noted at times his mail goes unnoticed. The Director of Public Works stated the
9/24/90 -1-
assessments were pending in August of 1989, and the City Council approved the
assessment levy on September 10, 1990. He stated staff has a signed receipt
that shows that the owner did receive notice prior to the public hearing. Mr.
Trivedi stated he has some questions as to whether the diseased trees were ever
on his property. Councilmember Cohen stated he feels staff should review this
issue with the property owners. He noted Mr. Krueger and Mr. Trivedi have
brought this rental ro ert a long ways since it was purchased. He noted the
P P Y g Y P Y
should be given the chance for staff review.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from
the consent agenda. No requests were made.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10 1990 - REGULAR SESSION
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson
to approve the minutes of the September 10, 1990, City Council meeting. The
motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTIONS
I
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -209
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE AGREEMENTS FOR 69TH AVENUE RIGHT -OF -WAY,
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION
ION N0. 90 210
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT CITY GARAGE, IMPROVEMENT 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.
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -211
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS FOR REPLACEMENT OF BOILER BURNERS FOR HVAC SYSTEM
SERVING THE CIVIC CENTER, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -20, CONTRACT 1990 -H
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -212
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR
BIDS FOR CENTRAL PARK ATHLETIC FIELD IRRIGATION SYSTEM, IMPROVEMENT P ROJECT NO
9/24/90 -2-
1990 -07
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -213
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR SENIOR CITIZEN DEFERMENT OF PORTIONS OF CERTIFIED
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -214
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 9/24/90)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously.
LICENSES
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson
to approve the following list of licenses:
COMMERCIAL KENNEL
Brooklyn Pet Hospital and Clinic 4902 France Ave. N.
Snyder Brothers Drug Store 1296 Brookdale Center
GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLES
Waste Management - Blaine 10050 Naples St. NE
ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
Boy Scouts of America Troop 299 7200 Brooklyn Blvd.
Brooklyn Center Lions 6500 Humboldt Ave. N.
Earle Brown Elementary School 5900 Humboldt Ave. N.
Harron United Methodist Church 5452 Dupont Ave. N.
Korean Presbyterian Church 6830 Quail Ave. N.
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS
Bowler Plumbing & Heating 511 E. Lake St.
Southern Mechanical, Inc. 900 B & H Industrial Ct.
RENTAL DWELLINGS
Initial:
C. J. Schaber 5956 Beard Ave. N.
Boulevard Properties 5837 Brooklyn Blvd.
Dorothy Ostrom 6025 Brooklyn Blvd.
Michael V. Nelson 6206 Brooklyn Blvd.
Robert & Cheryl Hagen 5618 Logan Ave. N.
9/24/90 -3-
Steve Loechler 5736 Logan Ave. N.
Ivan Nohner 3024 Nash Road
Dorothy & Sigurd Follese 5115 E. Twin Lake Blvd.
Kenneth R. Johnson 5301 Winchester Lane
Norton Rockler 1329 63rd Lane North
Joseph & Patricia Simmon 2913 64th Ave. N.
Renewal:
Bennie Rozman Brookdale Ten Apartments
James Just/Welcome Home, Inc. 6451 Brooklyn Blvd.
Dwight Jereczek
g 6319 1 Brookl yn Drive
Don McGillivray 5740 Dupont Ave. N.
Tracy Rice 5801 Ewing Ave. N.
Timothy & Karen Pfingsten 6706 Grimes Ave. N.
Jim Johnson 4201 Lakeside Ave. N. #216
Tracy Rice 5836 Xerxes Ave. N.
Marlyn & Gayle Kruse 2101 71st Ave. N.
Victor & Jean Huang 3813 72nd Ave. N.
SIGN HANGER
Kaufman Sign Co. 103 lst Ave. NE
Topline Outdoor Advertising, Inc. 1493 94th Lane NE
The motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED)
The City Manager presented a Resolution Amending the 1990 General Fund Budget to
Purchase Equipment Necessary for Conversion of the Police Department's LOGIS
Computer System. The City Manager explained this conversion of the Police
Department's computer system was proposed a few years ago. He noted after the
first LOGIS member cities converted to the new system, they found major problems
with the programs, and the decision was made to research other programs to
select a new one. He noted the conversion cost was carried over into the
following year's budget, but when the new program was again delayed, the
decision was made to drop the conversion as a budget item and request the
funding when the conversion was available. Councilmember Pedlar asked the City
Manager to explain some of the benefits to the City. The City Manager stated
this new equipment and software is much more user friendly than the old
equipment, and this means patrol officers and investigators will also be able to
use this system quite easily. Councilmember Paulson stated he drove around with
an on -duty patrol officer one evening from 8 p.m. to 2:30 a.m. during which time
they stopped in the dispatch area. He noted the dispatchers have many duties
and noted that anything the Council can do to lighten their load should be
approved.
There was a general consensus among Councilmembers to approve the Option One
resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -215
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1990 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO PURCHASE EQUIPMENT NECESSARY
9/24/90 -4-
i
FOR CONVERSION OF POLICE DEPARTMENT'S LOGIS COMPUTER SYSTEM
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously.
DISCUSSION ITEM
HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESOURCES COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION
PROGRAM
The Personnel Coordinator stated at the September 12, 1990, Human Rights and
Resources Commission meeting, commission reviewed and discussed the
e h
transportation needs assessment survey which was conducted by Northwest Hennepin
Human Services Council. She noted the Commissioners felt the survey results
confirm their previous assumption that a need exists for alternative
transportation for certain citizens in the City, including low income residents.
She noted the commission is recommending to the City Council that the commission
should work with the regional transit board to draft a grant application to the
Regional Transit Board (RTB) for a dial -a -ride program that would start up in
1992. She stated once the grant application is drafted, it will be presented to
the City Council for review and approval prior to final submittal to the RTB.
The City Manager stated currently the City provides funding towards the five
city transit program. He noted this funding would be withdrawn if the City
begins a new transportation program.
There was a motion b Councilmember Pedlar and seconded b Councilmember Paulson
Y y n
directing the Human Rights and Resources Commission to develop a grant
application, with the assistance of the RTB, for a dial -a -ride transportation
program. The commission is further directed to present a draft of the grant
application to the City Council for review and approval prior to submittal to
the RTB. The motion passed unanimously.
ORDINANCES
The City Manager presented An Ordinance Vacating Utility and Drainage Easements
in Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2, Dale and Davies 2nd Addition. He noted
this item was first read on August 27, 1990, published in the City's official
newspaper on September 5, 1990, and is offered this evening for a second
reading. He noted the owners of the subject property, Northwest Racquette, Swim
and Health Clubs, Inc., have requested this vacation.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An
Ordinance Vacating Utility Drainage Easements in Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block
2, Dale and Davies 2nd Addition. 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 on An Ordinance Vacating Utility and Drainage
Easements in Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2, Dale and Davies 2nd Addition.
The motion passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 90 -16
Member Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption:
9/24/90 -5-
i
AN ORDINANCE VACATING UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS IN LOT 2, BLOCK 1 AND LOT
1, BLOCK 2, DALE AND DAVIES 2ND ADDITION
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by
member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City
Ordinances Regarding the Zoning of Certain Land. He noted this item was first
read on August 27, 1990, published in the City's official newspaper on September
5, 1990, and is offered this evening for a second reading. He explained this
ordinance amendment describes six parcels of land located between I -94 and
Summit Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway and T.H. 100 that were rezoned from I -1
to C1A under Planning Commission Application No. 90022.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An
Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning of
Certain Land. 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 Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City
Ordinances Regarding the Zoning of Certain Land. The motion passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 90 -17
Member Philip Cohen introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING OF
CERTAIN LAND
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by
member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously.
RECESS
The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 7:32 p.m. and reconvened at 7:51
p.m.
RENEWAL OF PRIVATE KENNEL LICENSE - 4206 66TH AVENUE NORTH
The City Manager stated on July 24, 1989, the City Council approved a private
kennel license for Sara Wiegard, 4206 66th Avenue North. He noted this license
will expire on September 30, 1990. He explained at the time of the original
approval, the Council specified the final expiration of the license as September
30, 1991. He noted there has been one complaint registered with the Police
Department since the July 24, 1989, approval. He stated the City Sanitarian and
staff recommend approval of this application subject to two conditions. He
explained the two conditions were payment of the $30 license fee prior to
September 30, 1990, and proof of rabies vaccination for the cats.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing for renewal
of private kennel license - 4206 66th Avenue North. Ms. Wiggins stated she
thought the license was a three -year license under the ordinance.
9/24/90 -6-
Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else 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 for renewal of a private kennel license at 4206 66th
Avenue North. The motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
approve renewal of the private kennel license at 4206 66th Avenue North subject
to the following conditions:
1. Payment of the $30 license fee prior to September 30, 1990.
2. Proof of rabies vaccination for the cats.
The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
The City Manager noted these are continuations of the public hearings regarding
special assessments which were conducted on September 10, 1990, then adjourned.
He noted the recording secretary would be tape recording the proceedings of this
portion of the meeting. The Director of Public Works stated individual notices
have been sent to all owners in question. He noted staff has received signed
receipts from all property owners with the exception of Lynn Torkildson who
appeared regarding item No. 10e.
The Director of Public Works introduced the public hearing regarding street
improvement project No. 1988 -18, West River Road from 66th to 73rd Avenues
North. He noted at the September 10, 1990, meeting the City Council directed
staff to review all the extra large lots in this area and to make a
recommendation regarding the assessment policy. He noted Mr. Ramos, at 6836
West River Road and Mr. Olson, 7200 West River Road, both appeared at the
meeting on September 10. He noted under the established City policy, these two
lots could be assessed for two buildable lots. He noted there were two
additional properties which were also quite large and could be subdivided at a
later date. He went on to review transparencies of each of the four properties
describing for the Council how the lots could be subdivided. He noted Mr.
Ramos' property could easily be subdivided into two lots if the existing home
were not on the lot. He added it would also be possible to develop this lot
into two buildable lots without removing the house. He stated the Olson
property could be subdivided into two lots and meet the requirements of the
zoning ordinance only if the existing home were removed. He then went on to
review the property at 6842 West River Road, noting this lot could easily be
subdivided into two or three buildable lots with the current location of the
home. He added if the house were removed, it could be subdivided into four
lots. He then reviewed the property at 6712 West River Road noting this
property could only be subdivided if the property were allowed a variance from
zoning ordinances. Councilmember Cohen inquired if the Council approves the
assessments on the properties as only one buildable lot per address could the
Council then collect an additional special assessment if the lot were subdivided
in the future. The City Attorney stated this would not be possible because
9/24/90 -7-
state laws do not allow the deferment of special assessments for street
improvements.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing regarding
street improvement project No. 1988 -18, West River Road from 66th to 73rd
Avenues North. He recognized William Olson, 7200 West River Road. Mr. Olson
noted his property is on the corner and inquired if he would still be able to
defer the assessment because of the corner policy. The Director of Public Works
stated Mr. Olson could defer the assessment and his property would be subject to
an assessment at the time of a street improvement on 72nd Avenue, Mayor Nyquist
inquired if there was anyone else 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 Scott
to close the public hearing on street improvement project No. 1988 -18, West
River Road from 66th to 73rd Avenues North. The motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Cohen stated he has some concerns with assessing property owners
on the basis they own enough property to subdivide into other potential
buildable lots. He stated he is leaning towards the policy if there is one home
on the property, then it should be considered one buildable lot for assessment
purposes. He did note, however, he is troubled that in the future if the
property is subdivided, the City could not recover these costs. Councilmember
Pedlar stated he shares the same concerns which Councilmember Cohen expressed.
There was a brief discussion regarding the current policy for deferment of
assessments if the property is located on a corner.
Councilmember Cohen stated he is in favor of a policy that would remove the
option of creating other buildable lots out of these large lots. He stated he
felt this area is ideal for zoning of large estate type lots.
The Director of Public Works stated he would recommend the City Council adopt a
motion for each parcel and then adopt the resolution. He noted Mr. Olson's
property at 7200 West River Road is eligible for the deferment because it is a
corner lot.
There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar
to approve the assessment for the property at 6836 West River Road at the rate
for one lot (i.e. $1,351).
Councilmember Cohen inquired if the Council would be setting a precedent
approving these assessments, The City Attorney stated that would be difficult
to predict. He noted it would depend primarily on the reasons for the Council's
decision. If the Council decided to reduce the assessment solely because these
particular lots did not receive sufficient benefit to justify the assessment,
there would be no adverse precedent established. If, on the other hand, the
Council believes that a subdividable lot never receives more benefit, then it
could have some difficulty justifying a contrary decision in the future;
however, if this is the case, the Council should amend the policy. Mayor
Nyquist inquired who would pay for the difference in the cost. The City Manager
stated local state aid funds would pay the difference. Mr. Olson asked if his
property is subdivided at some time in the future, it would be assessed again
9/24/90 -8-
for improvements to 72nd Avenue, The Director of Public Works stated that a
second assessment could be made, but that such a decision should be made by the
City Council at the time the property is subdivided. It was the consensus of
the City Council that the intent of the motion under consideraiton was that the
benefit received by this property was $1,351.
Upon vote being taken on the foregoing motion, the following voted in favor
thereof: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Paulson, Pedlar, and Cohen. The
following voted against: Councilmember Scott. The motion passed.
Mayor Nyquist inquired if Mr. Olson wished to defer the assessment. Mr. Olson
stated he would like to have his property considered as one buildable lot and be
assessed now.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to
approve the assessment for the property at 7200 West River Road at $1,351. The
motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar
to approve the assessment ssment for the ro ert at 6842 West River Road at 1 351
P P Y $ � .
The motion passed. Councilmember Scott was opposed.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson
to approve the assessment for the property at 6712 West River Road at $1,351.
The motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -216
Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -18 TO
THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -217
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION DELETING ONE ASSESSMENT FROM LEVY #11799
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 public hearing regarding weed destruction special
assessments. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public
hearing regarding weed destruction special assessments. He recognized Richard
Adams, 7205 Fremont Avenue North. Mr. Adams stated the Director of Public Works
has said he received the weed notice. He stated he never did receive this
notice. He added the notice said that it took two and one /half hours to cut his
property. He noted he can cut his property in under one hour. The Director of
Public Works explained the signature on the certified mail receipt was that of
Mr. Adams' ex -wife. Mayor Nyquist inquired how Mr. Adams'ex -wife came to sign
9/24/90 -9-
this receipt. Mr. Adams stated he did not know how his wife was able to sign
the receipt. He noted he bought his ex- wife's share of the house from her in
May of 1988. He stated he may have been out of town on vacation in August of
1989. He noted if he were out of town his son was to take care of the yard.
The City Attorney pointed out failure to provide notice does not invalidate the
project. He noted that is not to say the Council cannot choose to give some
relief to the property owner. Councilmember Scott stated she drove past this
property and stated she did not see how it could take someone two and one/half
hours to mow the yard. Councilmember Cohen pointed out there is quite a
difference in mowing a yard that is a normal height and cutting 8" or 9" of
grass. Mr. Adams stated if his ex -wife was the person that was notified and
signed for this receipt, then she should be responsible for paying the
assessment. Mayor Nyquist pointed out that Mr. Adams' ex -wife does not own the
property. Mr. Adams stated he intends to hire an attorney and fight this case.
Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else 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 Scott
to close the public hearing regarding weed destruction special assessments. The
motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Cohen
to affirm the staff's recommendation of certifying the special assessment as
proposed.
Councilmember Scott stated she feels an excessive amount of time was spent on
the property even if the grass were 8" high. She stated she would like to amend
the motion to reduce the assessment to $85.80. Councilmember Cohen inquired how
Councilmember Scott came up with this figure. Councilmember Scott stated she
took the cutting cost, divided it in half and added the $50 surcharge.
Councilmember Scott's amendment died for lack of a second.
The original motion passed with Councilmember Scott opposed.
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -218
Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING ONE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR WEED DESTRUCTION TO THE
HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed with Councilmember Scott opposed.
The City Manager introduced a public hearing regarding alley improvement project
No. 1989 -16, Emerson /Fremont, 53rd to 54th Avenues. The Director of Public
Works briefly reviewed slides which showed the alley prior to the improvement
and after the improvement. He noted Ms. Rosenow, whose property is at 5537
Emerson Avenue, states she cannot drive her car into her ara e. He stated she
g g
therefore does not feel she has a direct access to the alley. The Director of
9/24/90 -10-
Public Works noted he drove his car into the alley and turned into the garage
from both directions. He noted he has slides showing his car parked in her
garage entrance. He noted the one problem which Ms. Rosenow may have is that
she has a larger car than he does which may make it more difficult. He added
after much review staff is still recommending the direct access assessment rate.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on alley
improvement project No. 1989 -16, Emerson /Fremont, 53rd to 54th Avenues. He
recognized Ms. Rosenow, 5537 Emerson Avenue North. Ms. Rosenow stated she
wished the Director of Public Works would have called her so he could show her
how to park her car in the garage. She inquired if he would like to try parking
the car in the garage in the winter when the snow is piled high on the corners.
Councilmember Cohen inquired if Ms. Rosenow parks her car in the garage at all.
Ms. Rosenow stated she does not park her car in the garage, but she stores her
lawnmower and snow blower in the garage. She presented for the Council pictures
of her property when she and her husband first purchased it and recent pictures.
Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else 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 Scott
to close the public hearing on alley improvement project No. 1989 -16,
Emerson /Fremont 53rd to 54th Avenues. The motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Cohen noted Ms. Rosenow's request seems reasonable but noted staff
has defined indirect and direct access quite clearly. Councilmember Paulson
inquired if there has been an application for deferment. The Director of Public
Works stated Ms. Rosenow has not indicated she wants to defer her assessment.
There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott
affirming the staff's recommendation that one "direct access" special assessment
be levied.
Councilmember Paulson inquired what the cost of the indirect assessment would
be. The Public Works Coordinator stated the cost of an indirect assessment
would be $430.
Councilmember Cohen noted if the Council were to grant Ms. Rosenow her request,
then everyone else along the project who does not use their garage could come
back and ask for indirect access. He stated he would like to be able to grant
Ms. Rosenow's request, but just because she does not use her garage does not
mean a future owner will not use the garage. Councilmember Scott pointed out a
direct access assessment was charged to a property owner who does not even own a
car. Councilmember Cohen inquired if the problem for Ms. Rosenow is that there
is too much snow piled up around her garage in the winter. He inquired if it
would help if the snow were plowed differently. The Mayor stated the question
this evening is access or no access to the garage. He noted quite clearly there
is access to the garage.
The original motion passed with Councilmember Cohen opposed.
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -219
9/24/90 -11-
i
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING ONE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -16
TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager presented a public hearing regarding alley improvement project
No. 1989 -17, Lakeview /Twin Lake Avenue, Lakebreeze to Lakeside Avenues. The
Director of Public Works stated Betty Enge, 4748 and 4752 Twin Lake Avenue
appeared at the September 10, 1990, special assessment hearing. He noted Ms.
Enge's double bungalow is situated across the property line of two legal lots of
record which have been combined for tax purposes. He stated the structure has a
tuck under double garage which is accessed from Twin Lake, and a double garage
behind the house with a large driveway and parking area accessed from the alley.
He briefly reviewed some slides which showed the area before and after the
improvement. He explained because the parcel contains two legal lots of record,
two unit assessments are proposed. He noted since the house has vehicular
access from both the alley and the street, it was proposed one unit be
identified as "direct access" and one as "indirect access
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on alley
improvement project No. 1989 -17, Lakeview /Twin Lake Avenue, Lakebreeze to
Lakeside Avenues. Ms. Enge noted in the past the renters have never used the
garage in the back. She stated she would like an explanation of why she was not
allowed to put a driveway in that went straight out to Lakebreeze instead of
onto the alley. The Director of Public Works stated it is the City's policy to
install the improvement based on the existing conditions.
The Director of Planning and Inspection left the meeting at 9:50 p.m.
Ms. Enge stated if she had been allowed to put the driveway straight out to
Lakebreeze Avenue, it could have saved the City and her some money. There was
some discussion as to the estimated cost of this type of driveway.
Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else 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 Scott
to close the public hearing regarding alley improvement project No. 1989 -17,
Lakeview /Twin Lake Avenue, Lakebreeze to Lakeside Avenues. The motion passed
unanimously.
Councilmember Pedlar stated he has some concerns with why Ms. Enge's request to
move her driveway was not addressed. The Director of Public Works pointed out
the final decision regarding the special assessments is made by the Council at
the time of the special assessment hearing. He noted the assessments should not
change whether the driveway exited to the alley or to Lakebreeze Avenue because
the assessment is based on the existing condition of the property prior to the
improvement. Mayor Nyquist stated in his opinion it appears Ms. Enge should be
assessed for two direct access units. He noted he feels staff is being more
0
9/24/90 -12-
than generous by offering the compromise of one direct access and one indirect
access.
There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott
affirming the staff's recommendation to levy one unit at the direct access rate,
and one at the indirect access rate. The motion passed with Councilmember
Pedlar opposed.
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -220
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING ONE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -17
TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed with Councilmember Pedlar opposed.
The City Manager presented a public hearing regarding street improvement project
No. 1989 -26, 65th /66th Avenues between Humboldt Avenue and T.H. 252. The
Director of Public Works noted Lynn Torkildson, 6620 Camden Drive, cited several
reasons why she felt she and the other property owners within Riverwood
Townhomes should not be assessed for this project. He went on to review the
issues which she raised and the staff's comments on these issues.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing regarding
street improvement project No. 1989 -26, 65th /66th Avenues between Humboldt
Avenue and T.H. 252. He recognized Lynn Torkildson, 6620 Camden Drive. Ms.
Torkildson stated she did not receive her information until today. She added
she does have an attorney working on this case, but he could not be present this
evening because of such short notice. Ms. Torkildson inquired why Chippewa Park
Apartments and Georgetown Park Townhomes are zoned differently and Georgetown
Park Townhomes and Riverwood Townhomes are zoned the same. The City Manager
explained this is due to the comprehensive plan. He pointed out ownership has
nothing to do with zoning of property. Ms. Torkildson inquired where she would
go to start the process to change the zoning of Riverwood Townhomes. The City
Manager stated she should speak with the Director of Planning and Inspection.
The Director of Public Works pointed out zoning has to do with the density of an
area; however, ownership is dictated by the developer not the City. Ms.
Torkildson stated her attorney has told her the project must benefit her and her
property in order for the City to levy an assessment. She stated she does not
see any benefit from this improvement. She added she also feels the turnlane
hinders the residents of Riverwood Townhomes. She noted there have been several
near accidents because cars have no where to go when there is someone turning
right into this area. The Director of Public Works stated unfortunately the
contractor did make an error on the turnlanes and did not mark them correctly.
He noted at this point there is some confusion, but he hopes when the changes
are made it will help.
Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else who wished to address the
Council. No one appeared to speak, and he entertained a motion to close the
public hearing.
9/24/90 -13-
There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar
to close the public hearing regarding street improvement project No. 1989 -26,
65th /66th Avenues between Humboldt Avenue and T.H. 252. The motion passed
unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Cohen
affirming the staff's recommendation to certify this special assessment as
proposed. The motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -221
Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -26 TO
THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City
Council adjourned at 10:28 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
9/24/90 _
14 _
PROCLAMATION
DECLARING OCTOBER _22 -28, 1990 AS RED RIBBON CAMPAIGN WEEK
WHEREAS, alcohol and other drug abuse in the United States has
reached epidemic stages, and the 15 -24 year old age
group is dying at a faster rate than any other age
group; and
WHEREAS, red ribbons have been chosen as a symbol of individual
and community efforts to reduce the demand for drugs in
our communities; and
WHEREAS, October 22 -28, 1990, is Red Ribbon Campaign Week in
Minnesota, and Governor Rudy Perpich and Senator Rudy
Boschwitz are the State Honorary Chairpersons of the
Red Ribbon Campaign; and
WHEREAS, business, government, law enforcement, schools,
religious institutions, service organizations,
communities, neighborhoods, youth, senior citizens, and
individuals will demonstrate their commitment to help
reduce and prevent alcohol and other drug abuse by
wearing and displaying red ribbons during the Red
Ribbon Campaign.
BE IT RESOLVED that October 22 -28, 1990, be declared Red Ribbon
0 Campaign Week throughout Brooklyn Center; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Brooklyn Center, in
recognition of this event, supports the activities sponsored by
the Red Ribbon Campaign and encourages community participation in
drug awareness, education, and prevention activities.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, State
of Minnesota, do hereby proclaim the week of October 22 -28, 1990,
as Red Ribbon Campaign Week in the City of Brooklyn Center.
Date Mayor
Attest:
Clerk
(Seal)
Newspaper
Celebrate Minnesota - October 22nd through October 28, 1990
RED RIBBON WEEK - A Symbol of Commitment and Prevention
RED RIBBON WEEK (October 22 -28, 1990)is a national effort whereby
Minnesotans and other concerned citizens nationwide will join
together toward a commit -ment to reduce and prevent the abuse of
alcohol and other drugs.
RED RIBBON WEEK theme in Minnesota is prevention, a proactive
process (which empowers individuals and social systems to meet
the challenges of life events by creating and reinforcing conditions
that promote healthy behavior and life styles.)
Hennepin County has a new Prevention Center that is now offering
services to organizations throughout the county. The mission of the
Hennepin County Prevention Center for alcohol and other drug use
problems is to mobilize community support and act as a catalyst to
increase and coordinate community prevention efforts. Its purpose
is to enhance the chemical health of Hennepin County residents -
with a focus on youth and families. The Hennepin County Prevention
Center will be joining national and state efforts during RED RIBBON
WEEK, by working with concerned citizens of Hennepin County to
develop special plans for that week.
Celebrate Minnesota by showing your commitment. Tie a red ribbon
to your mailbox or car antenna. Also, plan red ribbon activities in
your community, neighborhood, church, organization, civic group and
family. Prevention is an on -going effort - not just something
everyone focuses on during RED RIBBON WEEK, but this special time
helps draw our community's attention to this important issue.
For ideas or suggestions for RED RIBBON WEEK, contact:
Hennepin County Prevention Center at 348 -6122
PROCLAMATION
0 DECLARING OCTOBER 21 -27, 1990 AS NATIONAL BUSINESS WOMEN'S WEEK
WHEREAS, working women constitute an ever increasing number of
the Nation's working force and are constantly striving
to serve their communities, their states, and their
nation in civic and cultural programs; and
WHEREAS, major goals of business and professional women are to
help create better conditions for business women
through the study of social, educational, economic, and
political problems; to help them be of greater service
to their community; and to further friendship with
women throughout the world; and
WHEREAS, all of us are proud of their leadership in these many
fields of endeavor.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, State
of Minnesota, do hereby proclaim the week of October 21 -27, 1990,
as National Business Women's Week sponsored by the National
Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Inc. and
urge all citizens in the North Hennepin Area, all civic and
fraternal groups, all education associations, all news media, and
other community organizations to join in this salute to working
women by encouraging and promoting the celebration of the
achievements of all business and professional women as they
contribute daily to our economic, civic, and cultural purposes.
Date Mayor
Attest:
Clerk
(Seal)
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 10/15/90
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Performance Guarantee Release: City County Federal Credit Union
6010 Earle Brown Drive
DEPARTMENT APPR L:
Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspection
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report C mments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
The following performance guarantee is recommended for release:
1. City County Federal Credit Union
6010 Earle Brown Drive
Planning Commission Application No. 88019
Amount of Guarantee - $85,000 cashier's check
Obligor - City County Federal Credit Union
All improvements have been installed in accordance with the
approved plan. An as -built survey has also been submitted.
Recommend total release.
Su mitted by,
Gary Shallcross
Planner
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 10/15/90
Agenda Item Number — F !J
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Performance Bond Release:
Irwin Ketroser, 6525, 6527,6529 North Willow Lane
DEPARTMENT APPROV
a.....0 C .
Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspection
MANAGERS REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
3
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
On July 23, 1990 the City Council approved the renewal of Mr. Irwin
Ketroser's license to operate the rental dwellings at 6525, 6527
6529 North Willow Lane. The rental license and the maintenance of
this apartment complex had been a matter of much discussion on the
• part of the City Council for approximately 1 year.
In December, 1989, Mr. Ketroser executed an agreement with the City
to correct a number of housing maintenance ordinance deficiencies
at the complex and posted a $6,000 performance bond to assure
completion of these corrections in order to persuade the City
Council to continue the rental dwelling license for his complex.
All work was to be completed by June 30, 1990.
On July 23, 1990 the City Council was informed that all of the
items agreed to be corrected in the agreement had been completed
with the exception that there were still a few relatively minor
areas along the Willow Lane side of the complex which were still
void of grass. Mr. Ketroser provided the City with a $500 cash
guarantee to assure the completion of the needed seeding and /or
sodding of these areas.
On this basis, the City Council agreed to renew Mr. Ketroser's
rental dwelling license through July 31, 1992 and to release the
$6,000 performance bond being held to complete the various
improvements.
Recommendation
The housing inspector has recently reinspected the property and
reports that the seeding and /or sodding of the areas void of grass
• has been completed in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
It is, therefore, recommended that the $500 cash guarantee being
held to assure completion of these improvements be released to Mr.
Ketroser.
The following persons are recommended for appointment as election judges for the
November 6, 1990, General Election:
Precinct 1 Precinct 6
Chair R -Donna Bennett Chair R- Catherine Wetzel
D- Arlene Groves R -Jo Swart
R- Marian Smith D -Grace Kalleberg
D- Clarice Johnson R- Gloria Weinebarger
R- Mildred Egnell D -Beth Rygh
D -Mary Gwen Stein R -Lora Jefferson
R -Grace Freund D- Clarence Beadles
D- Joanne Goddard
Precinct 2 Precinct 7
Chair R- Gretchen Jackson Chair D -Mona Hintzman
D- Esther Kelsey R- Imelda Mayleben
R -John Fruend D -Helen Julkowski
D- McKevha Thomas R -Donna Jones'
D -Donna Jennrich D -Carol Benkofske
R -Doris Boyum R -Ruth Clark
D- Coletta Anderson R- Angeline Olson
R -Mary Thiebault R -Wendy Erklouts
D -Viola Peterson
Precinct 3 Precinct 8
Chair R -Ann Bystrom Chair R -Trudi Ann Gores
D -Myrna Kragness D -Ethel Pettman
D- Dorothy Nyberg D- Eileen Hannan
R -Joyce Shudy D -Anne Bergquist
D -Donna Wiggins R- Joseph Clark
R- Christine Polis R -Susan Heisler
R -Ethel Demaree D- Dolores Seal
R- Doloris McGeorge
Precinct 4 Precinct 9
Chair D- Luella Torrence Chair D -Rosie Teas
R- Virginia Johnson R -Joann Reavely
R- Thelma Jacobson D -Tracy Tyler, Jr.
D -Helen Bolier R -Mary VanDerWerf
R -L. Darlene Rosholt D -Doris Chapman
D -E. Margaret Trautwein R- Margaret Hurd
R- Lillian Peterson R -Ardis Fairchild
Precinct 5 Absentee Ballot Judges
Chair D -Kay Brosseau D- Marilyn Tyler
R- Gladys Leerhoff R- Barbara Sexton
D- Gloria Voeltz D -Judy Keranen
R- Arlene Kemp R -Ruth Johnson
D- Lorraine Halter
D- Beverly Hovde Standby
R -Lois Froebel R -Geri Ostman
R- Manfred Davidson
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 10/15/
Agenda Rem Number LL
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - KORMANS ADDITION
********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
SY KNAPP, 0t TOR OFel WORKS
MANAGER'S REVIEW RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes )
The applicant, Joe Korman, seeks approval of the final plat of KORMANS ADDITION.
• Previous Council Action
The Council on July 23, 1990, approved the preliminary plat, subject to the
conditions outlined on the attached memorandum.
In addition, staff has further recommended that the plat be mofified to indicate
additional easements adjacent to the property lines.
Staff Recommendation
This plat is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as stated in the
attached memo.
CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
:BYROOKLYN TELEPHONE: 569 -3300
C ENTER FAX: 561 -0717
EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE
911
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Mark Maloney, City Engineer
DATE: October 10, 1990
SUBJ: Final Plat - KORMANS ADDITION
Conditions for release of this final plat, as adopted by the City Council at
its July 23, 1990 meeting, are as follows:
1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City
Ordinances.
0 3. The existing garage shall be relocated off the proposed Lot 2 prior to
release of the plat for filing at the County.
4. The applicant shall enter into an agreement for the payment of utility
hook -up charges to be assessed to Lot 2 prior to release of the plat for
filing.
5. Approval of the subdivision is subject to approval of variance
application No. 90020.
6. The plat shall be modified to indicate a 5' wide drainage and utility
easement along the rear of both Lots 1 and 2.
7. No building permit for a new dwelling or garage on the proposed Lot 2
shall be issued until the plat has received final approval and been
filed at the County.
In addition, I have recommended that the plat be modified to indicate 5' wide
drainage and utility easements adjacent to all interior lot lines and a 10' wide
drainage and utility easement adjacent to Morgan Avenue North.
I recommend approval of the final plat, subject to the above - mentioned conditions.
Respectfully submitted,
;�4 ---
Mark J. Maloney, E. C
City Engineer
,�ul�acaarr
cc: KORMANS ADDITION
KORMANS ADDITION R.T. DOC. NO
No ZI?
39 °2a '4
el
A line :a : 20
_232.4 fee, tiorth line of lo[ 40.
5.09°2845
Soo? "HU�BOLT A DDITIO
s,- so 36 EAS ---
o o
SOU
L ine
LOT
t
c
L 0
T
So uth L, of the F—th
!15 "et of BleO B.
HUM1301-T AIIUITIUI;
?2 8 45
T
_- '_5. -..
A line pa-liel ith and 348 feet South 11 I 1 t
North l ine o. 46. A.d I - S 'ubd,,i —o I.. I.
N E9-32'32"E.
5c— Line .,ti- 101; 1!?. l-, 21
H R 8 1 s a, - - - —V EN —1757 51—
N _9.3232 "E. 89-32'32'E.
South 4 co -er c- Sec 2, T. jjG.
c.
SHE:77 2 OF 2 S='EETS
o4�FTNE �
o
e
Minneal)o is
Convention & Tourism Bureau
6155 Earle Brown Drive, Suite 120 (612) 566 -7722
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 1- 800 - 541 -4364
TO: City Councils - Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park,
Fridley and Maple Grove
FROM: Charles E. Cook, Executive Director
DATE: September 19, 1990
RE: 1991 Budget
Dear Mayors, and Members of the Councils:
In accordance with the Convention and Tourism Bureau's agreement, the Bureau's
annual budget shall be submitted for review by each member's City Council no
later than October 1st of the year proceeding the effective date of the budget.
The 1991 Budget is respectfully submitted.
Based on 1990, the Bureau would normally anticipate three percent tax income of
approximately $340,000 for 1991; but we are going to take a "wait and see" atti-
tude with regards to the economy and Mideast crisis, until the first of 1991.
Hopefully, the budget can be expanded from our present "no growth" projection.
Our marketing activities in 1991 will include:
1. A greatly expanded tabloid for insertion in fourteen
northern newspapers, including two in Canada. In
addition to attractions, events and accommodations,
the tabloid will have a comprehensive listing of
North Metro's shopping and restaurants.
2. An all -out effort to attract groups and conventions
to North Metro, with major emphasis on mid -week.
If you have any questions or comments about the activities planned by the Bureau
in 1991, I will be available at your convenience.
Sincerely,
I s E. ok
Executive Director
Serving the communities of:
Fridley /Brooklyn Park /Brooklyn Center /Maple Grove
F
NORTH METRO CONVENTION AND TOURISM BUREAU
1991 MARKETING PLAN
I. INTRODUCTION
Identity /Awareness - This task will remain the Bureau's number one priority.
Not only will we accomplish this through tourism advertising, and participa-
tion in tourism /travel shows; but, we will greatly expand our efforts in
introducing meetings and conventions to North Metro through direct mail,
sales calls, telemarketing, and a limited amount of advertising.
Groups & Conventions - The need to improve North Metro's Monday through
Thursday business dictates that groups and conventions, with midweek meeting
potential, receive the Bureau's upmost attention. In 1990, a group and con-
vention direct mail piece was produced, along with a very high quality meet-
ing planner and facilities guide. These new sales tools will be used in
connection with sales leads from major shows; the IACVB -INET Lead Sharing
Program, of which the Bureau is now a member; telemarketing; and, personal
sales calls. In addition, the Bureau will do a limited amount of advertising
in publications by Meeting Planners International, and the Minnesota Society
of Association Executives.
Tourism - Although tourism is primarily made -up of weekend visitors, pres-
ently our strongest market, the Bureau will continue to keep our name in
front of potential visitors through advertising, and participation in travel
shows.
In addition to our major markets of Duluth and northern Minnesota, the
Bureau has made substantial inroads in the Canadian markets of Winnipeg and
Thunder Bay. Assisted by a grant from the State of Minnesota, the Bureau will
continue to attract Canadians to North Metro through special programs such as
the Twins - Bluejays weekend. Other major tourism areas include eastern North
Dakota, and northwestern Wisconsin.
II. BUDGET
Economists are predicting a soft fourth quarter in 1990, with the possibility
of the economy going into a recession. In addition, because North Metro is
primarily a driving destination, the Bureau is going to wait and see what
effect gasoline prices have on our market. We believe that gasoline prices
alone will not deter the market, but if the amount of oil diverted from gas-
oline to fuel oil this winter creates a short supply -and lines at gasoline
stations - the hospitality industry will be one of the first to feel the effects.
Normally, the North Metro Convention and Tourism Bureau should be anticipating
about a nine percent increase in income in 1991; therefore, if the Mideast
crisis and downward economy do not become major deterents, Bureau income could
adjust upward by approximately $30,000 early in 1991.
NMCTB 1991 Marketing Plan, Page Two
1991 Programs are based upon the following sources:
Projected 1991 Income - $310,000
1990 Carryover to 1991 - 25,000
Transfer from Savings to Budget - 20,000
Minnesota Joint Venture Grant - 20,949
Interest Income from Savings - 2,000
TOTAL $377,949
In 1991, $20,000 will be retained in savings from the $40,000 transferred
to savings in 1990.
III. MARKETS
Tourism - The Bureau will continue to focus on the driving market from
northern Minnesota, eastern North Dakota, and northwestern Wisconsin.
Through a Joint Venture Grant from the Minnesota Office of Tourism, the
Bureau will continue to develop the growing Canadian business from Winnipeg
and Thunder Bay.
Motorcoach operators, and group organizers, are more interested in dealing
directly with hotels and motels, then with convention and visitors bureaus.
Therefore, other than securing booth space at the Jefferson and Jackrabbit
Motorcoach Shows, for the benefit of our member hotels /motels, the Bureau will
spend little time developing motorcoach business.
Group /Convention - Group and convention potential for North Metro will be
predominately regional in scope, but the decision -maker could be anyplace in
the United States. In addition to direct mail, followed -up by telemarketing,
the Bureau will participate in three major shows in 1991.
Through our exclusive housing agreement with the National Sports Center, and
due to the many excellent venues located throughout North Metro, the Bureau
will expand its emphasis on the amateur group sports market.
IV. PROGRAMS
1. Administration: In addition to the normal fixed administrative expenses,
items such as Telephone, Postage, and Auto /Parking relate to expenses in
connection with Marketing, and Sales /Sales Promotion. Also budgeted for
1991 will be a computer (Office Equipment) to assist us in a multitude of
administrative and marketing functions.
Budget:. $140,720
NMCTB 1991 Marketing Plan, Page Three
2. Marketing: The Marketing Budget consists of two major activities:
Group Promotion and Tourism Advertising.
a. Group Promotion — The Meeting Planner, Reference Materials,
Group Promotion, National Sports Center, Promotional Items,
and Direct Mail all pertain to group activities.
Budget: $67,266
b. Tourism Advertising: Although sports weekends have been an
excellent program in the past, only the Toronto Bluejays
Baseball Weekend will be promoted in 1991. Other than Toronto,
the Twins were not good attractors in 1990. Although Timber —
wolves weekend games do not look like they will be strong at—
tractors, they are a moot point, as group tickets for weekends
only are not available.
Tabloid — over 650,000 will be produced and inserted in
14 newspapers in northern Minnesota, North Dakota,
and Wisconsin. The Winnipeg and Thunder Bay
tabloids will be financed by a grant from the
Minnesota Office of Tourism.
June, July, August Print Ads — ads designed to retain
awareness and identity.
October Print Ads — a "come —on" type ad, to attract
business in November, December and
January.
Budget: $131,728
c. Contingency
Budget: $500
Total Marketing: 3Z Tax Income $133,545 -
Minnesota Grant 20,949
Transfer from Savings 20,000
1990 Carryover 25,000
TOTAL $199,494
3. Sales /Sales Promotion:
a. Local expenses include entertainment for meeting planners and
other persons representing group business. Also included are
functions such as Chamber of Commerce luncheons.
Budget: $13,500
NMCTB 1991 Marketing Plan, Page Four
b. Travel Expenses include:
(1) Out -of -town sales
(2) Winnipeg Sales Blitz
(3) Professional Association Meetings: IACVB, MACVB and MPI
(4) Group Travel Shows: HSMA, IACVB, RCMA
(5) Travel Shows: Jefferson, Jackrabbit
(6) Sports Shows: Duluth, Fargo, Bismarck
Budget: $13,500
Total Sales /Sales Promotion Budget: $15,250
4. Memberships: No change from 1990.
Minnesota Association of Convention & Visitors Bureaus
International Association of Convention & Visitors Bureaus
Minnesota Society of Association Executives
Meeting Planners International
Hotel Sales and Marketing Association
Minnesota Festivals Association
Religious Conference Management Association
Brooklyn Center Chamber of Commerce
Fridley Chamber of Commerce
North Hennepin Chamber of Commerce
Membership Budget: $2,485
5. Public Relations
a. Public Relations: produce the Newsletter, send news -
releases, and a nominal amount for
customer relations.
Budget: $15,000
b. Local Promotion: advertising support for member city
festivals
Budget: $ 5,000
TOTAL P.R. BUDGET: $20,000
TOTAL 1991 BUDGET $377,949
NORTH METRO CONVENTION AND TOURISM BUREAU
1 9 9 1 B U D G E T
I. INCOME
Three Percent Tax Income $310,000
Transfer from Savings 20,000
Interest Income 2,000
Minnesota Joint Venture Grant 20,949
TOTAL $352,949
II. BUDGET RECAPITULATION
1991 Income 352,949
1991 Expenses 377,949
DEFICIT ($ 25,000)
Estimated Balance,
Beginning of Year 65,000
Transfer from Savings ( 20,000)
Deficit ( 25,000)
Estimated Balance,
End of Year $ 20,000
NMCTB 1991 Budget, Page Two
III.. 1991 EXPENSES
A. Administrative
BUDGET ITEM This Month's Pkpenses Year to Date Hxqxm.ves BUDGET I Exuded
Salaries $90,000
FICA - EMPLOYER 6 , 900
Fed. Unemployment 200
State Unemployment 538
Office Lease 10,507
Office Equipment 10,000
Office Supplies 1 ,500
Telephone & Equipment 3,500
Postage 4 000
Auto /Parking 3,000
Printing /Stationary 1,000
Secretarial /Temp. -00-
Workers Comp. 1,500
Liability O &D 2,375
Liability, General 1,500
Audit /Tax Prep. 2,000
Professional Fees 1,200
Misc. -Other
1,000
TOTALS $ 140,720 ``
NMCTB 1991 Budget, Page Three
B. Marketing
BUDGET ITEM This Nbnth's 1'mses Year to Date Expenses BUDGET Z Fended
Meeting Planner $ 500
Rate /Promo. Literature 800
Reference Materials 300
Group Promotion 40,000
National Sports Center 19,466
k
Tourism Advertising 103,428
Promotional Items 6,000
Special Promotions 5,000
Direct Mail 1,000
Agency Fees /Production 22,500
Contingency 500
TOTALS $199,494
y
Pe
L::
NMCTB 1991 Budget, Page Four
C. Sales /Sales Promotion
t:
BUDGET ITEM This Mmth's uses Year to Date F5peases BUDGET X FTenc1ed
Hotel Expense - Travel $4,000
Meal Expense- Travel 1,500
Entertainment - Travel 1,000
Meal Expense -Local 750
Entertainment -Local 1,000
Airline Expense 2,000
Car Rental 1,000
Travel /Trade Shows 2,000
Sales Blitzes 2,000
TOTALS $15,250
F
i
it
A,
�I
-r
4
y
NMC.TB 1991 Budget, Page Five
D. Memberships
BUDGET ITEM This Month's Expenses Year to Date Expenses BUDGET I Expended
MACVB $ 200
MSAE 200
HSMA 125
MPI 210
IACVB 975
MN Festivals Assoc. 100
RCMA 100
North Henn. Chamber 200
B.C. Chamber 190
Fridley Chamber 185
TOTALS $2,485
f
' hr.
fi
NMCTB 1991 Budget, Page Six
E. Public Relations
BUDGET ITEM This Month's Expenses Year to Date Expenses BUDGET I Ended
Public Relations $15,000
Local Promotions 5,000
TOTALS $20,000
IV. EXPENSE RECAP.
::BUDGET ITEM This Month's Eases Year to Date Expenses BUDGET X Faded
1991 Expenses $377,949
t.:
x
y
i
R-
I
i
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 10/15/9
Agenda Rem Number /96
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE AGREEMENTS FOR 69TH AVENUE RIGHT -OF -WAY, IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 1990 -10
********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
x,
SY KNAPP, DIRECTOR F PUBLIC WORKS
MANAGER'S REVIEW / RECOMMENDATION:
P�
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes )
Evergreen Land Services has negotiated purchase agreements with the property owners
at 4204 and 4212 69th Avenue North.
These agreements are based on appraised values of: Clarence & Irene Fransen, 4204
69th Avenue - $66,000; and James & Judy Nelson, 4212 69th Avenue - $64,000. These
offers are acceptable to the property owners, and they have signed the agreements.
The date of closing on the Fransen property is October 15, 1990. The date of
closing on the Nelson property is October 24, 1990. The City Attorney is working
with Evergreen and Public Works staff to review and finalize all details.
Previous Council Action
The Council on May 7, 1990, approved a resolution which provided for the negotiated
purchase of real property for project 1990 -10. This resolution authorized the City
Manager to negotiate with the owners of the properties to be acquired for this
project, and directed him to offer to the owners the amount determined by appraisal
and review appraisal. Such purchase agreements are subject to approval and
ratification by the City Council.
City Council Recommendation
As all parties agree to the sale of the properties for their appraised value, a
resolution is provided that approves and ratifies the purchase agreements.
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE AGREEMENTS FOR 69TH AVENUE
RIGHT -OF -WAY, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 90 -66 adopted on March 26, 1990, the City
Council ordered the reconstruction of 69th Avenue between Noble Avenue North
and Shingle Creek Parkway, Improvement No. 1990 -10; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 90 -84 adopted on April 23, 1990, the City
Council approved a right -of -way plan depicting properties to be acquired for
the project; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 90 -95 adopted on May 7, 1990, the City
Council authorized the City Manager to negotiate the purchase of these
properties, and directed the City Manager to offer to the property owners the
amount determined by appraisal and review appraisal; and
WHEREAS, the owners of the property at 4204 69th Avenue have accepted
the City Manager's offer of the appraised value, and have executed a purchase
agreement to that effect; and
WHEREAS, the owners of the property at 4212 69th Avenue have accepted
the City Manager's offer of the appraised value, and have executed a purchase
agreement to that effect; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The terms of the purchase agreements are hereby approved.
2. The City Manager is directed to proceed with the purchase of the
properties at 4204 and 4212 69th Avenue North.
3. The City Manager and Mayor are authorized to execute the purchase
agreements.
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.
Y P P
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 1o/15 /90
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FROM DELTA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. TO
CONDUCT CONTAMINATION SURVEY RE: 69TH AVENUE RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION
DEPT. APPROVAL:
SY KNAPP, DIRECTO"F PUBU ORKS ` ✓�
� ic � lric* � tytyt � c* ic �r ie* ic**** �k* ir# �k* �# fk* �F**: �k#**#* ik* ityt* �Ir * * * * * * *�F * * *�Ir�lr�lric * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW / RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes
In the process of developing appraisals for the properties which the City is
acquiring to provide adequate right -of -way for the 69th Avenue improvement it
• has been determined that two underground fuel storage tanks previously existed
on the site now occupied by Tires Plus. When tanks were removed in February,
1985 no inspection or testing was conducted either by the City or by MPCA.
Because the possibility exists that the soils and /or groundwater in the area may
have been contaminated, the City's appraiser and the City Attorney recommend
that testing be done to determine whether or not contamination exists. If any
contamination is found, the cost of remedial action can be taken into account in
the City's acquisition of these properties. The attorney representing the
property owner has consented to allow the City to proceed with these tests, so
long as they do not disturb the existing business and there is no charge to the
property owner for conducting the tests.
Accordingly, we have requested and received the attached proposal from Delta
Environmental Services, Inc, to conduct the required testing. We recommend
acceptance of that proposal.
City Council Action Required
A resolution accepting the proposal from Delta Environmental Consultants, Inc.
as provided for consideration by the City Council.
a
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FROM DELTA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
TO CONDUCT CONTAMINATION SURVEY RE: 69TH AVENUE RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. the proposal submitted by Delta Environmental Consultants, Inc. to
conduct a contamination survey on properties proposed to be
acquired for the 69th Avenue Reconstruction Project No. 1990 -10 at
a cost estimate of $3400 to $4300 is hereby accepted.
2. the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute a
contract with said firm on the basis of that proposal.
3. all cost related to this work shall be charged to the Municipal
State Aid Street Fund, Account No. 26113.
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.
Delta
Environmental
!/
Consultants, Inc.
1801 Highway 8, Suite 114
St, Paul, MN 55112
612/636 -2427
FAX:612/636 -8552
October 11, 1990
Mr. Sy Knapp
Director of public Works
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Subject: Subsurface Exploration
Tires Plus Area
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
Delta No. 10 -90 -644
Dear Mr. Knapp-
0 Delta Environmental Consultants, Inc. (Delta), is pleased to present this proposal for a subsurface
exploration for the property located at the northeast corner of Brooklyn Boulevard and 69th
Avenue North in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. The purpose of this assessment is to determine
the presence or absence of soil or ground water contamination at the site. This proposal includes
the scope of work, a short discussion of the methodology we will use to perform the work, cost
estimate, and performance schedule, Also, a brief discussion on the limitations of this subsurface
exploration is attached.
SCOPE OF WORK
• Re-view all readily available information regarding the installation, excavation, or location
of the underground storage tank (UST) and dispensing system.
• Drill up to five soil test borings on site, with emphasis on the UST installation area.
It is our understanding that one waste oil UST is present on site. Also, two gasoline
USTs were removed in 1985. Proposed drilling locations are presented in the attached
site map.
• Screen recovered soil samples with a photoionization detector (PID) for an indication
of volatiles organic compounds (VOCs).
• Collected selected soil or ground water samples for optional chemical analysis.
• Prepare a report which will include our data, opinions, and recommendations.
We understand the Tires Plus area property is being considered for an acquisition. Delta will
require the city of Brooklyn Center to obtain right -of -entry from the property owner and tenants
for Delta staff and our subcontractor.
Mr. Sy Knapp
Delta No. 10 -90 -644
October 11, 1990
Page 2
NIETH0120Lt'lGY
Soil Sami3ling and Classtfleation
Soil sampling will be conducted ming hollow -stem auger drilling methods. Using this procedure,
a two -inch O.D. split- barrel sampler driven into the soil by a 140 pound weight falling 30 inches.
The split - barrel sampler is then retrieved and opened for soil sample collection. For the purpose
of this assessment and cost estimating, we anticipate the soil borings will not exceed 15 feet in
depth.
Soil Screening
Soils will be scanned with an hNu Model 101 photoionization detector (PID) or similar instrument
equipped with a 10.2 eV lamp and calibrated for direct reading in ppm volume/volume of benzene.
Fresh soil surfaces would be exposed and the hNu probe immediately placed within one to two
inches of the soil surface.
Soil Samulingfor .0211onal Chemical Agalysts
Soil samples selected for optional chemical analysis will be placed in laboratory cleaned glass jars
with Teflon lined lids for delivery directly to the laboratory. If ground water is encountered,
ground water quality samples may be substituted for soil samples. Sampling utensils will be
cleaned between sample grabs. Additionally, all downhole drilling equipment and associated tools
will be steam cleaned before any project work and between boring locations, if necessary.
Chemical Analysis - Qptlonal
At this time, the definitive scope of chemical analysis, if any, will be determined based upon the
results of field soil screening. In our best judgment, soil samples may be analyzed for the
following parameters using USEPA approval or similar methods:
Soil and Ground Water
• Benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, 7lenes, and total hydrocarbons as gasoline
• Total hydrocarbons as fuel oil
Reporting
Delta will prepare a written report that will: 1) present and summarize the results of the field
screening and optional chemical analysis, including site location and site maps; 2) give our
opinion as to the presence of contamination and the necessity for additional assessment; and 3)
recommend the scope of additional assessment, if it is deemed necessary. All written reports and
correspondence will be transmitted to you.
Mr. S Kna
Pp
Delta No. 10-90 -644
October 11, 1990
Page 3
CO5T LS
The scope of work listed in this work plan Aill be performed on a time and materials basis in
accordance with our current fee schedule. This work plan, including the scope of work, cost
estimate, and performance schedule, is based on currently available information. Unforeseen
factors or delays could favorable or adversely affect costs or schedules to that point. Actual
charges will be based on time expended and materials used.
Delta will subcontract the drilling services and optional analytical services. Delta has not obtained
bids on the subcontracted drilling services or optional analytical services. Client or public meetings
are not included within this scope of work and would be additional cost. The total cost estimate
range for completing the project is $3,400 to $40 An estimated breakdown for the project is
shown below.
• Preliminary Data Review $ to $ 300.00
• Project Management; Site Safety Plan $ to S 300.00
• Soil Borings (Subcontracted) S 1,400.00 to $ 1, 500.00
• Delta Field Personnel and Equipment S 700.00 to S 800.00
• Optional Chemical Analysis (Subcontracted) $ 0.00 to S 600.00
• Data Evaluation; Deport Preparation S 700.00 to $ $00.00
TOTAL ESTIMATE RANGE $ 3,400.00 to S 4,300.00
PERFOR�1A, SCEDU E
We understand that no specific start date has yet been determined, We anticipate approximately
five days would be necessary to initiate the field work outlined in this proposal, and the field
activities should take one day. The chemical analysis results, if chemistry is performed on soil
samples, are anticipated to take up to 20 working days following sample collection or sooner if
premium rates are authorized. A verbal report will be completed as soon as sufficient information
is obtained and evaluated. A written report will be completed within five working days of receipt
of chemical analysis results.
Mr. Sy Kapp
Delta No. 10 -90 -544
October 11, 1990
Page 4
REMARKS
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal. If this scope of worst, cost estimate, and
performance schedule are acceptable, please formally authorize us to proceed by signing and
returning the enclosed sengce contract. If you have any questions or need additional information,
please call me at (612) 535 -2427,
Sincerely,
D v ell ENVIROMMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
J. Oman
Environmental Assessment Manager
DJO jmp
SERVICE CONTRACT
DELTA EN TAL CONSULTANY'S, INC.
THIS AGREEMENT is made effective as of the 11 day of October 19
between DELTA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, LNC., ( °Delta ")
and City k (the "Client ")
concerning services to be provided by Delta at Tires Tbis Area
(she 'Site"),
SERVICES: Delta agrees to provide Client with the services described in Attachment I ("Work").
COMPENs TTO 5 1M!2tj Z• Sra LOCA33ONI ACCE53J
Pk TTI'S AjjD APEROYA
Client agrees to pay Delta for the Work pursuant to
Attachment II (the "Fees'). Travel, parking, 2.1 Client will delineate to Delta the property lines
document reproduction, special document handling, of the Site.
subcontractor fees and other authorized expenses are
not included in the Fees and will be billed at cost 2.2 Client will provide right -of -entry to the Site for
plus 15 percent. Client agrees to pay for any Delta personnel and equipment as Delta may deem
services that are (a) required because of a material necessary to complete the Work.
increase in the scope of the Work or, (b) requested
in addition to the Work, pursuant to Attachment IL 2.3 Client will be solely responsible for applying for
and obtaining such permits and approvals as may be
This Agreement is subject to the following General necessary for Delta to perform the Work. Delta will
Conditions: assist the Client in applying for and obtaining
permits and approvals.
t N 1: ZROJ= TNFOR QN
3,4 While Delta will take reasonable precautions to
LI Client will provide to Delta in writing minimize any damage to the Site, it is understood by
information known to the Client regarding existing the Client that in the normal course of the Work
and proposed conditions of the site The information some damage may occur. The correction of any
will include, without limitation, site plans, hydrologic da=ge is the responsibility of the Client or, at
data, subsurface or latent physical conditions at the, Client's option, the damage may be corrected by
Site or, in an existing structure, previous soil data Delta and billed at cost plus 15 percent to the
including borings, field or laboratory tests, and Client.
written reports, and notice of all known hazardous
conditions at the Site ( "Project Information'). SEt" PION 3; rI'IM
Lz Client will Immediately transmit to Delta any Client will be responsible for locating and identifying,
updates, revisions, or additions to the Project as part of the project Information, all subterranean
Information as they become available to it or its structures or utilities. In performing the Work, Delta
consultants. will take reasonable precautions to avoid damage or
injury to subterranean structures or utilities.
L3 Within 24 hours of a request by Delta, Client will
provide to the Site a representative of Client to SEMON 4: S<AMPL S
supervise or coordinate the Work as directed by
Delta. Disposal of soil and waste samples obtained at the
Site by Delta is ultimately the responsibility of the
101011 -90
Page 3
HEREUNDER, OR THE DELIVERY, USE, OR
PERFORMANCE 'THEREOF. SECTION m,__IN
U Sampling procedures employed by Delta during Delta will carry workers' compensation insurance as
the Work can indicate actual conditions only at the required by law and public liability insurance policies
precise locations from which, and only at the time, as Delta may, from time to time, consider adequate.
samples are taken. Delta may make inferences based Insurance will be provided to Client upon request
upon the results: of sampling and any related testing Delta will not be liable for claims covered by
to form a professional opinion of conditions in areas insurance carried beyond the limits and conditions
beyond those from which samples were taken. stated in the insurance policies.
However, because no sampling program can prove
the non - existence or non - presence of conditions or SE = 0 N 1
materials, Delta cannot warrant, represent, or certify
the non - existence or non - presence, or the extent of 1L1 This Agreement may be terminated by either
existence or presence, of conditions or materials, and party upon seven (7) calendar days written notice if
Client's obligations under this Agreement will not be there is a substantial failure of performance by the
contingent upon Delta's delivery of any warranties, other party. Termination will not be effective if the
representations, or certifications. substantial failure is remedied before expiration of
the seven (7)_ days. If this Agreement is terminated
8.3 Delta will not be responsible for the prior to completion of all reports contemplated
interpretation of its data by others. herein or if the Work is suspended for more than
three (3) months, Delta may complete analyses and
SEC770N_ 9: MEMNMCATION ANIl records as are necessary to Complete its files and
LQ =11 OF.LIr 1L.= may also complete a report on the Work.
9.1 Client and Delta will indemnify, defend, and held 1L2 Upon termination, Delta will be paid for
each other harmiess from claims, demands, and services, plus reasonable termination expenses, which
rAuses of action asserted against indemnitee. by any expenses will include direct costs of completing the
person (including, without limitation, Delta's and analyses, records, and reports referred to above.
Client's employees) for personal injury or death or
for loss of or damage to property resulting from the SECTI(��l?ri
indemnitor's negligence or willful misconduct
hereunder. Where personal injury, death, or loss of Neither party may delegate duties or assign interest
or damage to property is the result of the joint in this Agreement without obtaining the prior written
negligence or misconduct of Client and Delta, the consent of the other party, which consent will not be
indemnitor's duty of indemnification will be in unreasonably withheld.
proportion to its allocable share of such joint
negligence or willful misconduct SECTION 13t AGENCY/RIGHT OF ENMY
9.2 Delta's responsibility to compensate Client or In order to permit timely access to properties owned
persons claiming through the Client for any loss or by third where access is deemed by Delta to
damage, including but not limited to Client's existing be necessary or beneficial to the Work, the Client
property that is in reasonable proximity to the work hereby appoints Delta and its employees as its agent
site, as to which the indemnification set forth above authorized to execute on behalf of the Client right of
does not apply or is not permitted by state law or entry agreements in the form of Attachment III
that arises out of breach of any other obligation to incorporated herein by reference (the 'Right of
the CIient, will not exceed the Fees and, in any Entry"), binding Client thereto as "Licenses" and
event, Delta will not be responsible for any naming Delta as the Client's agent. Delta is
consequential, special, or indirect damages or loss of specifically not authorized to make any changes or
anticipated profits sustained by Client Nothing amendments to the Right of Entry except as agreed
herein will be deemed a waiver of any statutory to in advance by the Client_ Client agrees to
limitation of liability or any specific liability set out approve reasonable changes to the Right of Entry,
in this Agreement including indemnification of third -party property
owners by
ATTACHMENT I
SCOPE OF WORK
(the - work -)
r �
ti
r'
�t r:
a 11
— T* 4
w y
TIRES PLUS
t '
4 "
i
t
69TH AVENUE NORTH
FIGURE 1
1 rH SITE SKETCH
TIRES PLUS AREA
LEGEND: BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
FRaecr No. +4DpFpJz BY
• PROPOSED SOIL 80RING LOCATIONS 10- --�� f PAJ Ue (t c
DATE VIEW® 9Y Environmental
10 / 1 1 /9 AM Consultants, Inc.
ATTAQH: g t'I' II
FEES
(the "Fees ")
11EL11 LZMEC?NMIAL COMMA= INC.
199 M SCAMUU
Labor ,CIassi#lcqft Rate Ber 'Hour
prinaigai profaWonai $11no0
Senior Professional II 95.00
Senior Frofewiannl I 90.00
Proj= Professional II 80.00
Frajeet Frofeslonsi 1 7100
5aff Frofftwonal 11 63.DO
Std Pro(asionai I 60.00
Plaid SuptMsor 65.00
Senior Technician 53.00
InduwW Hygitne Technimn 50.00
Staff Technician 4$.00
IDmbpc=n 400
?M Profewontti A00
acrizat 30.00
Berx Test 14000
•t #ytttae�tr+Ytwi# #i# *# tut+ l# 1Fi#*### t## tiiii #+M *i# # #f # #i # #t ##i # # #Yf#i #tf #t4wf ###
E quipm Cizars�e
Cwgmny Auto Waage 3Sf:tWa
Company Plci¢ug ilditaap • . .30lmiia
avlasiut ew 15 - MAday
PH meter 10OOAl2Y
Ctmdstamly IO OW&Y
Survey Squuipmant 50 wfty
Pbot6oui tatioe miner SMODAfay
Ord Vapr ,4=ty= 8MMAky
L75 Submwsib* Puump 7 3. 001day
DaMki Sa /HwMitlTraM5dw err 200.OWday
PbwsoOcnticn Cd3
Cbratuz wFaptt SOO. 00Vda�
Water I.aM tndkmttor I0.00lday
Produvzfwater tmrrfaca Prot =00/day
C=buuibia an Indic=wx) M= *riser 2MOWdq
Sarba =t Tubw4ndk=
or � ts
Tutbas fl0/aa c
Faupiayea t ttbur�tbia
eq=w at coa +15%
Doha proomed srb==ucu c brook s at cost +L5%
Pee school" sabj= w chw rt vahm XKIM
N+tMtttll► WYOW01 • To= Drs Upon r=vt
10461LIM
ATTACHNYEiy'I' III
RIGHT (7F ENTRY
(the "license
The property owner(s) (referred to in this Agreement as the °Owner(s) "), have the sole right to possession
of the property for which a right of entry is granted by this document. The property is located at:
The Owner($) ,give (the 'Licensee7, i ts agents, employees, and
assigns, the ri to enter upon the property to
and to do all actin 6= required to complete their worlL The Owners) acknowledge
that Delta Environmental Consultants, Inc. ("Deltas is an agent of the Licensee.
11' s License is effective immediately upon signing. Ucensee agrees to repair or cause to be repaired any
damage to the property resulting from entry onto the property by Licensee, its agents, employees, or
assigns by restoring the property, as much as reasonably possible, to its condition immediately prior to the
entry.
Dated this day of 19�
'Owner(s)" "Licensee"
(signature)
By Delta Environmental Consultants, Inc.,
(printed name) Agent for licensee,
By
(signature)
Its '
0 (printed name)
1010A EX9-- A- EX/1 -90
LINMATfON OF EN'VMONMENTAL ASSESSN11ENTS
maple Collection. Screening, and Chemlcal Analysis
Samples of materials that Delta believes are likely to contain hazardous substances will be
collected, screened for organic vapors, and chemically analyzed.. The quantity of samples, sample
locations, and screenings and chemical analyses performed will be selected to provide qualitative
data to document and evaluate current site conditions or past site activities. The general scope
of sample collection, screenings, and chemical analysis will be limited to petroleum hydrocarbon
compounds, and parameters not included in the aforementioned scope of screenings and chemical
analysis will not be identified or evaluated. The data obtained from discrete sample locations will
be used to infer conditions between sample locations, and no guarantee will be given that the
inferred conditions exist. Further, conditions at the sample locations and as inferred between
sample locations may vary significantly with time; this is particularly possible with respect to, but
not limited to, soil or ground water quality.
In xuretatton of Results - Final Report
Delta's report will be based upon the information provided to Delta, Delta's observations made
during the site reconnaissance, and the results of sample screening and chemical analysis. Given
the inherent limitations of environmental assessment work, Delta will not guarantee that the site
is free of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials or conditions or that latent or undiscovered
conditions will not become evident in the future. Delta's report will be prepared in accordance
with the proposal and the standard terms and conditions presented in the service contract and no
0 other warranties, representations, or certifications will be made.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 1 o 1 s / 90
Agenda kern Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL TO INSTALL NEW WATER SERVICE LINE TO WILLOW LANE PARK,
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -23
DEPT. APPROVAL:
SY KNAPP, DIR CTOR�OF PUBLIC WORKS?
MANAGER'S REVIEW RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )
The 1990 General Fund budget for Park Maintenance, Division 69, includes $10,125 for
"improving water service to Willow Lane Park ". This work involves removing or
abandoning the existing 4" cast iron service and replacing it with a 6" ductile iron
service. In addition, a hydrant will be located on the new service near the area of
the park used in the winter for hockey rink(s).
Proposals for the above work were received on October 11, 1990, at 11 :00 a.m. Of
the five proposals received, the lowest was that of Inland Utility Construction Co.
Inc., for the amount of $8,781.30.
While City staff has no previous experience with Inland Utility Construction Co.
Inc. a check of their listed references indicated that they have satisfactorily
performed similar work in other Metro area municipalities.
As noted above, the 1990 budget included $10,125 for the improvement and the
Engineer's Estimate at the time of the opening was $9,677. Accordingly, staff is
recommending acceptance of the low proposal from Inland Utility Construction Co.
Inc., for the amount of $8,781.30.
Council Action Required
Adopt the attached resolution.
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL TO INSTALL NEW WATER SERVICE
LINE TO WILLOW LANE PARK, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -23
WHEREAS, the 1990 budget for Parks Maintenance includes an
appropriation of $10,125 for the improvement of the water service to Willow
Lane Park; and
WHEREAS, the City has received the following proposals for the
specified work:
Contractor Amount of Proposal
Inland Utility Construction Co. $ 8,781.30
Hank Weidema $ 9,867.75
Glendale Contracting $11,371.50
CCS Contracting $15,262.00
Thomas & Sons Construction $22,210.00
WHEREAS, it appears that Inland Utility Construction Co. Inc. of
St. Michael, Minnesota has submitted the lowest proposal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a contract with
Inland Utility Construction Co. Inc. for the amount of $8,781.30
for the completion of the work.
2. All costs associated with Improvement Project No. 1990 -23, Willow
Lane Park Water Main Replacement shall be charged to the Park
Maintenance Division 69 of the General Fund, Object #4530.
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 10/15/
Agenda Item Number f d�
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND PROPOSAL FOR CENTRAL PARK ATHLETIC FIELD IRRIGATION SYSTEM,
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -07, CONTRACT 1990 -J
DEPT. APPROVAL:
7
SY KNAPP, DIRECTOWOF PUBLIC WORKS
MANAGER'S REVIEW RECOMMENDATION: �.<,..
V
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )
At the regular meeting of September 24, 1990, the City Council adopted a resolution
which established Central Park Irrigation System, Improvement Project No. 1990 -07.
The resolution also approved plans and specifications and directed advertisement for
bids and requests for proposals.
Bids for the irrigation main and proposals for the water reel irrigator were
received on October 11, 1990. Of the five bids received for the irrigation main,
the lowest bid was that of Inland Utility Construction Co. Inc., in the amount of
$32,240.00. Of the 2.proposals received for the water reel irrigator, the lowest
proposal was that of Heinen & Mason Inc. of Osseo, Minnesota, in the amount of
$6,382.00.
The Engineer's estimate for the above - described construction, including the water
reel irrigator, was $32,144.00. The combined total of the low bid and low proposal
is $38,622.00, which exceeds the estimate by $6,478.00. However, staff feels that
the proposal submitted by the low bidder has been prepared in good faith and doesn't
appear to be "irregular" or "unbalanced ". Accordingly, staff is recommending
acceptance of both the low bid for the irrigation main and the low proposal for the
water reel irrigator.
Council Action Required
Adopt the attached resolution.
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND PROPOSAL FOR CENTRAL PARK
ATHLETIC FIELD IRRIGATION SYSTEM, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
NO. 1990 -07, CONTRACT 1990 -J
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement
Project No. 1990 -07, Central Park Irrigation System, the following bids were
received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and City Engineer, on the
11th day of October, 1990:
Bidder Bid Amount
Inland Utility Construction Co. Inc. $32,240.00
Volk Sewer & Water $33,490.00
Hank Weidema $33,785.00
Glendale Contracting $36,240.00
Thomas & Sons Construction $42,310.00
WHEREAS, it appears that Inland Utility Construction Co. Inc., is the
lowest responsible bidder; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the solicitation of proposals for furnishing a
water reel irrigator, the following proposals were received:
Firm Name Amount of Proposal
Heinen & Mason Inc. $ 6,382.00
Chicago Turf & Irrigation $ 6,806.00
WHEREAS, Heinen & Mason Inc. has submitted the lowest proposal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to
enter into a contract with Inland Utility Construction Co. Inc.,
of St. Michael, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn
Center, for Improvement Project No. 1990 -07 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 Manager is hereby authorized to execute a contract with
Heinen & Mason Inc. of Osseo, Minnesota for furnishing a water
reel irrigator.
RESOLUTION N0.
3. 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.
4. The estimated cost for Improvement Project No. 1990 -07 is hereby
amended from $36,000.00 to $45,420.00. The estimated project cost
is comprised of the following:
As Amended
(per low bid
As Established and proposal)
Total Estimated Construction Cost
(incl. Contingency) $32,144.00 $40,553.00
Engineering (10 %) 3,214.00 4,055.00
Administration (1 %) 321.00 406.00
Legal (1 %) 321.00 406.00
Total Estimated Project Cost $36,000.00 $45,420.00
5. All costs for this project shall be allocated from the Capital
Project Fund.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 10/ 15/90
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED SHADE TREES
********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
SY KNAPP, DIRECTOR OrPUBLIC WORKS
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
e 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 NO.
RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE
REMOVAL OF DISEASED SHADE TREES (ORDER NO. DST 10/15/90)
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
DONALD COLLINS 5542 NORTH LILAC DR 600
WILLIAM WILLIAMS 5530 NORTH LILAC DR 601
LAWRENCE LINDQUIST 7008 WILLOW LANE 602
LAWRENCE LINDQUIST 7008 WILLOW LANE 603
LAWRENCE LINDQUIST 7008 WILLOW LANE 604
LAWRENCE LINDQUIST 7008 WILLOW LANE 605
CITY OF BC BEACH PARK 606
BEN ERDMANN 4207 LAKESIDE AVE 607
BEN ERDMANN 4207 LAKESIDE AVE 608
BEN ERDMANN 4207 LAKESIDE AVE 609
WILSON,THOMAS, ET.AL 6500 BROOKLYN BLVD 610
LACY CASTER, JR. 3319 QUARLES RD 611
ANNE WASHINGTON 5738 HUMBOLDT AVE N 612
GOLDIE SWANSON 1800 57TH AVE N 613
NSP LOGAN /KNOX 614
STEVEN JOHNSON 3321 59TH AVE N 615
STEVEN JOHNSON 3321 59TH AVE N 616
MATT /MICHELLE STARR 3301 59TH AVE N 617
MATT /MICHELLE STARR 3301 59TH AVE N 618
NORMAN CHAZIN 2940 NORTHWAY DR 619
NORMAN CHAZIN 2940 NORTHWAY DR 620
NORMAN CHAZIN 2940 NORTHWAY DR 621
NORMAN CHAZIN 2940 NORTHWAY DR 622
NORMAN CHAZIN 2940 NORTHWAY DR 623
NORMAN CHAZIN 2940 NORTHWAY DR 624
NORMAN CHAZIN 2940 NORTHWAY DR 625
WILLIAM FORDER 5936 HALIFAX PL. 626
DAVID HANSEN 6007 HALIFAX PL. 627
RODNEY PULLIS 7211 DALLAS RD 628
MELVIN /FAYE BALZER 7007 DALLAS RD 629
MELVIN /FAYE BALZER 7007 DALLAS RD 630
RESOLUTION NO.
PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY ADDRESS TREE NUMBER
VILLAGE PROPERTIES 7220 CAMDEN AVE N 631
DAVID /DEBORAH O'HARA 6306 INDIANA AVE N 632
ZIAD /MAGEDA WAZWAZ 6300 INDIANA AVE N 633
CITY OF B.C. HAPPY HOLLOW PK 634
THOMAS CANNON 5635 DUPONT AVE N 635
THOMAS CANNON 5635 DUPONT AVE N 636
CLIFFORD ENGMARK 5641 DUPONT AVE N 637
CITY OF B.C. HAPPY HOLLOW PK 638
CITY OF B.C. HAPPY HOLLOW PK 639
CITY OF B.C. HAPPY HOLLOW PK 640
CITY OF B.C. HAPPY HOLLOW PK 641
CITY OF B.C. HAPPY HOLLOW PK 642
CITY OF B.C. HAPPY HOLLOW PK 643
CITY OF B.C. HAPPY HOLLOW PK 644
CITY OF B.C. HAPPY HOLLOW PK 645
CITY OF B.C. HAPPY HOLLOW PK 646
CITY OF B.C. HAPPY HOLLOW PK 647
CITY OF B.C. HAPPY HOLLOW PK 648
CITY OF B.C. HAPPY HOLLOW PK 649
CITY OF B.C. HAPPY HOLLOW PK 650
MARK ZEISMER 1301 73RD AVE N 651
MICHAEL /BRENDA HELD 5332 IRVING AVE N 652
EMMA KOMPERUD 820 55TH AVE N 653A
B. KRUEGER /J.TRIVEDI 5500 BRYANT AVE N 653B
2. After twenty (20) days from the date of the notice, the property
owners will receive a second written notice that will give them
(5) business days in which to contest the determination of City
Council by requesting a hearing in writing. Said request shall be
filed with the City Clerk.
3. After five (5) days, if the property owner fails to request a
hearing, the tree(s) shall be removed by the City.
4. All removal costs, including legal, financing and administrative
charges, shall be specially assessed against the property.
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 Cound! Meeting Date
Agenda Item Number /_
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
(�DDDRCC�
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION TO INCREASE THE FEE TO BE CHARGED FOR THE PROCESSING OF RETURNED CHECKS
ISSUED TO THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Director of Finance
Signature - title
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: '
i
No comments to supplement this report . Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
The City currently charges the writer of a check which is returned by the bank for
lack of funds in the account a processing fee of $5.00. The amount of that fee was
last set in 1981. Since that time, the cost of processing the collection of a
returned check has increased significantly. A processing fee of $15.00 per check
would more acurately reflect the actual cost of collection and would be in line with
processing fees charged by private business.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
--------------------
Staff recommends that the fee to be charged for the processing of returned checks
issued to the City of Brooklyn Center be set at $15.00 per check.
SPECIFIC ACTION REQUIRED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
--------------------------------------------
Pass the attached resolution to increase the fee to be charged for the processing
of returned checks issued to the City of Brooklyn Center.
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION TO INCREASE THE FEE TO BE CHARGED FOR THE PROCESSING
OF RETURNED CHECKS ISSUED TO THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 81 -73 authorized a fee to be charged for
the processing of returned checks issued to the City of Brooklyn Center for
the sum of $5.00 per check; and
WHEREAS, the collection costs of returned checks has increased
significantly since then; and
WHEREAS, the City Treasurer has recommended that the sum of $15.00
per check would be a reasonable estimate of the cost of collecting a check:
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center that the City Treasurer is hereby authorized to establish a $15.00 per
check fee for the rocessin of returned checks issued P 9 s ued to the City.
Y
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 / > g ,/ J�'
Agenda Item Number L
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF STORAGE CABINET
DEPT. APPROVAL: f
Signature - titl - Ja es Lindsay, Chief of Poli
MANAGER'S R W/RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached yes )
The latest information on the new handguns from Smith and Wesson is they will be
shipped the end of October. The holsters and ammunition has been received.
Sergeant McComb will attend an armorer school. After completion, he will be
qualified to perform minor repairs and adjustments. The school conducted by Smith
and Wesson will provide a number of tools and spare parts. A storage cabinet is
needed to store these items. The cabinet with one extra shelf costs $275.00. I
recommend forfeiture monies be used to purchase this item.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council approve the resolution authorizing the purchase of a storage
cabinet from forfeiture monies.
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1990 GENERAL FUND BUDGET
BY APPROPRIATING FORFEITED PROPERTY FUNDS FOR THE
PURCHASE OF ONE STORAGE CABINET FOR THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, Section 7.08 of the City Charter does provide for the
increase of a budget appropriation by the City Council if the actual receipts
exceed the estimates, but not to exceed the actual receipts; and
WHEREAS, 1988 Laws of Minnesota C.665 provides for seizure and
forfeiture of property used in commission of crime and proceeds of crime and
contraband; and
WHEREAS, said laws require that said property kept under said laws
may be used only in the performance of official duties of the appropriate
agency and may not be used for any other purpose; and
WHEREAS, 70% of the sale of the property may be used by the
Brooklyn Center Police Department as a supplement to its operating fund for
use in law enforcement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by the adoption of Resolution No. 88 -195
on November 21 1988, did authorize the Director of Finance to appropriate
said proceeds to the Police Department Budget as they are received to the
extent that when said proceeds exceed five thousand dollars in any calendar
year then said excess will be reported to the City Council for its appropriation;
and
WHEREAS, there is currently $275 available from forfeiture monies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Brooklyn Center to authorize the purchase of the following equipment
for the Police Department:
One storage cabinet $275
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to amend the 1990 General Fund
Budget as follows:
Increase the Appropriations for the following line item:
Police Department Office Equipment Account No. 4551 $275
Increase Estimated Revenues for the following line item:
Forfeited Drug Money Account No. 3897 $275
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 O
Agenda Item Number h
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE SUPREME COURT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE TO RESCIND
THE
AMENDMENTS TO MINNESOTA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
8.04 AND 11.07
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Signature - ti - James Lindsay, Chief of P '
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:��`
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached yes )
The Minnesota Supreme Court is read impose p y to pose some revisions to two rules
regarding Omnibus Hearings. These are hearings in felony and gross misdemeanor
cases in which the defendant can challenge whether there is sufficient evidence to
charge him for the offense. If these revisions are imposed, they will impact greatly
on the police department as well as the city prosecutors in the areas of both time
and expense.
Attached are numerous items which provide information on these revisions and the
problems they will cause. The attachments include information from our city
prosecutor, the Hennepin County Attorney's office, the Hennepin County Chiefs
Association and the City of Bloomington. Also, are copies of letters which have
been sent to the chairman of the Supreme Court Criminal Rules Advisory
Committee. We are requesting the City Council approve the attached resolution to
the Supreme Court requesting they oppose the amendments. This resolution has
been approved and sent by other cities.
RECOMMENDATION:
• The City ouncil
t approve the resolution recommending the Supreme Court Advisory
Committee rescind the amendments to Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure 8.04
and 11.07.
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE SUPREME COURT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE RULES OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE TO RESCIND THE AMENDMENTS TO
MINNESOTA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 8.04 AND 11.07
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure 8.04 and 11.07
have been amended to require that the omnibus hearing in all felony and gross
misdemeanor cases be held within fourteen (14) days of a defendant's first
appearance in court; and
WHEREAS, the current practice in Hennepin County is to reserve the
omnibus hearing until the day of trial; and
WHEREAS, the current practice of reserving the omnibus issues until
the day of trial results in an overwhelming majority of the cases being settled
without the need for an omnibus hearing or trial; and
WHEREAS, the private defense bar and Hennepin County Public
Defender's office have indicated that under the amended rules they will
demand an omnibus hearing in every gross misdemeanor and felony case; and
WHEREAS, the implementation of the amendments to Minnesota Rules
of Criminal Procedure 8.04 and 11.07 will have a substantial and detrimental
impact on the City of Brooklyn Center by:
1. causing a dramatic increase in the overtime costs of the Brooklyn
Center Police Department; and
2. creating the need to hire additional officers and /or requiring the
payment of large amounts of police overtime pay to handle the law
enforcement duties of those officers who are needed to testify at
omnibus hearings; and
3. creating a need to hire additional prosecutorial personnel to
handle the anticipated increase in workload; and
WHEREAS, the amendment to Rules 8.04 and 11.07 will take effect on
January 1, 1991; and
WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Attorney's Office, the Hennepin
County Public Defender's Office, the Brooklyn Center City Attorney's Office
all strongly oppose the amendment to Rules 8.04 and 11.07.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as follows:
1. The Brooklyn Center City."'Council strongly urges the Supreme
Court Advisory Committee on the Rules of Criminal Procedure to
recommend that the Minnesota Supreme Court exempt Hennepin
County from the amendments to Minnesota Rules of Criminal
Procedure 8.04 and 11.07, repeal the amendments entirely, or
grant Hennepin County a further one year exemption and order
hearings to be held on the necessity of changing the present
system.
2. The Brooklyn Center City Council strongly urges the Justices of
the Minnesota Supreme Court to reconsider the amendments to
Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure 8.04 and 11.07 and
exempt Hennepin County from the amendments, repeal the
amendments entirely, or grant Hennepin County a further one
year exemption and order hearings be held on the necessity of
changing the present system.
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.
CAISSON AND CLELLAND
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
BROOKDALE CORPORATE CENTER
SUITE 305
6300 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
JEFFREY A. CARSON MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA SS430 TELEPHONE
WILLIAM G. CLELLAND (612) 561 -2800
MARGARET C. HEPPER
FAX
STEVEN C. HEY 8 October 1990
(612) 561 -1943
Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
James L. Lindsay, Chief of Police
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55429
Dear Gerry and Jim:
As you are aware, the Minnesota Supreme Court appears ready
to impose a revised version of Rule 8.04 of the Minnesota Rules
of Criminal Procedure to be effective 1 January 1991, which
provides that all Omnibus Hearings shall be held not later than
14 days after the defendant's initial appearance in court.
Defendants charged with felony and gross misdemeanor
offenses are those entitled to Omnibus Hearings. An Omnibus
Hearing is a hearing which can be demanded by a defendant so that
he can challenge whether there is sufficient probable cause to
hold him answerable for the offense and where he can also
challenge the admissibility of evidence gathered against him such
as a result of questioning, search and seizure and the defendant
may also raise any other legal defenses or matters he wishes.
The hearing consists of testimony usually by police officers and
other witnesses before a Judge of the County, at which the
defendant may also offer evidence and after which the Court makes
a pre -trial ruling on all of these issues.
Under the former rule and its interpretation, Hennepin
County did not hold the Omnibus Hearings within 14 days after the
defendant's initial appearance but, rather, deferred the Omnibus
Hearing until the pre -trial conference. This did not deprive
defendants of their right to have the hearing, but simply
permitted it to be deferred to see if the prosecution and defense
would negotiate a settlement of the case. Any defendant was
entitled to have a hearing within 14 days if he wished, but most
defendants agreed to waive the 14 days and defer the hearing
because the cases are normally settled by negotiation and the
hearing is therefore unnecessary. Under the old rule, defendants
lost none of the constitutional protection to which they are
entitled since they could have the hearings upon demand, but most
preferred to defer the hearing.
Gerald Splinter and Jim Lindsay
page 2
40 8 October 1990
Under the new rule, if a defendant demands an Omnibus
Hearing, the hearing must be conducted within 14 days after his
first appearance. Since the Supreme Court intends to strictly
enforce this rule, it appears that in all gross misdemeanor
cases, which we handle for the City, we will have to prepare for
and conduct the hearings within 14 days after the initial
appearance. The Hennepin County Public Defender has already
announced that he has instructed his staff to demand hearings in
every case. I estimate that the public defender handles at least
60 percent of the criminal cases. Members of the private defense
bar have also indicated that they will routinely demand such
hearings if, for no other reasons, then to avoid any suggestion
of malpractice on their part.
What is clear as a result of this rule change is that the
communities will experience an extraordinary rise in the cost of
prosecution of gross misdemeanor offenses. Fortunately, this new
rule does not apply to misdemeanor offenses, but only to felony
and gross misdemeanor offenses, but nonetheless, the cost of
complying with the rule is going to be substantial.
Looking at the statistics for the last several years,
Brooklyn Center seems to charge between 150 and 200 gross
misdemeanor offenses per year. At present, the Hennepin County
Judges estimate that they will be able to handle five to six
hearings per day. Since I expect that most defense lawyers will
demand such a hearing, I expect that we will spend an additional
30 to 40 full days each year in court for these hearings and that
the legal fees as a result will increase substantially, perhaps
by as much as $25,000.00. Further, the City is going to
experience substantially increased costs for payment of overtime
and court time for officers to be present and I expect that the
operation of the police department as far as scheduling is
concerned is going to be substantially complicated as officers
are required to be in court so early after the charging of a
gross misdemeanor offense.
When we learned of the imposition in the new rule, Brooklyn
Center joined all other communities in protesting its
implementation and asking the Supreme Court to relent by either
not enforcing the rule or deferring its application. Only the
heavily populated counties, such as Ramsey and Hennepin are
really affected. From talking with Judges in Hennepin County who
are close to the issue, they do not expect the Supreme Court to
relent and as a result, they have made preparation to take ten
Judges off the civil assignments and devote them to these
hearings. This represents a dedication of approximately 20
percent of the total force of Judges in the County to these
hearings.
Gerald Splinter and Jim Lindsay
page 3
8 October 1990
I expect the Supreme Court feels that the conduct of this
hearing early will force many cases to settle and thereby result
in overall efficiency. I doubt very much whether that will be
the case and in my opinion, imposition of this rule is
unwarranted, ill advised and absolutely unnecessary. The old
rule did not detract from the rights of defendants whatsoever
since they could always have the hearing within 14 days if they
wished. Almost all defendants agreed to waive the hearing
without any diminution in their constitutional rights.
Nonetheless, if the Supreme Court enforces the rule, we must
abide by it and conduct the hearings or the cases shall be
dismissed.
I hope the rule will not be imposed, but if it is, I have
been thinking about some ways in which we can cope. First, we
can elect to charge some of the offenses as misdemeanors rather
than gross misdemeanors where appropriate. A gross misdemeanor
is an offense for which the maximum punishment is a $3,000.00
fine and a term of one year imprisonment. A misdemeanor has a
maximum punishment of 90 days in jail and a $700.00 fine. Many
theft crimes are either misdemeanors or gross misdemeanors
depending upon the value of the property stolen. If the value of
the property stolen is $200.00 or less the offense is a
misdemeanor, but if the value of the property is more than
$200.00 but less than $500.00, it is a gross misdemeanor. In
cases where a theft has taken place but the value of the property
stolen is only slightly over $200.00, we can elect to charge a
misdemeanor instead of a gross misdemeanor and I think still
accomplish the same result of addressing the crime and punishing
the offender. On a first offense, no Judge would impose any
penalty nearly as severe as a $3,000.00 fine or one year in jail,
so I think a misdemeanor penalty could clearly attach to a crime
of this type and since we would be charging a misdemeanor, the
Omnibus Hearing would not have to be held within 14 days.
If we did charge crimes as gross misdemeanor, we can try to
see if defense counsel are interested in negotiating the case at
the first appearance. I am not very optimistic that we will be
able to do so, because even though the prosecution is ready to
discuss the case at that point, I doubt whether many defense
lawyers would be. The public defender might be interested in
this approach so that the cases can be resolved earlier, but
members of the private defense bar would probably wish to defer
the case to permit more time for preparation, investigation and
probably payment of their fees. Delay almost always benefits the
defendant and most defendants, if they believe they are going to
be fined and /or imprisoned, wish to defer imposition of
punishment as long as possible. We will not compromise the
standards that we have for disposition of criminal cases in any
event.
Gerald Splinter and Jim Lindsay
0 page 4
8 October 1990
If the hearings do have to take place, much of the evidence
at the hearing may be reliable hearsay, which means that not
every officer in the case has to testify. We will be diligent in
preparing the cases so that the minimum number of officers will
have to testify so that we can achieve a successful result in
each case, but keep the administrative costs to the police
department and the City as low as possible.
We should know in the very near future whether the Supreme
Court will relent and defer the imposition of this rule, at least
with respect to Hennepin and Ramsey Counties or whether the rule
will take effect in January as scheduled. I would like to meet
with you both then to discuss our approach to this rule change so
that we can continue to prosecute all of the cases effectively
and yet on a cost effective basis.
There may be some increased cost of prosecution even if this
rule is not implemented. I am told by Shirley Iverson, Court
Administrator for Division II, that Brooklyn Center's case load
has increased to the point where she wishes us to appear in court
an additional two to three days per month. The volume of cases
for the City of Crystal has dropped so it is proposed that those
days originally scheduled for Crystal would be switched to
Brooklyn Center.
In 1989, the Court scheduled us for appearances every Monday
and every Friday of each week. Because the Court devoted one
Monday every month to the hearing of cases involving revocation
of probation, there was one Monday of each month when Brooklyn
Center cases were not heard. Given the increase in cases by the
end of 1989, the Court scheduled Brooklyn Center cases for
Tuesdays and Fridays which effectively gave us one more full day
per month for prosecution of cases. Ms. Iverson now advises that
given the additional increases in volume, she wishes to schedule
two to three additional days per month probably using
Wednesdays. She is completing her analysis of this matter and
will decide within the next month or two whether we will have to
add additional days. At present, as prosecutors for Brooklyn
Center, we are processing approximately 120 defendants per week.
This volume generally fills the Court calendar all day on
Tuesdays and Fridays and adding more defendants to those days
simply makes the calendar unmanageable.
I look forward to discussing these issues with you.
Sincerely,
CARSON AND CLELLAND
William lland
WGC:lln
1-1- 11WW1 i0 L116C 111C11 u aller MeCilllg "'t Just a little off the top
to:s to vu;e against further military Thursday, the protesters tern agreed to
aid to El Salvador next week. shift the protest to Assumption The upper section of the tower atop the Old Main worker Eugene Molitor watched. The tower, made
building on the Hamline University campus in St. Paul mostly of wood in 1880 and part of the oldest building
Last Sunday 104 protest sympathiz- Protesters continued on page 5B was lifted off by a crane Friday as construction on campus, will be restored and replaced.
han g a in pretrial hearings u p sets suburbs District wins
asbestos suit
By Donna Halvorsen The city of Minneapolis and Henne- The rule change involves omnibus charged. Because defense attorneys The North St. Paul- Maple-
Staff Writer pin County have joined the suburbs hearings, the pretrial hearings held in say they will be compelled to go wood - Oakdale School District
in predicting dire consequences when felony and gross misdemeanor cases through such hearings to protect their has been awarded nearly
A seemingly simple change in court the rule goes into effect Jan, 1. Min- to determine the legality of arrests, clients' interests, the number of hear- $3.3 million for the removal of
rules, moving up the date of pretrial neapolis has projected an extra $ l confessions, seizures of property and ings is expected to rise substantially, asbestos fireproofing
hearings in criminal cases, has million in police- overtime costs. The other issues. In outstate counties, the materials.
aroused a storm of protest among Hennepin County attorney's office hearings are held early in the case. In The change was recommended by the
suburban governments. says it will have to add five attorneys Hennepin and Ramsey counties, Supreme Court's criminal rules com- The verdict was against the
or stop prosecuting certain kinds of which handle the bulk of the state's mittee and approved unanimously by Keene Corp., a manufacturer
City councils in Bloomington, Min- cases. criminal cases, they are held the day the court over objections raised at of a liquid form of asbestos
netonka, Edina, Maple Grove, Eden of trial. Because most cases are re- hearings. "Every person who spoke that was sprayed on the
Prairie and Crystal have asked the Kevin Burke, the assistant chief solved through plea negotiations be- concerning the rule — and there were beams of Tartan High School
Minnesota Supreme Court to rescind judge in Hennepin County, said fore then, few omnibus hearings are at least a dozen — spoke against the when the school was built in
the rule, which they say will cost judges will have significantly less held. rule," said Mitch Rothman, assistant 1970. The ruling may be the
hundreds of thousands of dollars in time available for civil cases. "I city attorney in Minneapolis. largest of its kind. Story,
police overtime and could force them know of no judge on our bench who The new rule would require hearings Page 48.
to hire more prosecutors. is in favor of this," he said. within 14 days after a person is Courts continued on page 5B
FM M
murder- for -hire suspects implicated in extortion scheme
By Kevin Diaz ner, arrested on drug and firearm Shortly before his death, Dougherty then dumped the body. Authorities known on the street as "Wild Bill,"
Staff Writer charges. had been arrested with drugs and an estimated that Dougherty, 34, had wanted strong -armed to pay drug
Uzi automatic machine gun. Police been dead several weeks before he debts.
Two Twin Cities men arrested in Schatz, 35, of Lexington, is charged said they learned later from an infor- was found.
connection with an alleged murder- in the shooting death of Herbert J. mant that Faulker had sold Dougher- Among those reportedly named i►.
for -hire this summer near Duluth Dougherty, a Duluth man whose de- ty the weapon, and that Faulkner An unidentified informant cited in the notebook was FBI agent Bob
have been implicated in an extortion composed body was found by hunt- allegedly wanted Dougherty killed to the criminal complaint told police Hollister, who Faulkner allegedly
scheme involving drugs, guns, and an ers Sept. 22 in the Superior Munici- prevent him from talking to investi- that Faulkner supplied the gun, wanted killed. Hollister, formerly of
alleged plot to kill an FBI agent, pal Forest in Wisconsin. gators. which was later sawed into pieces the Minneapolis FBI office, has since
according to court documents filed and thrown into the St. Louis River. been reassigned to an undisclosed
Friday. Faulkner, 37, of Minneapolis, has not According to charges filed yesterday FBI office in another state.
been charged in the slaying, but is in Douglas County Circuit Court in According to an FBI affidavit, the
Federal and local authorities closed identified in the criminal complaint Superior, Wis., Schatz took Dougher- same informant also told authorities Jeffrey Jamar, head of the Minneapo-
in Thursday on Leslie J. Schatz, ar- against Schatz as having hired Schatz ty by force from Duluth to a wooded that he had met with Schatz and had lis FBI office, said the motive for the
rested for first - degree murder and to kill Dougherty for $5,000. area outside Superior, shot him five seen him with a spiral notebook con -
kidnapping, and William P. Faulk- or six times with a .22- caliber pistol, taining names of people Faulkner, Arrests continued on page 4B
aungp.L JeiS /0661./9 jagoloO /AepjnleS
�+ Star Tribune /Saturday /October 6/1990 saw
C ourts Continued from page 1B e
Chief Justice Peter Popovich said the Tom Frost, assistant Hennepin County Public Defender William ess gross misdemeanors faster than in
rule change was delayed a year to County attorney, said that if defense Kennedy said it will put greater bur- any other district in the state and are FR
give Hennepin and Ramsey counties attorneys demand hearings in only dens on his already overworked staff ahead of most districts in processing
time to implement it. Ramsey has half the felony cases, it will mean 10 felonies, Burke said. REG U
done so but "a problem apparently times the number of hearings being Ramsey and Hennepin counties op
exists in Hennepin County," he said. held now. Of the 4,700 felony charges posed the rule, and Ramsey County Frank said the uproar over the rule is
handled by his office last year, only asked last summer for a second delay likely to be discussed at the commit -
e
District Judge Donovan Frank, a 250 required hearings. City prosecu- in its implementation. tee's annual retreat this weekend, and
committee member, said the intent tors throughout the county handle EGULf
was to resolve issues earlier and another 4,000 to 5,000 gross misde- But Chief Ramsey County Judge Jo- a the committee new recommendation e to the court. e R.
speed the flow of cases through the meanors. anne Smith said the county was al- SOME a L
court. Minnetonka City Attorney ready working on a new system to "As a committee we're certainly obli-
Laurel Hersey said the rule is likely The one to three police officers who speed up criminal cases, and the new gated to discuss the concerns that
to create a backlog of cases. customarily testify in each case will rule was incorporated into the system have been raised by a number of THE
be "sitting around the government in September. Hennepin County people," he said.
"We're going to have to give priority center waiting to testify" instead of adopted new procedures earlier.
to these omnibus hearings, and other being out on the street, Frost said.
things are going to have to wait," she Smith said it doesn't make sense that VVI
said. Minnetonka estimates that the Prosecutors aren't the only ones Hennepin County should now be
hearings will cost $80,000 in extra complaining about the rule. The asked to change its system when it ® ��
police and prosecutorial costs. In Hennepin County Chiefs of Police has made changes that seem to
Bloomitigton, the costs are estimated Association has asked the court to working. Because of those changesbe , A NNUAL R H
at $138,000 to $295,000. rescind the rule, and Hennepin Hennepin County judges now proc-
Serving the Minneapolis Area
Protester
O ri g i nal l y Com ary Sh
S '" �; 2 Day Complimentary Shoe Sale
� r �` • Groda A USA soh leather 1695
Continued from
page 1B p' ,,` • � � x ; a • Nome -brand manu"rer 2695(—)
• o�c al a tired 6 u at m. �Z4 °, .
r
Church in downtown St. Paul, about
a quarter mile down the hill from the ' '
cathedral.. �� • �k , t <
°t•k y ' ' g ''- • �`� ' d Cherry End Tables
'�W isunderstood by the arch - Oval Cocktall Table
bisnd some parts of the com-
THOMAS L. JOHNSON PHONE
COUNTY ATTORNEY, (612) 348 -5550
OFFICE OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY
2000 GOVERNMENT CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487
September 21, 1990
Chief James Lindsay
Brooklyn Center P31ice Department
6301 Shingle Creek Drive
Brooklyn Center, Mm 55430
Dear Chief:
This is to follow up the discussion at the last Hennepin
County Chiefs of Police Association meeting. At that meeting I said I
would send each Chief some background information regarding the
Omnibus Hearing Rule that will go into effect on January 1, 1991. The
new Rule is effective on that date u nless the Minnesota Supreme Court
acts to either defer the implementation date or to otheri.:.ise modify
its current position.
The new Rule change mandates a full Omnibus Dearing within 14
days of every defendant's first appearance for all felony and gross
misdemeanor prosecutions. This includes a Hearing on all
Constitutional and other legal issues (the so- called Rasmussen
Hearing). Such issues now go through a Rasmussen Hearing only if the
defendant does not otherwise enter a guilty plea -- something which
happens in about 900 of all felony cases. To put some numbers on
this, about 250 felony cases go to trial each year in Hennepin County.
Only these cases are now subjected to a Rasmussen Hearing. However,
we prosecute approximately 4,000 felonies each year. So, about 3,700+
cases which now settle without a Rasmussen Hearing will ba required to
have one. (A few cases will settle within 14 days afy-er the Rule
change, but very few.)
Each Rasmussen Hearing will require minimally the presence of
the arresting officer. It may also require the presence of the
investigating officer(s) and others as well. We estimate each Omnibus
will take a full half -day. So, your department will have 1 -4 officers
subpo,3naed for perhaps as many as 3,700 felony cases where their
appearance is not now necessary. (This number will, in all
likelihood, be smaller than 3,700. But it is impossible to project
how much smaller and even if it is, say, 50% smaller, it is still
signi.i'icant. )
It would be very useful for you to analyze the cast your city
wol:ld incur because of the Rule charge. Ploase note that the numbers
above are for felonies only You will deed to consult your city
T.D.D. (612) 348 - 6015 HENNEPIN COUNTY IS AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER FAX(612)348-2042
Chief James Lindsay
Brooklyn Center Police Department
September 21, 1990
Page 2
attorney g gross to et misdemeanor figures. Then a letter should be
g
sent with your cost estimate, along with any other explanatory
comments you would like to make, to:
Frank Claybourne, Chair cc: Chief Justice Peter Popovich
Supreme Court Criminal Rules Minnesota Supreme Court
Advisory Committee Minnesota Judicial Center
30 E. Seventh Street #2800 25 Constitution Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55101 St. Paul, MN 55155 -6102
Obviously, speed is of the essence. The Criminal Rules
Advisory Committee is scheduled to meet in October. It is critically
important that this Committee recommend to the Supreme Court that it
defer implementation or toss -out the Omnibus Rule now scheduled to go
into effect January 1.
As additional background for you, I have enclosed the letter
the Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association authorized be sent to
Mr. Claybourne. Please contact Tom Frost (348 -5520) or myself if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
THOMAS L. JOHNSON
Hennepin County Attorney
cc: Tom Frost
[TLJLTRS]CHIEFS/CHIEFS MTG
P.S. I just received notice that the Advisory Committee is meeting
October 5 and 6 -- so, as I said, speed is of the essence.
The 1 - hi c in (,'ount ('4hick old Police Asso l
�,� Pn,I 1 r►, 1 y9r,
Frank Claybourne, Chairperson
Supi: eme Court Cr.im i na l Ru .Les ndv i GvI c'omm i t t.eP
30 Fast: Seventh Street. i f 2800
St. Paul, Minnesota 551.01
Dear Mr. Claybourne:
T - i Wit ;
C()llnt.y c'il i Pfs (if Igo 1 i cP nss(m- i at. i on regard i ny t.hP i—L.Pnt i a 1 c hangP
ill t:hP way Felony and gross ill i.sdPnlealml Onul i tins hearings are 11p id
ill Hennepin Coullty.
Lay unanimous resolution of the Associat nlPmber. ship at its
monthly meeting September. 6, 1990, 1 was asked to send this Letter
requesting that the Supreme Court Criminal Rules Advisory Committee
reconsider this issue and recommend to the Supreme Court that the
new Omnibus Iiear.ing Rule, presently scheduled to be effective
January 1, 1.991, be rescinded.
1:11 considering this issue, we urge the committee to take into
account the impressive record of the members of the Hennepin County
criminal justice system in working together to eliminate criminal
case backlog. At present, two - thirds of all- felony cases are
resolved before they are set for trial. Since January of 1990, the
number_ of felony cases awaiting trial has dropped from over 300 to
about 180. These numbers alone are significant, but with the
history of 1,450 felony cases awaiting trial in November., 1987, . it
is obvious that dramatic changes have occurred.
Omnibus hearings involving live testimony now occur in about
1 150 case a year If the Rule change takes place and full Omnibus
1
hearings are scheduled 14 days after first appearance, members of
the Hennepin County Public Defender's Office have said they will
demand hearings in all felony and gross misdemeanor cases. If
demanded in all cases, it will increase the number of hearings to
about 10,000 cases. Even if demanded in only Half the cases, it
will require twenty times more hearings than under_ the present
system. With each Omnibus hearing involving one or more police.
officers, the impact on the delivery of police services and its
resulting effect on public safety is apparent.
In summary, we urge the committee to consider the effect the
rule change will have on police officers' time spent in and
awaiting court. Our agencies' ability to perform the duties
expected by our citizenry will be reduced significantly. The
current system has proven to be effective in resolving cases
The ,lennepin County (Iiiefs ()[ Pofice Association.
�z�pt.ernl ltl, Iyy�r
Frank Cl ayhourne, Chairperson
Supreme Cour_ C.r _im i na I_ Miles- Advisory Cornrn i t tree
30 East: Seventh Street- x`2800
St. Paul, Minnesota 551:01
Dear Mr. Claybourne:
C ()unt.y Chiefs r, f l'o I i T P nssr<- i s t. i on r rd i nq t_Ire pO Lollt_ i a l ITangP
ill t . I T e way fel orry and q r oss )Ili sdPim -anon c)nuT i t >us hear i nys are hp l d
in llennepiu county.
By unanimous resolution of the Associ.at.jon member.shi.p at its
monthly meeting September 6, 1990, 1 was asked to send this letter
requesting that the Supreme Court Criminal Rules Advisory Committee
reconsider this issue and recommend to the Supr eme Court that the
new Omnibus Hearing Rule, presently scheduled to be effective
January 1, 1.991, be rescinded.
I'll considering this issue, we urge the committee to take into
account the impressive record of the members of the Hennepin County
criminal justice system in working together to eliminate criminal-
case backlog. At present, two - thirds of all felony cases are
resolved before they are set for trial. Since January of 1990, the
number_ of felony cases awaiting trial has dropped from over 300 to
about 180. These numbers alone are significant, but with the
history of 1,450 felony cases awaiting trial in November., 1987, it
is obvious that dramatic changes have occurred.
Omnibus hearings involving live testimony now occur in about
1 -50 cases a year. If the Rule change takes place and full Omnibus
hearings are scheduled 14 days after first appearance, members of
the Hennepin County Public Defender's Office have said they will
demand hearings in all felony and gross misdemeanor cases. If
demanded in all cases, it will increase the number of Bearings to
about 10,000 cases. Even if demanded in only Half the cases, it
will require twenty times more hearings than under the present
system. With each Omnibus hearing involving one or more police
officers, the impact on the delivery of police services and its
resulting effect on public safety is apparent.
In summary, we urge the committee to consider the effect the
rule change will have on police officers' time spent in and
awaiting court. Our agencies' ability to perform the duties
expected by our citizenry will be reduced significantly. The
current system has proven to be effective in resolving cases
Supreme Court Advisory Committee.
Rules of Criminal Procedure
2800 Minnesota World Trade Center
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Judge Robert E. Bowen
Judge Charles E. Cashman
henry Il. Fe:ikema
Judge Donovan W. Frank
David Graven
,;Judge Charles C. Johnson
John E. MacGibbon
Judge henry W. McCarr, Jr.
Ronald 1. Meshbesher
Judge Bruce C. Stolle
Pta'!].
Ph i) p Marron
1 Mayna► - d E. P i 1's ig
Supreme Court of Minnesota
230 State Capitol Building
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Chief Justice Peter S. Popovich
Justice Lawrence R. Yetka
Justice Rosalie E. Wahl
Justice John E. Simonett
Justice Esther M. Tomljanovich
Justice M. Jeanne Coyne
Justice A. M. Keith
September 26, 1990
Frank Claybourne
Chair of Supreme Court Criminal
Rules Advisory Committee
30 East Seventh Street #2800
St. Paul, MN, 55101
Dear Mr. Claybourne:
I would like to take this opportunity to express my concern of the new
Omnibus Rule that is to go into effect January 1, 1991.
Each Hearing will require minimally the presence of the arresting officer (s)
and may even require the presence of the investigating officer (s). The
Hearings will approximately take a full half day.
In the last 12 months Brooklyn Center has had 250 Gross Misdemeanor cases.
Taking account for the new Rule, Brooklyn Center would be sending officers
for well over a 1000 hours in a given year to respond to the subpoenas.
The cost of the new Rule will hit heavy for cities that are already faced with
budget difficulties. Thousands of dollars would be required by the cities in
implementing the new Rule.
I ask that you seriously look at the consequences that could result if this new
Rule goes into effect on January 1, 1991. I believe that there is a more
feasible way to deal with the problems faced by the courts.
Letter to F. Claybourne
Page 2
September 26, 1990
The goal of any police department is to serve the citizens needs to the best of
their ability. I believe that having officers spending time and tax payers money
in implementing the new Rule would be detrimental to serving those needs.
I ask that you toss -out the new Omnibus Rule.
Sincerely,
James Lindsay
Chief of Police
BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE DEPARTMENT
cc: Chief Justice st ce Peter Popovich
Minnesota Supreme Court
INTER- OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
C,iy
TO: John G. Pidgeon, City Manager, and David R. 05t�z;eiga$
City Attorney
FROM: Sheila M. Happe, Henry DATE: Sept. 5, 1990
Wieland & LaRae Bradley
SUBJECT: Pretrial Hearings -- Impact of Crim. Prac. Rule 8.04;
to be implemented on Jan. 1, 1991
The Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Rules of Criminal
Procedures recommended amendment to Rule 8.04 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure. Rule 8.04 deals with the Pretrial Hearing,
the second stage of the criminal court process. Currently, after
the first appearance, the Defendant requests a continued arraign-
ment date or a pretrial hearing. At the pretrial hearing, the
Defendant waives or demands an evidentiary hearing which is held
immediately prior to jury trial unless the court, for good cause,
orders otherwise.
The amendment to Rule 8.04 on the other hand requires an omnibus
hearing within 14 days of the Defendant's initial appearance
before the court unless the court extends the time (to a later
date within 30 days of the initial appearance) for good cause
upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion. The
Hennepin County Public Defender's Office and the Legal Rights
Center have both indicated that they would demand an evidentiary
hearing within the 14 days as they believed it was their duty as
a responsible defense attorney.
The ramifications of the amended criminal rule 8.04 of the Rules
of Criminal Procedure are disastrous not only to the Bloomington
City Attorney's Office, but also to the Bloomington Police De-
partment. If this amendment is not changed before the effective
date of Rule 8.04, January 1, 1991, both the City Attorney's
Office and the Bloomington Police Department will be forced to
hire additional prosecutors, police officers and clerical staff.
The amended Rule 8.04 will require our prosecutors to be prepared
for approximately six evidentiary hearings per day (according to
Hennepin County Judge Porter). Moreover, all of the witnesses on
each of the six cases would have to appear in court at the pre-
trial to testify. This means that at the very least six officers
will be sitting in court, waiting for their case to be called.
These hearings will be downtown at the Hennepin County Government
1
John G. Pidgeon, City Manager and
David R. Ornstein, City Attorney
September 5, 1990
Center, not at Division Four in Edina. The overtime budget of
the various police departments will be exhausted early in the
year. Furthermore, in assault cases, the victims of the assault
will be forced to testify not only at the jury trial, but also at
this evidentiary hearing. Currently, the prosecutors have a hard
time getting the victim to appear one time to testify. Finally,
it is a waste of resources to have the witnesses appear twice to
testify about the same issues.
The Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Rules of Criminal
Procedure (hereinafter the Rules Committee) indicated that the
purpose of the amendment to Rule 8.04 is to establish state
uniformity. Out -state Minnesota is currently operating under the
amended Rule 8.04. The amended Rule 8.04 does not apply to
Hennepin County or Ramsey County until January 1, 1991. However,
out -state Minnesota does not have as many cases as Hennepin
County and Ramsey County do. Moreover, it is our experience that
defense attorneys plead their clients when the judge sitting on
the bench (on any given day) gives favorable sentences. Most
attorneys are merely "judge- shopping" or accommodating their
clients to the fact of a negotiated plea and sentence. This new
amendment will not adjudicate cases more quickly. The defense
attorneys will still only plead their clients when they are
before a judge who sentences more favorably than other judges
(whether or not they lost the evidentiary hearing).
A meeting was held in Judge Levy's conference room on September
4, 1990, at 12:15 p.m. Several persons attended the meeting
including Judge Levy, Hennepin County District Court Judge Por-
ter, Hennepin County Attorney Tom Frost, Hennepin County Attorney
Ms. Keith, Hennepin County Attorney Ted Wilson, Minnetonka Prose-
cutor Laurel Hersey, Bloomington City Attorneys Henry Wieland and
Sheila Happe, Bloomington Police Department Lt. Stone, Eden
Prairie Prosecutor Lea Desusa, Minneapolis City Attorney Mitch
Rothman, several Hennepin County probation officers, and several
persons from the Sheriff's Office and other law enforcement
agencies.
Judge Levy explained that Hennepin County District Court Judge
Porter, Hennepin County Public Defender's Office Bill Kennedy,
Ramsey County Public Defenders Office, and Judge Levy made a
presentation to the Rules Committee outlining the disastrous
effect amended Rule 8.04 will have on the municipalities, the
court system process, and the budgets of the police departments
2
John G. Pidgeon, City Manager and David R.
Ornstein, City Attorney
September 5, 1990
and the city attorneys offices. Judge Levy expressed great
disappointment with the feedback from the Rules Committee. She
stated that the Rules Committee was in favor of the amendment to
Rule 8.04 as it created state uniformity. Judge Porter stated
that he presented to the Rules Committee that approximately 75 -
80% of the gross misdemeanor cases plead out at the pretrial
hearing in Hennepin County under the present system. He also
stated that he would have to transfer judges from Family Court
and judges from the civil side to the Criminal Court to have
approximately 6 - 8 additional judges available just to deal with
the pretrial evidentiary hearings required by the amended Rule
8.04. He stated that not only would the criminal court system
fail, but also the Civil Court would be backlogged due to less
judges available for civil cases.
Both Judge Porter and Judge Levy indicated that they are extreme-
ly frustrated and need any new ideas to present to the Rules
Committee to undo the evidentiary hearing requirement in amended
Rule 8.04. The Hennepin County Attorney's Office stated that it
is dismantling prosecution teams to deal with the requirement of
evidentiary hearings in Rule 8.04. The city attorneys offices of
every municipality in both Hennepin County and Ramsey County will
be greatly affected. In Bloomington, the City Attorney's Office
would be forced to hire additional prosecutors and clerical
staff. However, the City Attorney's Office budget cannot provide
for these additions.
We have several suggestions to overturn Rule 8.04 or at least
have the effective date of Rule 8.04 continued for one more year.
One suggestion is to send the Rules Committee cost estimates the
implementation of Rule 8.04 would require from all of the police
departments and attorneys offices in Hennepin County. The Police
Department of Minneapolis estimated that it would cost them $1.5
million to $3 million in overtime pay to arrange for police
officers to be at the evidentiary hearings. One suggestion is to
send the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Rules of Crimi-
nal Procedure and the Minnesota Supreme Court Justices the esti-
mated costs which the city attorneys offices and the police
departments would be forced to expend to comply with amended Rule
8.04. The police department of Minneapolis estimated that it
would cost them $1.5 million to $3 million in overtime pay to
arrange for police officers to be at the evidentiary hearings. A
second suggestion is to send the Rules Committee and the Supreme
Court the position of all of the municipalities in Hennepin
County regarding this rule along with these cost estimates.
3
s
John G. Pidgeon, City Manager, and
David R. Ornstein, City Attorney
September 5, 1990
A third suggestion is to communicate with the City Council mem-
bers of municipalities and adopt resolutions regarding amended
Rule 8.04 and send the resolutions to the Rules Committee and the
Supreme Court. A fourth suggestion is to contact the Suburban
Prosecutor's Association and submit a memorandum representing the
joint position of the prosecutors. The final suggestion is to
lobby the legislature to exempt. Hennepin County and Ramsey County
from complying with Rule 8.04.
Hence, the effect of amended Rule 8.04 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure is disastrous on the budgets of municipalities; and
steps need to be taken quickly to prevent Rule 8.04, as amended,
from going into effect on January 1, 1991.
4
CARSON A'D'D CLELLA -'�D
ATTORNEYS AT I-AW
BROOKDALE CORPORATE CENTER
SUITE 305
6300 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
JEFFREY A. CARSON MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE
WILLIAM G CLELLAND (612) 561.2800
MARGARET C. HEPPER 1 October 1990 FAX
STEVEN C HEY (612) 5611943
Mr. Frank Claybourne, Chair
Supreme Court Criminal Rules
Advisory Committee
30 East Seventh Street
Suite 2800
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Dear Mr. Claybourne:
Our firm represents the City of Brooklyn Center as
prosecuting attorney and I am contacting you at this time on
behalf of our office and the City to express our deep concern
over implementation of the rule requiring complete Omnibus
Hearings to be held within 14 days after each defendant's first
appearance. The City of Brooklyn Center joins the other
communities in the county which have uniformly objected to
implementation of this rule because of the exceptional financial
costs which the cities will incur and in light of the fact that,
in our practical experience, the rule will not expedite
disposition of these criminal cases.
The cities now bear substantially increased criminal
prosecution costs by virtue of the transfer of gross misdemeanor
jurisdiction to them some years ago and in light of the
predilection of the legislature to enhance many subsequent
offenses to the gross misdemeanor level. All cities believe in
effective criminal prosecution and have undertaken their
responsibility willingly and seriously but the proposed rule
presents them with a prospect of significantly increased costs
with virtually no corresponding benefit.
I share the opinion of all other prosecutors objecting to
the rule that requiring defendants and defense counsel to either
waive an Omnibus Hearing or to conduct it within 14 days will not
expedite the disposition of criminal cases. The public defender
has already announced that they will demand a hearing in each
case and I expect that most private defense counsel will as well,
if for no other reason than to preserve the hearing while they
investigate the case. I do not expect that many of the Omnibus
Hearings set will actually be conducted, so I anticipate that an
extraordinary number of hearings will be set and that the
hearings will be waived at the time appointed. I can foresee
delays in arraignments, pre -trial conferences and other court
Mr. Frank Cldybourne, Chair
page 2
1 October 1990
appearances as the Clerks of Court are required to set so many
cases for Omnibus Hearing only, in all likelihood, to have many
of the hearings waived subsequently.
Whether the hearings are waived or are conducted within 14
days will not materially speed disposition of these cases. There
are many reasons why defense counsel set many cases for trial and
almost all defendants predicate their action on the premise that
delay generally aids the defense.
Once the Omnibus Hearings are demanded and given the
uncertainty of whether or not defense counsel will actually
insist upon the hearing, we will be required to have all of the
police officers and other witnesses available on very short
notice thereby incurring substantial costs for court time and
overtime and seriously disrupting the operational schedule of the
police department. All prosecutors will have to be prepared for
each hearing within a very short period of time and the
additional attorneys' fees, witness fees, overtime and other
costs to the City are expected to be substantial.
In 1989 and through year -to -date 1990, the City has
prosecuted 378 gross misdemeanor offenses. If the Omnibus
Hearings cannot be combined with the pre -trial conferences, there
would have been an additional 378 appearances scheduled
significantly burdening an already crowded criminal court system
and imposing substantial costs upon the City.
I can see no reason for implementation of the rule if
defendants and their counsel make knowing and intelligent waivers
of this right. In many cases, deferral of the Omnibus Hearing
until the pre -trial permits the State and defense to negotiate a
successful conclusion to the case without the necessity of
scheduling and /or conducting the hearing. No defendant will ever
be required to either dispense with his right to this hearing or
with his right to have it held within 14 days so that present
practice of conducting these hearings does not infringe upon any
of the rights of defendants and yet still permits the effective
administration of justice.
I urge the committee to recommend and the Supreme Court to
reject implementation of the rule and permit Hennepin County to
conduct the Omnibus Hearings under the present practice.
Respectfully,
CARSON AND CLELLAND
William G. Clelland
Brooklyn Center City Attorney
WGC:lln
cc: Chief Justice Pete Popovich
James Lindsay, Chie of police
Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date / 15 / 90
Agenda Item Number l'
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION APPROVING REVISED COST DISTRIBUTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TWIN
LAKE /RYAN LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
DEPT. APPROVAL• /
SY KNAPP, POIECTORIbO PUBLIC WORKS
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
f r
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _)
On February 26, 1990, the City Council approved an agreement with the City of
• Robbinsdale for the construction of the Twin Lake /Ryan Lake Outlet Modification
project as described in a report prepared by the Shingle Creek Watershed
Management Commission (SCWMC). That improvement includes the following
elements:
• installation of a 4' x 6' culvert under France Avenue in Robbinsdale to
increase capacity during high water periods
• installation of a control structure at the west end of that culvert, to
prevent runout during low water periods
• installation of a 54" culvert under the Soo Line Railroad tracks between
Ryan Lake and Howe Fertilizer to replace the existing 36" culvert at
that location
• cleanout of the existing 54" storm sewer from Howe Fertilizer to the
east side of Brooklyn Boulevard
• cleanout of the drainage channel through the Soo Line property in
Minneapolis, from Brooklyn Boulevard to the intersection of 49th Avenue
and Queen Avenue in Minneapolis
• participation in a City of Minneapolis storm sewer improvement project
(i.e. - payment for the cost of oversizing a new storm sewer on 49th
Avenue)
e
This system of improvements will have the following impacts:
.
• somewhat lower the maximum high water levels in these lakes (the 100 -
year flood level will be lowered about 6 inches)
• substantially reduce the length of time during which the lake levels
remain high following a heavy runoff; (following a "one -year storm ", the
lake levels will return to normal in 85 hours (3 1/2 days) vs. the 600
hours (25 days) now required)
• maintain the same "runout elevation" to assure that the lake levels
during normal and dry periods are no lower than they are with the
present outfall system.
Under the agreement approved in February, the City of Robbinsdale agreed to
complete all work necessary for this improvement, with reimbursement from the
other 5 cities within that subdistrict of the watershed. Based on the cost
allocation formula adopted by the SCWMC (i.e. - 50% based on each city's area,
and 50% based on each city's tax capacity within the subwatershed) and an
estimated total cost of $153,900, the cost to each city was estimated as
follows:
Cost Allocation Cost Allocation
Based on Area Based on Tax Capacity Total Cost
Brooklyn Center 8.8 $ 6,772 7.0 $ 5,387 7.9 $ 12,159
Brooklyn Park 12.7 9,773 11.4 8,772 12.1 18,545
Crystal 35.3 27,163 27.5 21,161 31.4 48,324
Minneapolis 7.1 5,463 9.1 7,003 8.1 12,466
New Hope 15.3 11,773 21.4 16,467 18.3 28,240
Robbinsdale 20.8 16,006 23.6 18.160 22.2 34,166
TOTALS 100.0 $76,950 100.0 $76,950 100.0 $153,900
It is noted that, while the cities of Brooklyn Park and New Hope receive no
benefits from this proposed project, they approved their participation on this
project, based on the agreed -upon formula for cost allocation, and based on
their recognition that there may be "role reversal" on future projects.
The City of Robbinsdale received and opened 8 bids for this improvement on
October 5, 1990. Based on the low bid received, the current project cost
estimate is as follows:
Construction contract $ 148,183
Engineering Services (feasibility
study, plans and specifications
and construction management) 32,956
Legal fees 4,250
Storm Sewer Oversizing by
City of Minneapolis 36,700
• Miscellaneous costs 5,480
Total Project Cost $ 227,569
Based on this total project cost, application of the approved cost allocation
formula (see above), with minor adjustments for items which are to be charged
wholly to Brooklyn Center and Robbinsdale, would result in the following cost
distribution:
Brooklyn Center $ 18,708
Brooklyn Park 26,951
Crystal 69,938
Minneapolis 18,041
New Hope 40,760
Robbinsdale 53.171
Total $ 227,569
After
reviewing this cost distribution, the representatives from Brooklyn Park,
Crystal and New Hope expressed serious concern regarding their increased costs.
Accordingly, representatives from these 6 cities have met with the Commission's
Engineer (J. M. Montgomery, Inc.) to review and discuss this matter. At that
meeting it was agreed that, while the project is primarily a capital improvement
project for which the allocation formula should apply, it also includes several
items which should be regarded as "maintenance" and that the policy of the SCWMC
is that maintenance costs should be borne by the city in which that work needs
to be done. It was also agreed that the costs for developing easements (i.e.,
survey costs and legal costs) should be borne by the cities in which the
easements are r located (i.e. Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis). Based on this
agreement, it is estimated that Brooklyn Center's ortion of the project costs
will be approximately p p J
pp y $27,500 (a final cost distribution number should be
available by the time of the Council meeting on October 15th).
While Brooklyn Center's cost participation has increased substantially more than
was estimated at the time the City Council approved the agreement with
Robbinsdale, it is my opinion that:
• The total benefits from this project will substantially exceed its cost.
• The benefits to properties in Brooklyn Center greatly exceed the City's
share of the project costs.
• The redistribution of project costs as described above is proper.
• The bid submitted by the low bidder is reasonable and responsible.
Accordingly, I recommend approval of the revised cost distribution and
acceptance of the bid (by the City of Robbinsdale). The Robbinsdale City
Council will meet on Tuesday, October 16, 1990 to consider awarding this
contract.
It is expected that the majority of the work on this project will be
completed during 1990, with final cleanup, etc. in 1991.
No funds were included for this project'in the 1990 budget. Funds from the
proposed Storm Drainage Utility will not be available until early to mid -1991.
Therefore, I recommend that the Council authorize a transfer from 1990
unallocated funds to Division 68, Watershed Management in the amount of $27,500.
City Council Action Required
Adoption of the attached resolution.
•
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING REVISED COST DISTRIBUTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE TWIN LAKE /RYAN LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND AMENDING THE 1990
GENERAL FUND BUDGET
WHEREAS, on February 26, 1990, the City Council adopted Resolution
No.90 -32 providing for execution of an agreement with the City of Robbinsdale
for construction of the Twin Lake /Ryan Lake Outlet Improvement, wherein the City
of Brooklyn Center's cost share for project construction was estimated at
$12,159; and
WHEREAS, total project costs based on the low bid for construction as
received by the City of Robbinsdale and other project - related costs are now
estimated at $227,569 as compared to the $153,900 cost estimate included in the
agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has advised the City Council that
the project costs should be redistributed based on redefining capital
improvement costs vs. maintenance costs and the costs of obtaining easements,
and he estimates that redistribution of costs on this basis, using the current
estimate of total project costs, will result in an estimated cost to the City of
Brooklyn Center of $27,500; and
WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Council that the revised cost
distribution is equitable and that the benefits of the project substantially
exceed the costs thereof, and
WHEREAS, Section 7.09 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn
Center does provide for a contingency appropriation as a part of the General
Fund budget, and further provides that the contingency appropriation may be
transferred to any other appropriation by the City Council,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The 1990 General Fund budget be amended as follows:
Increase the Appropriations for the following line items
Watershed Management - No. 68, Object No. 4420 $27,500.00
Decrease the Appropriations for the following line items
Unallocated Dept. Expense - No. 80, Object No. 4995 $27,500.00
2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed
to enter into an amendment to the agreement with the City of
Robbinsdale which provides for an increase in the City's share of
the cost to an estimated total of $27,500.
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.
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
STUDY SESSION
SEPTEMBER 27, 1990
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to
order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace
Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Bertil Johnson and Kristen Mann. Also
present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and
Planner Gary Shallcross.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 30, 1990
Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Johnson to
approve the minutes of the August 30, 1990 Planning Commission
meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki,
Commissioners Bernards and Johnson. Voting against: none. Not
voting: Commissioners Sander, Ainas and Mann. The motion passed.
Commissioner Holmes arrived at 7:32 p.m.
APPLICATION NO. 90025 (Kathleen Holst)
Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced
the first item of business, a request for special use permit
approval to operate a home beauty shop in the basement of the
residence at 6107 Bryant Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the
contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information
Sheet for Application No. 90025, attached).
Commissioner Bernards asked whether the widening of the driveway as
recommended by staff would be at the applicant's expense. The
Secretary responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Holmes asked
what would be the width of a two car driveway, 16 ft. or wider.
The Secretary responded that in commercial districts a two car wide
driveway would be 24 ft. wide, but that in a residential district
perhaps 16 ft. would be adequate. In response to another question
from Commissioner Holmes, the Secretary stated that the Commission
could leave the option open for the applicant as to how to provide
two car spaces on site.
Commissioner Bernards asked whether the driveway modifications had
already started. Mr. Holst responded in the affirmative and stated
that he believed that they could widen the driveway without
altering the curb cut at the street.
Commissioner Holmes asked who would give final approval to the
parking arrangement. The Secretary stated that the Planning and
Inspection Department could make that judgment.
Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether she had
anything to add. Mrs. Kathleen Holst commented on the hours of
operation. She stated that she set the hours at a maximum limit in
order to see what clients would want, and then she would reduce
them. Chairperson Malecki asked how many hours she would really
want to work. Mrs. Holst responded that she would probably work
five days a week and that it would not be full time. The Secretary
stressed that, while the limits of the hours of operation were
acceptable, the City did not want the operation to be going
continuously 68 hours a week.
Commissioner Holmes asked Mrs. Holst whether she was aware of the
requirements for proper plumbing and escape windows perhaps that
the State might require. Mr. Holst responded that the approval by
the State requires proper plumbing. Commissioner Sander asked
whether there was a size requirement. Mrs. Holst responded that
the State requires a minimum of 120 sq. ft.
Commissioner Sander commented that the applicant's house was
relatively small and that the driveway is also limited. She stated
that she had noticed a small car parked near the garage and that
the narrow driveway inhibited cars from entering and parking on the
site. She stated that she felt it was necessary to widen the
driveway to at least double width all the way to the street. Mr.
Holst explained that there was some brush presently in the way to
the south of the garage and that, when that is removed, there would
be more possibility to move the car out of the way. He stated that
they were willing to expand the driveway in different areas, but
preferred to do the work next year. Commissioner Sander stated
that, if she went to the beauty shop, she would park in the street
because she felt she would get blocked in if she parked in the
driveway. She recommended widening the driveway to the south all
the way to the street. There followed a lengthy discussion
regarding the specifics of how to widen the driveway and
accommodate at least two customer parking places on the site. Mr.
Holst stated that he preferred not to alter the curb cut at the
street. Commissioner Sander stated that she felt this was
necessary for the home occupation to function properly. The
Secretary emphasized that the conditions of approval would require
that customers not park on the street and that the applicant would
have to do whatever is necessary to avoid on- street parking. The
Planner reviewed on the overhead transparency of the site plan of
the property some possible driveway expansions which might
accommodate two customer vehicles on the site without altering the
curb cut. He added that a previous home occupation earlier in the
year had also had a one car curb cut at the street and that
customers were expected to pull forward behind the house in order
to park.
Commissioner Johnson stated that he had a similar problem with his
driveway with a tree that limited the possibilities for widening.
9 -27 -90 2
He stated that it would be necessary to work around existing trees
in order to provide adequate space on the site. Commissioner Ainas
stated that he felt the staff could work out the details on the
driveway widening. The Secretary again emphasized Condition No. 3
of the staff report and told the applicant that she would have to
provide adequate off - street parking or the home occupation and
special use permit would be in jeopardy.
Commissioner Sander recommended that a sign be placed on the
property that they would have to park off street. Chairperson
Malecki stated that the problem was in the hands of the applicant
and that it was up to her to solve the question of where customers
could park on site if she wanted to keep the special use permit.
PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 90025)
Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing
and noted that there was no one else present to comment on the
application. She called for a motion to close the public hearing.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to
close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously.
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION OF 90025 (Kathleen
Holst
Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Johnson to
recommend approval of Application No. 90025, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The special use permit is granted only for a home beauty/
barber shop with a single operator. 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 may be grounds for revocation.
3. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be
off street on improved space provided by the applicant.
4. The applicant shall widen the driveway so that two
vehicles can be accommodated on the property at the same
time and safely enter and exit the property. Any
widening of the curb cut shall be approved by the City
Engineer and be inspected by the Engineering Department
staff.
5. The hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00
p.m. Monday through Friday and from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00
9 -27 -90 3
p.m. Saturday. Customers shall be served on an
appointment -only basis.
6. The total number of occupants in the basement at any one
time shall not exceed 10.
7. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and
complete all required building improvements prior to
issuance of the special use permit.
8. The applicant shall install a smoke detector and fire
extinguisher in the area of the home occupation prior to
issuance of the special use permit.
9. A current copy of the applicant's state shop license
shall be submitted prior to issuance of the special use
permit.
Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander,
Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none.
The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Bernards left at 8:03 p.m.
Commissioner Johnson noted that there were trucks hauling dirt out
of the area by Twin Lake. The Secretary stated that it was
probably associated with the cleanup operation at the Joslyn site
and that the dirt was being hauled to a hazardous waste site.
Chairperson Malecki and Commissioner Johnson indicated that they
would be unable to attend the October 18 meeting and requested to
be excused.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sander to
adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed
unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:08 p.m.
Chairperson
I
9 -27 -90 4
1 N•
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 90025
Applicant: Kathleen Holst
Location: 6107 Bryant Avenue North
Request: Special Use Permit
The applicant requests special use permit approval to operate a
home beauty shop in the basement of the residence at 6107 Bryant
Avenue North. The property in question is zoned R1 and is bonded
on the east by Bryant Avenue North and on the south, west and north
by single - family homes. Home beauty shops are classified as a
special home occupation in the City's Zoning Ordinance and requires
the approval of a special use permit.
The applicant, Ms. Kathleen Holst, has submitted a letter (copy
attached) in which she describes various aspects of the proposed
home occupation. In it she states that the home beauty shop would
be conducted in a 12 x 13 room in the southeast corner of the
basement. The means of ingress and egress would be through the
side door of the residence. Customers will go directly to the
lower level from the side entrance. Customer parking is to be
provided on the applicant's driveway (a site drawing is attached).
She states that there is plenty of space for customer parking.
(The driveway widens considerably toward the garage to a 31' width.
However, it is only 10' wide at the property line.) Ms. Holst
states that the salon will operate on an appointment -only basis
during the hours from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday
and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. She notes that she will
not be working continuously during those hours and that she will be
the only person working in the shop. There will be no employee.
Ms. Holst states that there will be a smoke detector and fire
extinguisher in the shop area and plans to have an evacuation plan
in case of an emergency. She also plans on having a sign not
exceeding 2.5 sq. ft. to let customers know they're in the right
place. Ms. Holst concludes by stating that the shop will be
licensed by the state and local approval is required to obtain that
license.
The main concern staff see with this application, as with most home
occupations, is parking. The applicant's driveway is only one car
wide near the street, though it widens considerably close to the
garage. There is room for two cars to be parked side by side near
the garage, but there is not much room for one to maneuver by the
other to get in or out because of the taper of the driveway. Some
widening of the driveway would be helpful. However, the street is
bounded by curb and gutter and widening the driveway to the street
would probably require a widenin g of the curb cut. The Commission
may wish to view the property first hand and make a recommendation
based on direct observation. It is our recommendation that the
9 -27 -90 1
ti
Application No. 90025 continued
driveway be widened so that it can clearly accommodate two cars at
a time. Right now that would be difficult and there may be a
tendency for some customers to park on the street. That is not
normally permitted with home beauty shops.
Another area of concern may be the extensive number of hours during
which Ms. Holst will make appointments. The shop could potentially
operate 68 hours per week. We certainly do not expect the
applicant to be steadily working that number of hours. In fact,
she has indicated as much in her letter. From a zoning standpoint,
the limits of the hours may be more important than the total
number. However, if the Commission is concerned with the total
number of hours, it may wish to discuss with the applicant some
reduction. We do not feel that the limits of the hours are a
problem.
In general, the proposed home occupation is consistent with other
home beauty shops. Approval of the special use permit is
recommended, subject to at least the following conditions:
1. The special use permit is granted only for a home beauty/
barber shop with a single operator. 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 may be grounds for revocation.
3. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be
off street on improved space provided by the applicant.
4. The applicant shall widen the driveway so that two
vehicles can be accommodated on the property at the same
time and safely enter and exit the property. Any
widening of the curb cut shall be approved by the City
Engineer and be inspected by the Engineering Department
staff.
5. The hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00
p.m. Monday through Friday and from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. Saturday. Customers shall be served on an
appointment -only basis.
6. The total number of occupants in the basement at any one
time shall not exceed 10.
9 -27 -90 2
e
Application No. 90025 continued
7. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and
complete all required building improvements prior to
issuance of the special use permit.
8. The applicant shall install a smoke detector and fire
extinguisher in the area of the home occupation prior to
issuance of the special use permit.
9. A current copy of the applicant's state shop license
shall be submitted prior to issuance of the special use
permit.
Submitted by,
Gary Shallcross
Planner
Approved by,
Ronald A. Warren
Director of Planning and Inspection
9 -27 -90 3
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 10 -15 -90
Agenda Item Number — /3a-.-
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Planning Commission Application No. 90025 - Kathleen Holst
DEPARTMENT APP L:
Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspection.
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: F-�r
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
Planning Commission Application No. 90025 submitted by Kathleen
Holst is a request to operate a home beauty shop at 6107 Bryant
• Avenue North. The application was considered by the Planning
Commission at its study meeting on September 27, 1990. Minutes,
information sheet, a letter from the applicant, ordinance sections
pertaining to the application, site plan and map of the area are
attached for the Council's review.
Recommendation
Approval of the application was recommended by the Planning
Commission subject to the nine conditions listed on pages 3 and 4
of the September 27, 1990 Planning Commission meeting minutes.
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
STUDY SESSION
SEPTEMBER 27, 1990
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to
order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace
Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Bertil Johnson and Kristen Mann. Also
present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and
Planner Gary Shallcross.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 30 1990
Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Johnson to
approve the minutes of the August 30, 1990 Planning Commission
meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki,
Commissioners Bernards and Johnson. Voting against: none. Not
voting: Commissioners Sander, Ainas and Mann. The motion passed.
Commissioner Holmes arrived at 7:32 p.m.
APPLICATION NO. 90025 Kathleen Holst
Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced
the first item of business, a request for special use permit
approval to operate a home beauty shop in the basement of the
residence at 6107 Bryant Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the
contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information
Sheet for Application No. 90025, attached).
Commissioner Bernards asked whether the widening of the driveway as
recommended by staff would be at the applicant's expense. The
Secretary responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Holmes asked
what would be the width of a two car driveway, 16 ft. or wider.
The Secretary responded that in commercial districts a two car wide
driveway would be 24 ft. wide, but that in a residential district
perhaps 16 ft. would be adequate. In response to another question
from Commissioner Holmes, the Secretary stated that the Commission
could leave the option open for the applicant as to how to provide
two car spaces on site.
Commissioner Bernards asked whether the driveway modifications had
already started. Mr. Holst responded in the affirmative and stated
that he believed that they could widen the driveway without
altering the curb cut at the street.
Commissioner Holmes asked who would give final approval to the
parking arrangement. The Secretary stated that the Planning and
Inspection Department could make that judgment.
Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether she had
40 anything to add. Mrs. Kathleen Holst commented on the hours of
operation. She stated that she set the hours at a maximum limit in
order to see what clients would want, and then she would reduce
them. Chairperson Malecki asked how many hours she would really
want to work. Mrs. Holst responded that she would probably work
five days a week and that it would not be full time. The Secretary
stressed that, while the limits of the hours of operation were
acceptable, the City did not want the operation to be going
P g g
continuously 68 hours a week.
Commissioner Holmes asked Mrs. Holst whether she was aware of the
requirements for proper plumbing and escape windows perhaps that
the State might require. Mr. Holst responded that the approval by
the State requires proper plumbing. Commissioner Sander asked
whether there was a size requirement. Mrs. Holst responded that
the State requires a minimum of 120 sq. ft.
Commissioner Sander commented that the applicant's house was
relatively small and that the driveway is also limited. She stated
that she had noticed a small car parked near the garage and that
the narrow driveway inhibited cars from entering and parking on the
site. She stated that she felt it was necessary to widen the
driveway to at least double width all the way to the street. Mr.
Holst explained that there was some brush presently in the way to
the south of the garage and that, when that is removed, there would
be more possibility to move the car out of the way. He stated that
they were willing to expand the driveway in different areas, but
preferred to do the work next year. Commissioner Sander stated
that, if she went to the beauty shop, she would park in the street
because she felt she would get blocked in if she parked in the
driveway. She recommended widening the driveway to the south all
the way to the street. There followed a lengthy discussion
regarding the specifics of how to widen the driveway and
accommodate at least two customer parking places on the site. Mr.
Holst stated that he preferred not to alter the curb cut at the
street. Commissioner Sander stated that she felt this was
necessary for the home occupation to function properly. The
Secretary emphasized that the conditions of approval would require
that customers not park on the street and that the applicant would
have to do whatever is necessary to avoid on- street parking. The
Planner reviewed on the overhead transparency of the site plan of
the property some possible driveway expansions which might
accommodate two customer vehicles on the site without altering the
curb cut. He added that a previous home occupation earlier in the
year had also had a one car curb cut at the street and that
customers were expected to pull forward behind the house in order
to park.
Commissioner Johnson stated that he had a similar problem with his
driveway with a tree that limited the possibilities for widening.
9 -27 -90 2
He stated that it would be necessary to work around existing trees
in order to provide adequate space on the site. Commissioner Ainas
stated that he felt the staff could work out the details on the
driveway widening. The Secretary again emphasized Condition No. 3
of the staff report and told the applicant that she would have to
provide adequate off - street parking or the home occupation and
special use permit would be in jeopardy.
Commissioner Sander recommended that a sign be placed on the
property that they would have to park off street. Chairperson
Malecki stated that the problem was in the hands of the applicant
and that it was up to her to solve the question of where customers
could park on site if she wanted to keep the special use permit.
PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 90025
Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing
and noted that there was no one else present to comment on the
application. She called for a motion to close the public hearing.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to
close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously.
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION OF 90025 Kathleen
Holst
Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Johnson to
recommend approval of Application No. 90025, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The special use permit is granted only for a home beauty/
barber shop with a single operator. 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 may be grounds for revocation.
3. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be
off street on improved space provided by the applicant.
4. The applicant shall widen the driveway so that two
vehicles can be accommodated on the property at the same
time and safely enter and exit the property. Any
widening of the curb cut shall be approved by the City
Engineer and be inspected by the Engineering Department
staff.
5. The hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00
p.m. Monday through Friday and from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00
9 -27 -90 3
p.m. Saturday. Customers shall be served on an
appointment -only basis.
6. The total number of occupants in the basement at any one
time shall not exceed 10.
7. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and
complete all required building improvements prior to
issuance of the special use permit.
8. The applicant shall install a smoke detector and fire
extinguisher in the area of the home occupation prior to
issuance of the special use permit.
9. A current copy of the applicant's state shop license
shall be submitted prior to issuance of the special use
permit.
Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander,
Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none.
The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Bernards left at 8:03 p.m.
Commissioner Johnson noted that there were trucks hauling dirt out
of the area by Twin Lake. The Secretary stated that it was
. probably associated with the cleanup operation at the Joslyn site
and that the dirt was being hauled to a hazardous waste site.
Chairperson Malecki and Commissioner Johnson indicated that they
would be unable to attend the October 18 meeting and requested to
be excused.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sander to
adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed
unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:08 p.m.
Chairperson
9 -27 -90 4
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 90025
Applicant: Kathleen Holst
Location: 6107 Bryant Avenue North
Request: Special Use Permit
The applicant requests special use permit approval to operate a
home beauty shop in the basement of the residence at 6107 Bryant
Avenue North. The property in question is zoned R1 and is bonded
on the east by Bryant Avenue North and on the south, west and north
by single - family homes. Home beauty shops are classified as a
special home occupation in the City's Zoning Ordinance and requires
the approval of a special use permit.
The applicant, Ms. Kathleen Holst, has submitted a letter (copy
attached) in which she describes various aspects of the proposed
home occupation. In it she states that the home beauty shop would
be conducted in a 12' x 13' room in the southeast corner of the
basement. The means of ingress and egress would be through the
side door of the residence. Customers will go directly to the
lower level from the side entrance. Customer parking is to be
provided on the applicant's driveway (a site drawing is attached).
She states that there is plenty of space for customer parking.
(The driveway widens considerably toward the garage to a 31' width.
However, it is only 10' wide at the property line.) Ms. Holst
states that the salon will operate on an appointment -only basis
during the hours from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday
and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. She notes that she will
not be working continuously during those hours and that she will be
the only person working in the shop. There will be no employee.
Ms. Holst states that there will be a smoke detector and fire
extinguisher in the shop area and plans to have an evacuation plan
in case of an emergency. She also plans on having a sign not
exceeding 2.5 sq. ft. to let customers know they're in the right
place. Ms. Holst concludes by stating that the shop will be
licensed by the state and local approval is required to obtain that
license.
The main concern staff see with this application, as with most home
occupations, is parking. The applicant's driveway is only one car
wide near the street, though it widens considerably close to the
garage. There is room for two cars to be parked side by side near
the garage, but there is not much room for one to maneuver by the
other to get in or out because of the taper of the driveway. Some
widening of the driveway would be helpful. However, the street is
bounded by curb and gutter and widening the driveway to the street
would probably require a widening of the curb cut. The Commission
may wish to view the property first hand and make a recommendation
based on direct observation. It is our recommendation that the
9 -27 -90 1
Application No. 90025 continued
driveway be widened so that it can clearly accommodate two cars at
a time. Right now that would be difficult and there may be a
tendency for some customers to park on the street. That is not
normally permitted with home beauty shops.
Another area of concern may be the extensive number of hours during
which Ms. Holst will make appointments. The shop could potentially
operate 68 hours per week. We certainly do not expect the
applicant to be steadily working that number of hours. In fact,
she has indicated as much in her letter. From a zoning standpoint,
the limits of the hours may be more important than the total
number. However, if the Commission is concerned with the total
number of hours, it may wish to discuss with the applicant some
reduction. We do not feel that the limits of the hours are a
problem.
In general, the proposed home occupation is consistent with other
home beauty shops. Approval of the special use permit is
recommended, subject to at least the following conditions:
1. The special use permit is granted only for a home beauty/
barber shop with a single operator. 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 may be grounds for revocation.
3. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be
off street on improved space provided by the applicant.
4. The applicant shall widen the driveway so that two
vehicles can be accommodated on the property at the same
time and safely enter and exit the property. Any
widening of the curb cut shall be approved by the City
Engineer and be inspected by the Engineering Department
staff.
5. The hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00
p.m. Monday through Friday and from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. Saturday. Customers shall be served on an
appointment -only basis.
6. The total number of occupants in the basement at any one
time shall not exceed 10.
9 -27 -90
2
L
Application No. 90025 continued
7. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and
complete all required building improvements prior to
issuance of the special use permit.
8. The applicant shall install a smoke detector and fire
extinguisher in the area of the home occupation prior to
issuance of the special use permit.
9. A current copy of the applicant's state shop license
shall be submitted prior to issuance of the special use
permit.
Submitted by,
l
Gary Shallcross
Planner
Approved by,
/ o,-_ O Ca.
Ronald A. Warren
Director of Planning and Inspection
9 -27 -90 3
City of Brooklyn Center
Planning and Inspection Dept
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
We are appling for a special use permit for the express
Purpose of having a Home Beauty Shop. The shop would be located
in the basement of our home at 6107 Bryant Avenue North, in
Brooklyn Center. The shop will be located in the southeast
corner of the basement. The shop size of twelve feet by thirteen
feet,( 156 square feet ).
The means of ingress and egress will through the sidedoor
of the residence. This entrance
can
be sealed
off from the rest
of the house by closing a door in the kitchen, seperating it from
the stairway and the landing. Customers will come in the door
and go straight down the stairs and directly to the salon.
Customer parking will be provided on our driveway as shown
on the diagram on the other sheet. As shown there is Plenty
of space to accommadate the customers of the shop with off street
Parking.
The salon will be open on a appointment only basis, during
the hours of 9 am and 9 pm Monday through Friday, 9 am to
5 pm Saturday and closed on Sundays. Kathleen Holst owner of
the home will be the only employee of the shop and will take
appointments during these hours, but will not be working
continously during these hours.
Safty measures for the salon include having a smoke detector
and fire extinguisher located in the shop and having evacuation
Plans incase of an emergency.
Signage for the shop will be provided by a small wooden
Painted sign not to exceed the limit of 2.5 square feet and
it will be Placed in our yard where it will blend into the
landscaping and not be obtrusive to the neighborhood or overly
noticable. It,s purpose is more to assure the customer that they
are at the right location, than to advertise.
At this point in time the salon is in it,s planning stages
and we need to get the special use Permit by the city and then
Proceed to build the salon and have it inspected and licensed by
the state. At that point the salon will be ready for customers.
Section 35 -220. SPECIAL USE PERMITS
2. Standards for Special Use Permits
A special use permit may be granted by the City Council after
demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met:
(a) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the
special use will promote and enhance the general
welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger
the public health, safety, morals, or comfort.
(b) The special use will not be injurious to the use
and enjoyment of other property in the immediate
vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor
substantially diminish and impair property values
within the neighborhood.
(c) The establishment of the special use will not
impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of surrounding property for uses
permitted in the district.
(d) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to
provide ingress, egress and parking so designed
as to minimize traffic congestion in the public
streets.
(e) The special use shall, in all other respects,
conform to the applicable regulations of the
district in which it is located.
3. Conditions and Restrictions
The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may
impose such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment,
location, construction, maintenance and operation of the special
use as deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest
and to secure compliance with requirements specified in this ord-
inance. In all cases in which special use permits are granted,
the City Council may require such evidence and guarantees as it
may deem necessary as part of the conditions stipulated in connec-
tion therewith.
4. Resubmission
No application for a special use permit which has been denied
by the City Council shall be resubmitted for a period of twelve
(12) months from the date of the final determination by the City
Council; except that the applicant may set forth in writing newly
discovered evidence of change of condition upon which he relies to
gain the consent of the City Council for resubmission at an earlier
time.
5. Revocation and Extension of Special Use Permits
When a special use permit has been issued pursuant to the pro-
visions of this ordinance, such permit shall expire without further
action by the Planning Commission or the City Council unless the
applicant or his assignee or successor commences work upon the sub-
ject property within one year of the date the special use permit is
granted, or unless before the expiration of the one year period the
applicant shall apply for an extension thereof by filling out and
submitting to the Secretary of the Planning Commission a "Special
Use Permit" application requesting such extension and paying an
additional fee of $15.00.
Special use permits granted pursuant to the provisions of a
prior ordinance of Brooklyn Center shall expire within one year of
the effective date of this ordinance if construction upon the sub-
ject property pursuant to such special use permit has not commenced
within that time.
In any instance where an existing and established special use
is abandoned for a period of one year, the special use permit re-
lated thereto shall expire one year following the date of abandon-
ment.
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.
j
V` 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 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 Rl 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 special 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
enter
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 perceptible beyond the boundaries of the lot.
9. No special home occupation shall include the retail sale of merchandise
E produced off the lot.
Section 35 -410 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS IN R3, R4, R5, R6 AND R7 DISTRICTS.
I
1. All storage shall all be contained wholly within y n an enclosed building.
g
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 provided a protective strip not less than
25 feet wide in the case of R6 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 parking,
garages, driveways, off - street loading or storage. The screening
device design must be approved by the City Council as being in harmony
with the residential neighborhood and providing 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.
lull
LUM
u i I lilml HIM
Milm Mill
on
Ow
a
t
i
! (
''
a ��_
1 `�'
i a 1
� � �� � � 1
��1 �. _
E r -. _� M1
i .�.
� 3
�,.,� j �
1
g
� � '�'', � 5.S \�
C._ i
,•
1 � �,,,. ,. _ ....f _ _..., ... � - � ��
.____.____
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 10 /15/
Agenda Item Number lC/
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
• ITEM DESCRIPTION:
STAFF REPORT REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TO PROPERTIES AT 5500 BRYANT AVENUE NORTH -
DISCUSSION ITEM
********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
SY KNAPP, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes )
The owners of the property at 5500 Bryant Avenue North, Mr. Jagdish Trividi and
Mr. Bruce Kruger, spoke during the Open Forum period of the September 24, 1990 City
Council meeting. They expressed concern regarding special assessments for tree
removal and weed destruction which were certified by the Council on September 10,
1990.
The attached staff report details the history of these particular assessments. It
notes that all required notices were made to and received -by the owners. It also
notes that a copy of the owners' closing statement made at the time of purchase
disclosed both these pending assessments and previous years' certified assessments.
This statement apparently provided the buyers with a credit toward the purchase
price for these assessments.
Recommendation
It is staff's conclusion that these owners were properly notified of these
assessments. Their closing statement indicates that the existence of both pending
and previously certified assessments was known at the time of sale. It is
recommended that no amendment by made to the assessments certified to this property.
October 4, 1990
TO: G.G. Splinter
City Manager
r
FROM: Sy Knapp'
Director of Public Works
SUBJ: Staff Report Regarding Assessments
5500 Bryant Avenue North
The owners of the above - referenced property, Mr. Jagdish Trividi and Mr. Bruce
Kruger, spoke during the Open Forum period of the September 24, 1990 City
Council meeting. The owners expressed concern regarding the special
assessments for tree removal and weed destruction which were certified by the
Council on September 10, 1990.
The owners at the Council meeting and in meetings with staff prior to the 24th
stated that 1) they were not aware of these pending assessments at the time
they bought the property; 2) they were not notified of the assessment hearing;
3) they were not sure that the work was indeed completed, especially because
there did not seem to be much evidence of tree removal (e.g., bare spots on
lawn); 4) there was some confusion about prior years' assessments for tree
removals where the trees were located close to the property line.
STAFF REPORT
This property has a history of weed destruction and diseased tree removals.
Several diseased trees were removed from the property in 1987, the costs for
which were assessed to the property in 1988. Four trees were removed from the
property in August, 1989. Weeds were cut in August, 1989. Charges for both
these services were pended in August, 1989.
1) Mr. Trividi and Mr. Kruger purchased this property on April 3, 1990. The
City Assessor's files include a copy of the closing statement prepared by the
American Centennial Insurance Company, the seller, which was signed by both
buyers.
This closing statement provides a credit toward the purchase price for both
levied assessments and pended assessments. This statement does not identify
the nature of those assessments; it is unknown if the buyers were informed
by the closing agent that the certified assessments were for trees and the
pended assessments were for trees and weeds. The Assessor's Office's special
assessment searches do provide this information, and the total amount credited
equals the total of the amounts pended.
In summary, both previously certified assessments and pended assessments
(those which were certified September 10, 1990) were disclosed at the time of
purchase, and the buyers, Mr. Trividi and Mr. Kruger, were given credit
against the purchase price for these assessments.
2) The City's Property Data System (PDS) serves as the official record of
property ownership and mailing addresses. PDS, at the time the Notice of
Special Assessment Hearing letters were mailed, showed both Mr. Trividi and Mr.
Kruger as the owners, and that the owners' mailing address was 5500 Bryant, the
address of the property in question. Notice of the September 10th public
hearing (copy attached) was mailed to them at that address certified mail on
August 10, 1990. Both Mr. Trividi and Mr. Kruger received and signed for
individual notices of the assessment for weeds; receipts were returned to the
City on August 13, 1990. The notice for tree removal was addressed to both
owners. Mr. Kruger signed for this notice, and the receipt was returned to the
City on August 14, 1990.
3) Four trees were removed from the property in 1989 by the City's tree
contractor. One 31.9 inch elm was located in the front of the property. One
tree was a 16.9 inch box elder located on the side of the property; it had split
and broken and was ordered removed because it was a hazard. The two other trees
were small elms located along the back fence line. The City's tree inspector
specifically recalls these trees being removed, and the City's rental housing
inspector remembers that several trees have been removed in the past few years.
The weed assessment is composed of charges from two different dates. The
previous owner was notified twice in June, 1989 that weed destruction was
necessary, resulting in a $50 weed inspector's charge. In August, 1989, the
property owner was notified twice, resulting in $100 inspector's charges, and
the City's weed cutter spent 1 -1/2 hours cutting the lawn.
4) In previous years, there were a number of trees located near the property's
back fence line which were removed by the City's tree contractor. There was
some question as to whether all the marked trees were located on this property
or on a neighbor's. At the time the trees were marked the apparent property
line location was reviewed and an agreement was reached with the property owner
that some were on his property, and that some were shared with a neighbor.
SUMMARY
Review of the pertinent documents shows that the assessments in question (those
certified on September 10, 1990) were disclosed at the time of the sale of the
property as being pending, and that the current owners received all required
notice in a timely fashion. No changes to the assessments as certified are
recommended.
Attachment
4 -3 -90 CLOSING STATEMENT
93/272 5500 Bryant Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Sale Price: $105,000.00
Buyer's Transaction Seller's Transaction
Sale Price $105,000.00 Sale Price $105,000.00
LESS LESS
Earnest Money 2,000.00 Earnest Money 2,000.00
Credit for Window Repair 475.00 Credit t ow B Repair 475.00
Credit for Recording Credit to Buyer for
Power of Attorney 10.00 Recording of
Attorney 10.00
Credit to Buyer for
Credit for Seller's
Pro -Rata 1990 Taxes 1,405.47 Seller's Pro -Rata 1 405.47
1990
Taxes �
Credit for State Deed Credit to Buyer
Tax 346.50 for State Deed 346.50
Tax
Credit for Levied and Credit to Buyer for
Certified Special Assess - Levied Certified
ments 414.61 Assessments 414.61
Credit for Pending Credit to Buyer
Assessments 1,173.50 for Pending 1 173.50
Assessments
Universal Title 664.50
1st Mtge Payoff 67,682.46
Commission (7$) -
$7,350 (Less
$2,000 Earnest
Money Held by
Broker) 5,350.00
TOTAL CASH DUE FROM TOTAL CASH DUE
BUYER: $ 991174.92 SELLER: $ 25 -
AMERICAN CENTENNIAL INSURANCE
Bruce Allen Kruger �-} COMPANY
�9 By.
Jagdi,.e Trivedi I-- Eric W. Ing dson
CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
O T F � T AT
�OOKLYl� BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
TELEPHONE: 569 -3300
C ENTER FAX: 561 -0717
EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE
August 10, 1990
911
Dear Property Owner:
Enclosed are the following 3 documents: (1) an official Notice of Public Hearing on proposed special
assessments affecting your property; (2) a copy of the proposed special assessment roll pertaining to
your property; and (3) the levy roll information sheet. The public hearing on these special assessments
has been scheduled for September 10, 1990 in City Hall. If you have any objections to the assessments,
please follow the procedures outlined within the official Notice of Public Hearing.
Special assessment charges for your property are highlighted on the enclosed proposed special
assessment roll. The total principle will be payable in equal annual installments for the period stated on
the levy roll information sheet. Interest is paid on the unpaid balance; the rate of interest is estimated to
be 10 percent. (The actual interest rate will be determined by the City Council.)
The total principle amount of special assessments may be prepaid without interest to the City Treasurer
within 30 days after the adoption by the City Council of the resolution levying the assessments. If the
Council certifies your special assessment at the September 10 hearing, you may pay the assessment in
full, without interest, any time between September 11 and October 10, 1990. If payment is made after
October 10 but before November 15, the total principle amount of the assessment may be prepaid with
interest calculated from October 1, 1990 to the date of the payment. No partial prepayments of
assessments are authorized.
On November 15, 1990 and on each November 15th thereafter, the first and succeeding special
assessment installments will be placed on the roll of property taxes payable in 1991 and succeeding years
by the Hennepin County Director of Finance. The first installment of special assessments will include
15 months interest, from October 1, 1990 to December 31, 1991. Interest for one year on all unpaid
installments will be added to each subsequent installment when due. Prepayment of the remaining
special assessment principle, not yet so placed on the tax rolls for collection in any year, may be made
to the City Treasurer prior to November 15 of any year.
If you have questions regarding this assessment, please contact the City Engineering Office at 569 -3340.
If you have questions regarding payment, please contact the City Assessor's Office at 569 -3310.
IMPORTANT NOTE: please refer to the notice of public hearing for information regarding deferral of special
assessments and auxiliary aids for handicapped persons.
Sincerely,
IWALLMWAM
�-..�
Diane F. Spector , l
Public Works Coordinator
,n
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, will meet at the City
Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, on Monday, September 10, 1990, at 8 P.M. local time, to hear and pass
upon all objections, if any, to the proposed assessments for the following improvements:
DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL COSTS
It is proposed to assess the cost of diseased shade tree removal to those tracts or parcels where trees were
removed during 1989 and 1990 by written agreement with the property owner or by order of the City Council
pursuant to City Ordinances, Section 19 -1501 through 19 -1506.
DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY ACCOUNTS
It is ro sed to assess public utility charges to 0
P Po p those tracts or parcels where such charges were delinquent
P ' as of
July 1, 1990, and, after due notice to the property owner, remain unpaid. This assessment is made pursuant to
City Ordinances, Section 4 -105.
DELINQUENT WEED DESTRUCTION ACCOUNTS
It is proposed to assess the cost of noxious weed destruction to those tracts or parcels where, pursuant to City
Ordinance Section 19 -1601 through 19 -1604, noxious weeds were destroyed by order of the city Weed Inspector
and the cost for such destruction, having been billed to the property owner, remains unpaid.
PUBLIC UTILITY HOOKUP CHARGES
It is proposed to assess the cost of water hookup charges to those parcels where, pursuant to City Ordinances,
Section 4 -201, property owners have signed agreements requesting that these charges be assessed.
ALLEY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Improvement Project Number 1989 -08
Concrete paving and storm sewer construction in the alley between Fremont and Girard Avenues North,
from 55th to 57th Avenues North. The amount proposed to be assessed is $62,596.86.
Improvement Project Number 1989 -15
Concrete paving and storm sewer construction in the alley between Girard and Humboldt Avenues
North, from 54th to 55th Avenues North. The amount proposed to be assessed is $29,308.02.
Improvement Project Number 1989 -16
Concrete paving and storm sewer construction in the alley between Emerson and Fremont Avenues
North, from 53rd to 54th Avenues North. The amount proposed to be assessed is $26,150.62.
Improvement Project Number 1989 -17
Bituminous paving in the alley between Lakeview and Twin Lake Avenues, from Lakebreeze to
Lakeside Avenues North. The amount proposed to be assessed is $10,463.00.
It is proposed to assess all ro rties abutting each improved alley.
P Pe g . P Y
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NUMBERS 1989 -26 and 1989 -27
Street construction including storm sewer improvements, regrading, subgrade preparation, installation of
concrete curb and gutter, bituminous paving, construction of sidewalks and bikeways, and landscaping. The
project location is along Freeway Boulevard /65th Avenue North /66th Avenue North from Shingle Creek to T.H.
252, and along Humboldt Avenue North from 65th to 69th Avenues North. For purposes of assessment the
projects have been separated into three segments and three proposed levies: 1989 -26A, for which it is proposed
to assess $223,643.05; 1989 -26B, for which it is proposed to assess $213,666.12; and 1989 -27, for which it is
proposed to assess $95,100.00.
The area proposed to be assessed is as follows:
1989 -26A: All properties abutting that portion of Freeway Boulevard which lies between Shingle
Creek and Humboldt Avenue North, and all properties not abutting Freeway
Boulevard but lying between Shingle Creek Parkway and Humboldt Avenue North
that are north of I- 94/694 and south of Freeway Boulevard.
1989 -2613: All properties lying between Humboldt Avenue North and T.H. 252 which: are zoned
or used as commercial, industrial, public, or multiple family which abut the north side
of 65th /66th Avenue North, or which lie north of I- 94/694 and south of 65th /66th
Avenue North; and all properties located within Block 1 of Riverwood Townhomes
Addition.
1989 -27: All properties abutting that portion of Humboldt Avenue North which lies north of a
point approximately 200 feet north of Freeway Boulevard/65th Avenue North; all
properties located within Block 1 of Humboldt Square Estates; and all properties
located within Block 1 of Rosemary
Terrace.
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NUMBER 1988 -18
Reconstruction of the existing roadway, including: storm sewer modifications; curb and gutter; grading, base
preparation, and surfacing; sidewalk and /or trail construction; landscaping and lighting. The project location is
along West River Road, from 66th to 73rd Avenues North. It is proposed to assess those properties abutting
we River Road, from 66th to 73rd Avenues North. The amount proposed to be assessed is $79,401.82.
PROCEDURAL INFORMATION FOR OBJECTIONS TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
An owner may appeal an assessment to district court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.081 by serving
notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or Clerk of the City within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment
and filing such notice with the district court within ten days after service upon the Mayor or Clerk. No such
appeal as to the amount of an assessment as to a specific parcel of land may be made unless the owner has filed
a written objection to that assessment, signed by the affected property owner, with the City Clerk prior to the
hearing or has presented such a written objection to the presiding officer at the hearing.
These assessments are now on file at City Hall and open to public inspection. Written or oral objections to the
proposed assessments will be considered at this meeting, but the City Council may consider any objection to the
amount of a proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon such further notice to the affected
property owners as it deems advisable.
PROCEDURAL INFORIIIATION FOR DEFERRED SPECIAL ASSESSME. TS
Under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 435.193 to 435.195, the City ouncil may, at its discretion defer Y , , f r the
payment of some or all of this special assessment for any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of
age or older, or by a person retired due to permanent and total disability for whom it would be a hardship to
make payment.
The City Council has established the following qualifying conditions for applicants for deferred payment of
special assessments:
1. Applicant or spouse must be 65 years of age or older, or retired due to permanent and total
disability.
2. Annual household income may not exceed $21,650.
3. The aggregate total of previous special assessment installments plus the first year installment of
the current levy must exceed one and one -half (1 -1/2) percent of the applicant's annual
household income. The applicant will be required to pay a maximum of one and one -half
(1 -1/2) percent of annual household income toward the special assessment; any excess can be
deferred.
4. Special assessments levied due to a failure to pay charges for City services or failure to comply
to City codes are not eligible for deferment and will not be included in calculating the
aggregate total of annual special assessment installments.
When deferment of special assessment terminates, for any reason provided in the law, all accumulated
deferments plus applicable interest become due. Further information regarding deferred assessments and
application forms are available at the City Engineering office, 569 -3340.
Important Note: TO QUALIFY FOR DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT, APPLICATIONS MUST
BE FILED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1, 1990.
AUXILIARY AIDS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours (4 days) in advance of the
hearing. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3350 to make arrangements.
D.K. Weeks, City Clerk
By order of the City Council
Published in the Brooklyn Center Post on August 22nd, 1990.
® SENDER: Complete items 1 and 2 when additional services are desire d complete items
3 and 4.
UNITED So POSTAL SERVICE Put your address in the "RETURN TO Space on the reverse side. Failure to do t prevent this card
from being returned to you. The return recei t fee will rovide ou the name of the on de livered to and
OkFiCIAL BUSINESS j the date of delivery For ay d ees t e of owing servrceS are availab e. onsuit posunaste� fees
and heck box'(es) for additional servicelsl requested.
SENDER INSTRUCTIONS 1. Show to whom delivered, date, and addressee's address. 2. 1:1 Restricted Delivery
(Errra, charge) (Errra charge)
Print your name, address and ZIP Code 3. Article Addressed to: 4 Article Number
• the space below. ���
• Complete items 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the r reverse. .AIL /
• Attach to front of article if apace Type of Service:
permits, otherwise affix to back of AuG 1 4 1990 JAGDISH TRIVIDI
article. Q ^�i v H PENALTY FOR PRIVATE 5500 BRYANT AVENUE NORTH Registered _71 Insured
• Endorse article "Return Racal V a• USE, 8300 Certified ❑ COD
Requested" adjacent to number. BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55430 ❑Express Mail ❑ R
RETURN Print Sender's name, address, and ZIP Code in the space below. I A obtain signature of addressee
ys sig
a n e
TO _ _ _ or agent and DAL. DEL RED.
f ee 5. S — Ad_drAf"e 8. Addresseqq'� ONLY if
requested trfE , pa 1$
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTEP. m
Engineering Department f 6. Signature —Agent
y
6301 Shingle;: Creek Parkway ~ '`'b x yi 1990
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430` 7. Date of Delivery y'USPO��
PS F.,, 3811, Apr. 1989 ,tU.S.G.P.O. 1989- 238 -815 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT
I
I
j ® SENDER: Complete items 1 and 2 when additional services are desired, and complete items
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE J 3 and 4.
Put your address in the "RETURN To" Space on the reverse side. Failure to do this will prevent this card
OFFICIAL BUSINESS from being returned to you. The return receipt fee will Provide you the name of the e�rson deliver to and
I the date of deliver . For additional fees the o lowing services are available. Consult postmaster for fees
SENDER INSTRUCTIONS and c ec box(es or additional service(s) requested.
y 1, how to whom delivered, date, and addressee's address. 2. El Restricted Delivery
Print your name, address and ZIP Code ) (E e J rrra 'char
In the space below. 8 (Errra charge)
• Complete Items 1 , 2, 3, and 4 on the 3. Article Addressed to: 4. Article Number
reverse. U.S.MAIL j Q/
• Attach to front of article If space �a 1 41790 �� I 3-5 U t�
permits, otherwise affix to bac AUG A Type of Service:
article. 1 4 PENALTY FOR PRIVATE BRUCE KRUGER Er- ert
l� Registered ❑ Insured
• Endorse article "Return Rece pt
Requested" adjacent to number. ' USE, 8300 5500 Bryant Avenue North tz Cified 1:1 COD
�
❑ Express Mail ❑ Rohun r p
di se
RETURN Print Sender's name, address, and.ZIP.:Code in the space below. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 for Me chan
Always obtain signature of addressee
TO or agent and DATE LIVER
5. S' ature — Addressee 8. Addressee' f (ONL.Y
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER i / 'e`� "e °'e` "de L
— Engineering Department 6. Signature — Agent a
rn
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway X 0
— Brooklyn Center,`. MN; 55430 ! 1, 7. Date of Delivery
PS Fn,m Aor 1(0) allCnnn +nnn�lnnl, tin IC nF "r11RrI RfCFIn1
® SENDER: Complete items 1 and 2 when additional services are desired, and complete items
3 and 4.
Put your address in the "RETURN TO" Space on the reverse Side. Failure to do this will prevent this card
from being returned to you. The return recei t fee will rovide ou the name of the arson delivered to and
the date of deliver .For ad itiona ees t e o ow ng services are avai a e. onsu t postmaster or tees
an c S ox(es) or additional service(sl requested.
f. Show to whom delivered, date, and addressee's address. 2. O Restricted Delivery
(Extra charge) (Extra charge)
3. Article Addressed to:
4. Article Number
B. KRUGER /J. TRIVEDI 3
5500 BRYANT AVENUE NORTH Type of Service;
❑ Registered ❑ Insured
BROOKLYN CENTER
MN 55430 Certified ❑ COD
Express Mail Return Receipt
for Merchandise
Always obtain signature of addressee
5. S' nature or agent and DATE DELIVEgEp.
_ — Addressee 8. Addressee's Address (ONLY if
requested and fee paid)
6. Signature — Agent
X
7. Date of Delivery
PS Form 3811 Apr. 1989 * U PO
.S.G... 7969.238 -815
_ DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
SENDER INSTRUCTIONS
Print your name', address and ZIP Code
In the space below.
• Complete Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the
U.S.MAiI
• reverse.
• Attach to front of article If space A 1 4 199
permits, otherwise affix to ba j e N
articie. [[ PENALTY FOR PRIVATE
• Endorse article "Return Receipt USE, $300
Requested" adjacent to number.
RETURN Print Sender's name, address, and ZIP Code in the space below.
TO
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Engineering Department _
6301 S h i n g l e Creek Parkway
---�
er, MN 55430
Brooklyn Cent
iy�
TO: Dean NyqU4-t. 1 4--yor
Thi 1 Cc' Councilmember
Todd Paulson, Council.merber
jerry Pedlar, Councilmember
"-.-? Scott, Councilmember
FROM: Barbara. Sexton, Chairperson
ol,n - Charter Cormmis.sicn
DATE: J ct ob ar 1 1 Cs 04 0
RE: --cposed Changes to Section 7.0-5 of the City Charter
this memo is to advise volt that +he Tull Commission, on IeDtember 26, 19
unanimously approved wording cha-nges to section 7.06, Passage of Annual
. — 1 0
Budget, O�' Ci Charter. Proposed wordipa for this section is
enclosed.
The reason for this proposed wordir., iF, because changes in State law made
this section of tLie charter obsolete.
Pursuant to Hin-nes Statutes 410. Subdivision 7, the Brooklyn Center
Charter Commission recommends the adoption, by ordinance, of the attached
vroT)c.!-=e(i amenc'mment to the - Center City Charter.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of
1990, at p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway,
to consider An Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the Brooklyn Center City Charter.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96
hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make
arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7 OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CHARTER
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 7.06 of the Brooklyn Center City Charter is hereby
amended as follows:
Section 7.06. PASSAGE OF ANNUAL BUDGET. [The City Manager shall present
the proposed budget as an item of business at the first regular monthly meeting of
the Council in September and the Council shall hold adjourned meetings from time
to time until the Manager's budget has been considered in total. The initial
meeting and all subsequent meetings in which the proposed budget is considered
shall constitute a public hearing on the budget and the Council shall cause to be
published a notice of the time and place of the initial meeting, giving not less
than seven (7) days nor more than fourteen (14) days notice of the time and place.
The meetings shall be so conducted as to give interested citizens a reasonable
opportunity to be heard.] At least thirty (30) days prior to the adoption of the
proposed annual budget and /or property tax levy required by state law, the City
Manager shall submit .a preliminary Proposed budget and /or property tax levy to the
City Council Public hearings notices of public hearings and other legal
Publication requirements shall be in accordance with state law Complete copies
of the City Manager's proposed budget shall be available for public view at all
meetings at which the Council reviews the proposed budget. The annual budget
finally agreed upon shall set forth in detail the complete financial plan of the
City for the ensuing fiscal year for the funds budgeted. It shall indicate the
sums to be raised and from what sources and the sums to be spent and for what
purpose according to Section 7.05. The total sum appropriated shall be equal to
the total estimated revenue and allocated surplus. The Council shall adopt the
budget not later than three (3) calendar days prior to the statutory requirement
for certification of the budget to the County Auditor by a resolution which shall
set forth the total for each budgeted fund and each department with such
segregation as to objects and purposes of expenditures as the Council deems
necessary for purposes of budget control. The Council shall also adopt a
resolution levying whatever taxes it considers necessary within statutory limits
for the ensuing year for each fund. The tax levy resolution shall be certified to
the County Auditor in accordance with law. At the beginning of the fiscal year,
the sums fixed in the budget resolution shall be and become appropriated for the
several purposes named in the budget resolution and no other.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after publication and
ninety (90) days following its adoption.
Adopted this day of 199_
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.)
Licenses to be approved by the City Council on October 15, 1990:
CHRISTMAS TREE SALES LOT i
Builder's Square 3600 63rd Ave. N.
l�
City Clerk
COMMERCIAL KENNEL
Children's Palace #81 5900 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. r 1
Sanitarian nil
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
Kim Fung 1958 57th Ave. N. ;
Sanitarian
ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
Cross of Glory Lutheran Church 5929 Brooklyn Blvd.
St. Alphonsus CCW 7025 Halifax Ave. N.
Sanitarian
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS
Air Conditioning Associates, Inc. 689 Pierce Butler Route
Faircon Service 2668 Patton Road
Igloo Heating & Air Cond., Inc. 11440 Lakeland Drive N. Q
Building Official
SIGN HANGER
Bill Weigel Signs, Etc. 470 Koehler Road
Building Official
r
GENERAL APPROVAL:
D. K. Weeks, City Clerk