Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 02-26 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FEBRUARY 26, 1990 (following adjournment of EDA meeting) 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Invocation 4. Open Forum 5. Approval of Consent Agenda -All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. 6. Presentation: a. Charter Commission- Retiring Members 1. Resolution Expressing Recognition of and Appreciation for the Dedicated Public Service of Mary Heitzig 2. Resolution Expressing Recognition of and Appreciation for the Dedicated Public Service Neil Smeaton 7. Resolutions: a. Authorizing the Issuance of Multifamily Housing Revenue Replacement Bonds under the Municipal Housing Act (Earle Brown Commons Project) *b. Establishing Improvement Project No. 1990 -08, 1990 Sealcoating Program, Approving Plans and Specifications Therefore and Ordering Advertisement for Bids C. Establishing Improvement Project No. 1990 -09, Rehabilitation of Well No. 2, Accepting Proposals for Work and Approving Contracts Thereto d. Receiving Engineer's Report Regarding Improvement Project No. 1990 -10, Reconstruction of 69th Avenue North from Noble Avenue North to Shingle Creek Parkway, and Calling for Hearing Thereon *e. Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter into a Contract with the City of Robbinsdale for the Construction of the Twin Lake /Ryan Lake Improvement Project as Authorized by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- February 26, 1990 *f. Amending 1990 Pay Plan - Addition of EDA Assistant Coordinator *g. Amending City Council Resolution No. 86 -123 Regarding the Schedule for Planning and Inspection Department Fees -This resolution would establish a fee for PUD applications for Planning Commission and City Council review and approval. *h. To Transfer Funds from the Improvement Bonds of 1970 Debt Service Fund to the Improvement Bonds of 1976 Debt Service Fund *i. To Transfer Funds from the Building and Improvement Bonds of 1969 Debt Service Fund to the Improvement Bonds of 1976 Debt Service Fund j. Authorizing a Change in Accounting Practice to Record the Full Liability in the General Fund for Vacation and Sick Leave of City Employees 8. Ordinances: (7:30 p.m.) a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances Regarding General Licensing Regulations -This item was first read on January 29, 1990, published in the City official newspaper on February 7, 1990, and is offered this evening for a second reading. This amendment would ban the sale of cigarettes from vending machines. b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances by Declaring Certain Actions as Public Nuisances -This ordinance amendment relates to the parking and storage of vehicles and equipment in residential areas and was discussed, most recently, at the 2/12/90 City Council meeting. The ordinance amendment is offered for a first reading. C. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Height of Fences, Hedges or Walls -This ordinance amendment was discussed at the February 12, 1990, City Council meeting and would allow higher fences, hedges, and walls in certain yards that abut public street. The ordinance amendment is offered for a first reading. 9. Public Hearing: a. Tax Increment District CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- February 26, 1990 10. Discussion Items: a. Recommendation from Human Rights g and Resources Commission to Contribute Funding to Peacemaker Center b. Local 49 Contract Amendment C. Street Lighting Policy (Report from Public Works Department) d. Deferment of Special Assessments for Persons 65 Years of Age and for Persons who are Totally and Permanently Disabled (Review of Current Policy) e. Alternate Funding Sources for Public Works Programs and Projects (Report from Public Works Department) f. Potential Appointments to MNDOT- Highway 100 - Citizens Committee g. Legislative Update h. Adequate Fund Balance Formula Change *11. Licenses 12. Adjournment Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF MARY HEITZIG WHEREAS, Mary Heitzig served on the Brooklyn Center Charter Commission from December 1, 1981, to January 24, 1990; and WHEREAS, Mary Heitzig has served in the capacities of Chairperson and Vice, Chairperson and has always been willing to serve on various ad hoc committees throughout her term; and WHEREAS, her public service and civic effort for the betterment of the community merit the gratitude of the citizens of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, her leadership and expertise has been greatly appreciated by the Brooklyn Center Charter Commission; and WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that her service to the community should be recognized and expressed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the dedicated public service of Mary Heitzig is hereby recognized and appreciated by the City of Brooklyn Center. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF NEIL SMEATON WHEREAS, Neil Smeaton served on the Brooklyn Center Charter Commission from April 29, 1981, to January 27, 1990; and WHEREAS, Neil Smeaton has served in the capacities of Parliamentarian and has always been willing to serve on various ad hoc committees throughout his term; and WHEREAS, his public service and civic effort for the betterment of the community merit the gratitude of the citizens of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, his leadership and expertise has been greatly appreciated by the Brooklyn Center Charter Commission; and WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that his service to the community should be recognized and expressed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the dedicated public service of Neil Smeaton is hereby recognized and appreciated by the City of Brooklyn Center. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. HOLMES & GRAVEN CHARTERED CHRISTINE M. CIIALE 470 Pillsbury Centcr, hiinncapofis, Minnesota 55402 Auamey at Law ((i1?) 337 -9300 Direct Dial (622) 337.9 February 23, 2990 Mr. Gerald Splinter City of Brooklyn Center City Hail 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 58430 RE: City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota $8,800,000 Multifamily Housing Revenue Replacement Bonds, Series 1990 (Earle Brown Commons Projeet) Dear Mr. Splinter: Ibe City issued its $8,800,000 Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds, Series 1986 (Earle Brown Commons Project) (the "Lxisting Bonds ") on September 17, 1986. The proceeds of the Existing Bands were loaned to Earle Brown Commons Limited Partnership pursuant to a Loan Agreement (the "Original. Loan Agreement ") to finance a 140-unit. multifamily rental housing project (the "Project "). The Project was later purchased by Earle Brown Commons Limited Partnership II (the SzCurrent Owner's). The Current Owner is in default under the Loan Agreement, Approximately 6596 of the units are currently occupied and an additional 15% have been leased. The general partners of the Current Owner have represented that they expect the project to be fully leased by July of 1990, and that the PPOject's financial shortfalls were due to a slower than anticipated lease- up and higher real estate taxes. The Current owner has requested that the City authorize the issuance of Multifamily Housing Revenue Replacement Bonds, Series 1990 (Earle. Brown Commons Project) (the "Replacement Bonds ") to refinance the Project. We have reviewed the following documents prepared by bond counsel which are to be adopted or executed by the City. 1. Form of Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Multifamily Housing Revenue Replacement Bonds under the Minnesota Housing Act (Earle Brown Commons Project); Mr. Gerald Splinter February 23, 1990 Page 2 2. First Amendment and Restatement of Indenture of Trust to be executed by the City and National City Bank of Minneapolis as Trustee; 3. First Amendment and Restatement of Loan Agreement to be executed by the City and the Current Owner; and 4= Regulatory Agreement to be executed by the City, the Trustee and the Current Owner. The above- referenced documents are in proper form for consideration by the City Council. We expect to receive copies of the following additional documents which are to be approved by the City: 1. Placement Agreement to be executed by the Placement Agent, the Current Owner and the City; 2. Subordination Agreement to be executed by the City; and 3. Official Statement. We have also received the fallowing documents: 1. Mortgage and Security Agreement to be executed by the Current Owner; 2. Assignment of Leases and Rents to be executed by the Current Owner; and 3. Partial. Guaranty to be executed by L.A. Beisner, Jean Beisner, John Parsinen and Jacquelyn Parsinen. The interest rate on the Replacement Bonds will be 7%, reduced from the original 10% interest rate borne by the Existing Bonds. The Replacement Bonds will include a mandatory purchase date of 1993, at which time the Current Owner will be required to remarket the Replacement Bonds or refinance the Project. The reserve funds for the Existing Bonds will be used to pay overdue interest on the Existing Bonds immediately prior to their exchange for the Replacement Bonds. The Placement Agent Miller, Johnson & Kuehn Incorporated, anticipates marketing the Replacement Bonds to the holders of the Existing Bonds in exchange for the Existing Bonds. The placement Agent anticipates that the sale of the Replacement Bonds will not be feasible unless substantially all of the holders of the Existing Bonds agree to exchange their bonds for the Replacement Bonds. The Placement Agreement will provide that the Replacement Bonds will not be sold unless this and other conditions are met. Mr. Gerald Splinter February 23, 1990 Wage 3 If you have an questions or comments r y � this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me or Charlie Lefevere. Very truly yours, Christine M. Chale CMC:tas CC: Charles LeFevere Trudy Halla Patti Page Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE REPLACEMENT BONDS UNDER THE MINNESOTA HOUSING ACT (EARLE BROWN COMMONS PROJECT) BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. On September 17 1986 the City issued its , Y 8 800 $ 000 Multifamily Ho , y using Revenue Bonds, Series 1986 ( Earle Brown Commons Project) (the "Original Bonds ") to provide financing for construction of a multifamily rental housing facility (the "Project ") by Earle Brown Commons Limited Partnership (the "Original Owner "). The Council has received a proposal from Earle Brown Commons Limited Partnership II, a Minnesota limited partnership (the "Company ") who purchased the Project from the Original Owner, that the City assist in amending and replacing the terms of the Original Bonds as herein described, pursuant to the Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the "Act ") , through issuance by the City of its $8,800,000 Multifamily Housing Revenue Replacement Bonds, Series 1990 (Earle Brown Commons Project) (the "Bonds ") , as further provided in a Placement Agreement (the "Placement Agreement ") between the City, the Company, and Miller, Johnson & Kuehn Incorporated (the "Placement Agent ") . The Bonds will be offered pursuant to an Official Statement (the "Official Statement "). 2. It is proposed that, pursuant to a First Amendment and Restatement of Loan Agreement dated March 1, 1990, between the City, as lender, and the Company, as borrower (the "Loan Agreement ") the City loans the proceeds of the Bonds to the Company to assist in the exchange and replacement of the Original Bonds thereby refinancing the cost of the Project. The basic payments to be made by the Company under the Loan Agreement are fixed so as to produce revenue sufficient to pay the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds when due. It is further proposed that the City assign its rights to the basic payments and certain other rights under the Loan Agreement to National City Bank of Minneapolis, in Minneapolis, Minnesota (the "Trustee "), as security for payment of the Bonds under a First Amendment and Restatement of Indenture of Trust dated March 1, 1990 (the "Indenture "), and that the Company grant a mortgage and security interest in the Project to the Trustee pursuant to a First Amendment and Restatement of Mortgage and Security Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement dated March 1, 1990 (the "Mortgage "), and enter into a First Amendment and Restatement of Assignment of Leases and Rents dated March 1, 1990 (the "Assignment of Leases and Rents"). To further secure payment of the Bonds and the interest thereon, John Parsinen, Jacquelyn Parsinen, L. A. Beisner, and Jean Beisner will deliver a Partial Guaranty Agreement dated March 1, 1990, in favor of the Trustee for the benefit of the Bondholders (the "Guaranty "). In RESOLUTION NO. addition, the Company and the City will enter into a First Amendment and Restatement of Regulatory Agreement dated March 1, 1990 (the "Regulatory Agreement ") , with respect to the Project and the City and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, will reaffirm the Subordination Agreement entered into in connection with the Original Bonds (the "Subordination Agreement"). 3. Forms of the following documents have been submitted to the Council for approval: (a) The Loan Agreement. (b) The Indenture. (c) The Mortgage. (d) The Assignment of Leases and Rents. (e) The Guaranty. (f) The Placement Agreement. (g) The Subordination Agreement. (h) The Regulatory Agreement. 4. It is hereby found, determined, and declared that: (a) the issuance and sale of the Bonds, the execution and delivery by the City of the Loan Agreement, the Regulatory Agreement, g ment Y g Indenture, the Subordination ination Agreement, and the Placement Agreement and the performance of all covenants and agreements of the City contained in the Loan Agreement and Indenture and of all other acts and things required under the constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to make the Loan Agreement, Indenture, Regulatory Agreement, Subordination Agreement, Placement Agreement, and Bonds valid and binding obligations of the City in accordance with their terms, are authorized by the Act; (b) it is desirable that the Bonds be issued by the City upon the terms set forth in the Indenture; (c) the basic payments under the Loan Agreement are fixed to produce revenue sufficient to rovid e for the P prompt payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds issued under the Indenture when due, and the Loan Agreement, Mortgage, and Indenture also provide that the Company is required to pay all expenses of the operation and maintenance of the Project, including, but RESOLUTION NO. without limitation, adequate insurance thereon and insurance against all liability for injury to persons or property arising from the operation thereof, and all taxes and special assessments levied upon or with respect to the Project Premises and payable during the term of the Mortgage, Loan Agreement, and Indenture; (d) as provided in the Loan Agreement and Indenture, the Bonds are not to be payable from or charged upon any funds other than the revenue pledged to the payment thereof; the City is not subject to any liability thereon; no holder of any Bonds shall ever have the right to compel any exercise by the City of its taxing powers to pay any of the Bonds or the interest or premium thereon, or to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City except the interests of the City in the Loan Agreement which have been assigned to the Trustee under the Indenture; the Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable upon any property of the City except the interests of the City in the Loan Agreement which have been assigned to the Trustee under the Indenture; the Bonds shall recite that the Bonds are issued without moral obligation on the part of the state or its political subdivisions, and that the Bonds, including interest thereon, are payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment thereof; and, the Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. 5. Subject to the final approval of the City Attorney, the forms of the Loan Agreement, the Placement Agreement, the Regulatory Agreement, Indenture, and Subordination Agreement and exhibits thereto are approved substantially in the form submitted. The Loan Agreement, Placement Agreement, Regulatory Agreement, Indenture, and Subordination Agreement, in substantially the form submitted, are directed to be executed in the name and on behalf of the City by the Mayor and the City Manager together with any other documents and certificates necessary to the transaction described above. Copies of all of the documents necessary to the transaction herein described shall be delivered, filed, and recorded as provided herein and in the Loan Agreement and Indenture. 6. The City has not prepared nor made any independent investigation of the information contained in the Official Statement other than the section therein captioned "Issuer," and the City takes no responsibility for the Official Statement. The City Manager is hereby authorized to deem the Official Statement final at such time as the City has received a certification from the Company that it has deemed the Official statement to be final. The use of the Official Statement by the Company and the Placement Agent is hereby authorized and confirmed. 7. The City shall proceed forthwith to issue its Bonds, in the form and upon the terms set forth in the Indenture. RESOLUTION NO. without limitation, adequate insurance thereon and insurance against all liability for injury to persons or property arising from the operation thereof, and all taxes and special assessments levied upon or with respect to the Project Premises and payable during the term of the Mortgage, Loan Agreement, and Indenture; (d) as provided in the Loan Agreement and Indenture, the Bonds are not to be payable from or charged upon any funds other than the revenue pledged to the payment thereof; the City is not subject to any liability thereon; no holder of any Bonds shall ever have the right to compel any exercise by the City of its taxing powers to pay any of the Bonds or the interest or premium thereon, or to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City except the interests of the City in the Loan Agreement which have been assigned to the Trustee under the Indenture; the Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable upon any property of the City except the interests of the City in the Loan Agreement which have been assigned to the Trustee under the Indenture; the Bonds shall recite that the Bonds are issued without moral obligation on the part of the state or its political subdivisions, and that the Bonds, including interest thereon, are payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment thereof; and, the Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. 5. Subject to the final approval of the City Attorney, the forms of the Loan Agreement, the Placement Agreement, the Regulatory Agreement, Indenture, and Subordination Agreement and exhibits thereto are approved substantially in the form submitted. The Loan Agreement, Placement Agreement, Regulatory Agreement, Indenture, and Subordination Agreement, in substantially the form submitted, are directed to be executed in the name and on behalf of the City by the Mayor and the City Manager together with any other documents and certificates necessary to the transaction described above. Copies of all of the documents necessary to the transaction herein described shall be delivered, filed, and recorded as provided herein and in the Loan Agreement and Indenture. 6. The City has not prepared nor made any independent investigation of the information contained in the Official Statement other that the section therein captioned "Issuer," and the City takes no responsibility for the Official Statement. The City hereby deems the Official Statement final with respect to the Bonds. The use of the Official Statement by the Company and the Placement Agent is hereby authorized and confirmed. 7. The City shall proceed forthwith to issue its Bonds, in the form and upon the terms set forth in the Indenture. RESOLUTION NO, The Bonds are to be issued in exchange for the Original Bonds, as further provided in the Indenture and Placement Agreement. As set forth in the Placement Agreement, any Bonds not so exchanged are to be purchased by the Placement Agent at a purchase price equal to par plus accrued interest. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to prepare and execute the Bonds as prescribed in the Indenture and to deliver them to the Trustee for authentication and delivery. 8. The Mayor and City Manager and other officers of the City are authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Placement Agent certified g copies of all p proceedings and records of the City relating to the bonds, and such other affidavits and certificates as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality of the Bonds as such facts appear from the books and records in the officers' custody and control or as otherwise known to them; and all such certified copies, certificates, and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall constitute representations of the City as to the truth of all statements contained therein. 9. The approval hereby given to the various documents referred to above includes approval of such additional details therein as may be necessary and appropriate and such modifications thereof, deletions therefrom, and additions thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and approved by the City Attorney and the City officials authorized herein to execute said documents prior to their execution; and said City officials are hereby authorized to approve said changes on behalf of the City. The execution of any instrument by the appropriate officer or officers of the City herein authorized shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of such documents in accordance with the terms hereof. In the absence of the Mayor or City Manager, any of the documents authorized by this resolution to be executed may be executed by the Acting Mayor or the City Manager, respectively. 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 2 Q Agenda Item Number _ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -08, 1990 SEALCOATING PROGRAM, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS THEREFORE AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP D RECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: br w �& No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached • Explanation Improvement Project 1990 -08 is the continuation of the sealcoat program initiated in 1988 using only Class A aggregate for sealcoating. Class A aggregate is a granite chip or trap rock. The bid proposal and specifications for 1990 are essentially the same as for 1989, highlighted by the following: 1. Proposals are being received for both granite chip and trap rock. The selection of the aggregate material will be at the discretion of the City Council. The benefits are: Granite Trap Rock • More readily obtainable o Major source - Dresser, WI • Secondary to trap rock in o Hardness is superior and may hardness lengthen application by 1 to • Light grey in color - 2 years over granite slower snow & ice melt o More brownish in color and absorbs sun's heat for faster snow & ice melt 2. Traffic advisory signs were changed from "Fresh Oil" to "Loose Rock." It is the intent to lengthen the time span between the first and second sweeping on low volume residential streets by approximately one week to allow traffic to seat the aggregate with the extended time period. • 3. The size of the aggregate was reduced from the MNDOT specification of FA -3 (up to 1/2 inch) which has been the accepted size prior to 1989 to a 3/8" maximum aggregate size. 4. A provision was added to assure that the amount of overlap between sprays of sealcoat is kept at a minimum. A map showing the areas included in this proposed sealcoating project is attached. City staff has reviewed the effects of the above - mentioned changes to the pre -1989 sealcoating program and deemed them advisable for 1990. City Council Action Required A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council. • �I��I► � ° = i - i � . C : � j ' ' 1�� X1111 '�� � r� � � �' �'�i► , I�� ♦� 1 11 I�M� 1 \. ■ ■/ I r �■ . ■ 1 �- -- - I� �i i r. .- _ YI ►� +:� .�` . III 11 IIIIIrI rC r ����I t ► 1: milli 1 ►• YIf a , 111111 /1 �� I B M - � .. ���'� �� � � �IIII i�1 ; � � �♦ 'iIl 1111,3 1� 111111111111 � I� /�� , . � ��IIII IIII 11 III /III ►� i 11 /�' .��►.. � W.WIN� , .,.., I I ■III ; 1111 / /I /I■/ �, . , r 1 /1111 I, ♦ ►♦ .1111 ., ... �.- --- -� r 11►��� ' ,!•!•..�•1 � � �� rJ �" �; ■ // �Y. III ■.� ��: /111111. � II II :., li ��.. 111 �■ r CIII ■;W :.,, _ ' ■' ,.. �� -- _ �� . IIIIIII�,!IIIII +s- ''\ \Ix; -_ri ,ice: ��� � + rr r..;C - � �� - I 11111 - . � �� :_ III :► ..�..�..C... - �_.�_� ■4. 4 , '!� ` "' �` '� • , hm AM � � � '�1 11111111 ` .1 :. s�r�.,� �� � �-��: � �,! �a1r; ♦ �� _ � �. � Di . Ia © r •• � �. i� = �� : per$ o € g ��a II�III 111 ::1 I �I��I - ►�,, �:.�.: 4 � . r 11111 �+ , � • 11�11�1 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -08, 1990 SEALCOATING PROGRAM, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS THEREFORE AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported to the City Council that it is necessary and in the best interests of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota to sealcoat various City streets; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared specifications for the proposed work; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has estimated the cost of said improvement to be $148,200: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The following project is hereby established: SEALCOATING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -08 2. The specifications for Contract 1990 -A for said improvement project prepared by the City Engineer are hereby approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk. 3. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least twice in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published as required by law, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that said bids will be received by the City Clerk until the date and time specified, at which time they will be publicly opened at City Hall by the City Clerk and the Director of Public Works. Subsequently, the bids shall be tabulated and will then be considered by the City Council at a meeting of the City Council. The advertisement shall state that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City for 5 percent of the total amount of such bid. 4. The accounting for Project No. 1990 -08 will be done in the General Fund, Street Maintenance Division No. 42. RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2 -26 -90 Agenda Item Number —7 C— REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -09, REHABILITATION OF WELL NO. 2, ACCEPTING PROPOSALS FOR WORK AND APPROVING CONTRACTS THERETO *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP RECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) Explanation Well No. 2 was constructed and put into service in 1959 and has, with normal maintenance, supplied the Brooklyn Center water system. In November of 1989, excessive vibration in the electric motor was detected. The well was taken out of service and remains in that condition. E -M -S, Inc. reported to the City that the electric motor could not be re- balanced and that the hollow shaft was out of tolerance. Any work on the existing motor and headshaft would be neither practical nor guaranteed. The recommendation, therefore, is to replace the existing motor and headshaft. Other improvements for Well No. 2 required at this time consists of revising or replacing the existing electrical system. This is necessary to accommodate the new 460 volt service being provided by NSP. (The existing service is 240 volt). This new 460 volt service will prevent premature wear and damage to the motor by eliminating the "brown -out" and low voltage conditions associated with the existing service. City Council Action Required A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council. • - 7o, Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -09, REHABILITATION OF WELL NO. 2, ACCEPTING PROPOSALS FOR WORK AND APPROVING CONTRACTS THERETO WHEREAS, the City Staff recommends to the City Council that it is necessary and in the best interests of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota to rehabilitate Well No. 2; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has received the following proposals for Well No. 2 Improvements, Electric Motor and Headshaft: Bidder Bid Amount Layne Minnesota Company $5,090.00 Keys Well Drilling Company $5,200.00 WHEREAS, the City Engineer has received the following proposals for Well No. 2 Improvements, Electrical Revisions: Bidder Bid Amount Collins Electric Co. $ 9,890.00 Bacon's Electric Company $10,770.00 Killmer Electric Co., Inc. $11,500.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The following project is hereby established: WELL NO. 2 REHABILITATION, PROJECT NO. 1990 -09 2. The accounting for Project No. 1990 -09 will be done in the Public Utility Fund. 3. The proposal of Layne Minnesota Company, in the amount of $5,090.00 is the lowest responsible proposal received for Well No. 2 Improvements, Electric Motor and Headshaft and the City Manager is hereby authorized as directed to enter into a contract with said firm in that amount. 4. The proposal of Collins Electric Co., in the amount of $9,890.00 is the lowest responsible proposal received for Well No. 2 Improvements, Electrical Revisions, and the City Manager is hereby authorized as directed to enter into a contract with said firm in that amount. RESOLUTION N0, 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 2/26/90 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION RECEIVING ENGINEER'S REPORT REGARDING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10, RECONSTRUCTION OF 69TH AVENUE NORTH FROM NOBLE AVENUE NORTH TO SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY, AND CALLING FOR HEARING THEREON DEPT. APPROVAL: SYAKNAPP ECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS A MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: 7 2 a No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes During the past 3 years extensive traffic studies, environmental studies, and • preliminary plans and cost estimates have been completed regarding 69th Avenue North between the west City limits and Dupont Avenue. Recently, City staff conducted a series of 3 public informational meetings to inform the public of the City's preliminary plans so that the public and the City staff could exchange dialogue regarding this project, thus attempting to ensure that formal discussions could be held on the basis of an improved base of knowledge and communication. Approximately 800 individual notices for those meetings were sent to property owners and occupants living within one block of 69th Avenue. Also, a notice of the meetings was published in the Brooklyn Center Post. Approximately 235 persons (total) attended these three meetings. (See attached summary.) City staff believes that those meetings were generally positive, and that it is now appropriate to initiate formal consideration of the first phase of 69th Avenue improvements - between Noble Avenue and Shingle Creek Parkway. It is recommended that a public hearing be scheduled for March 26, 1990 for this purpose, and that this be a dual - purpose hearing, i.e.: • a general hearing covering the entire 69th Avenue project between the west City limits and Dupont Avenue; and • a "public improvement" hearing in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, relating to the proposed special assessments for the currently - proposed project. The attached resolution, if adopted, would approve the process, setting the • hearings for March 26, in Constitution Hall. If this resolution is adopted, staff will send out two forms of notice, i.e.: • a notice of the general hearing to the same 800 property owners and residents who were notified of the informational meetings; and • a formal notice of the improvement hearing to all property owners who are proposed to be specially assessed. City Council Action Required Review and discussion........., and adoption of the resolution. • • i � Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION RECEIVING ENGINEER'S REPORT REGARDING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10, RECONSTRUCTION OF 69TH AVENUE NORTH FROM NOBLE AVENUE NORTH TO SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY, AND CALLING FOR HEARING THEREON WHEREAS, a report has been prepared by the Department of Public Works with reference to the following proposed improvement: IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1990 -10 RECONSTRUCTION OF 69TH AVENUE NORTH FROM NOBLE AVENUE NORTH TO SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY WHEREAS, this improvement is the first phase of a larger, long range improvement program for 69th Avenue North from the west City limits to Dupont Avenue North; WHEREAS, it is proposed to assess the benefited properties for a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and that the benefited properties are those properties which abut the existing right -of -way of 69th Avenue, and /or the expanded future right -of -way as developed by the proposed improvement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. the report of the Department of Public Works is hereby received and accepted. 2. the Council will consider the improvement in accordance with the report and the assessment of benefited property as detailed in the report for a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $5,574,000. 3 a public hearing shall be held on the proposed improvement on the 26th day of March, 1990 in Constitution Hall in the Brooklyn Center Community Center, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway at 8:00 P.M. local time and the Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required b law. g P q y 4. concurrently with the improvement hearing, the Council will also conduct a hearing relating to the long range program for improvements to 69th Avenue from the west City limits to Dupont Avenue North. • RESOLUTION NO. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i OTY 5301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 BRROOK 7 ELEPHONE 551 -5440 EX T E�, ERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE i 911 ENGINEER'S FEASIBILITY REPORT 69TH AVENUE NORTH IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION COMPLETE STREET RECONSTRUCTION INCLUDING RIGHT -OF- WAY ACQUISITION, REMOVAL ITEMS, GRADING, DRAINAGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS, UTILITY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS, CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT, PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE TRAILS AND LANDSCAPING II. PROJECT LOCATION 69TH AVENUE NORTH FROM NOBLE AVENUE NORTH TO SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY III. DISCUSSION This report focuses on the section of 69th Avenue North between Noble Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway, a distance of approximately 1.2 miles. This is the proposed first phase of Improvement Project 1987 -08 which included 69th Avenue North between the west City limits and Dupont Avenue, a total distance of 2.8 miles. Extensive studies have been conducted covering the larger project, and the following reports are referenced for consideration in conjunction with this feasibility report: • "69TH AVENUE CORRIDOR FROM ZANE AVENUE TO DUPONT AVENUE" as prepared by Short - Elliott- Hendrickson Inc. and dated April 4, 1989 • "ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET - IMPROVEMENTS TO THE 69TH AVENUE CORRIDOR FROM THE WEST CITY LIMITS TO DUPONT AVENUE NO." as prepared by Short - Elliott- Hendrickson Inc. and dated October 19, 1989 • An amendment to the City of Brooklyn Center's Project Agreement Number LW27- 01097.4 with the State of Minnesota /Department of Trade and Economic Development. This amendment, which has been fully approved and executed by all responsible agencies, approves the conversion to 3.44 acres of land within Palmer Lake Park to non - recreation use, subject to the City's acquisition of 7.5 acre parcel of replacement land adjacent to Kylawn Park. The City has now completed acquisition of this replacement land. It is recommended that this first phase improvement be limited to the section between Noble Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway for the following reasons: L • the segment of 69th Avenue between Brooklyn Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway carries the greatest traffic counts (13,000 vehicles per day in 1987, projected to 17,200 vehicles per day in 2007). • this is the section which experiences the greatest traffic congestion and air pollution problems, and the highest accident rates. • if the east leg of the Brooklyn Boulevard /69th Avenue intersection is improved, it will be necessary to concurrently improve the west leg of that intersection - -- to assure the safe and efficient operation of that intersection. Because geometric design standards may require the transition from the existing roadway to the proposed intersection design to be accomplished over a 500 foot to 1000 foot distance, the westerly end of the currently proposed project is recommended to be at Noble Avenue. Final design limits and features will depend on Hennepin County's Department of Transportation design requirements. It is also noted that Hennepin County Department of Transportation is currently reviewing traffic needs on Brooklyn Boulevard (CSAH 152) and may wish to improve the total intersection (all four legs) under a concurrent construction contract. • the estimated cost for improving this section approaches the City's ability to fund these improvements utilizing Municipal State Aid Street Funds, special assessments, and County State Aid funding (via proposed agreement with Hennepin County). As detailed in the above - referenced reports, three alternate alignments have been proposed for consideration, i.e.: Alternate "A" - a 5 -lane divided roadway with a curvilinear alignment between Brooklyn Boulevard and West Palmer Lake Drive which meanders both north and south from the existing alignment. Alternate "B" -'a 5 -lane divided roadway with a straight alignment between Brooklyn Boulevard and West Palmer Lake Drive, with the proposed roadway lying within and north of the existing right -of -way. Alternate "C" - a 3 -lane undivided roadway (one lane in each direction and a two - way - left -turn centerlane) which lies within and partly north of the existing right of way between Brooklyn Boulevard and West Palmer Lake Drive. -2- Note All alternates include alignment "Alternate E" for the segment between West Palmer Lake Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway (see Drawing No. 8 of the April 4, 1989 report by Short - Elliott - Hendrickson, Inc.). Public informational meetings regarding the proposed improvements were conducted by City staff members and a representative from Short- Elliott- Hendrickson, Inc. on January 31, February 1, and February 5, 1990. Notices of those meetings and a summary report of the proposed improvements were sent to approximately 800 property owners and residents within one block of 69th Avenue in advance of these meetings. A notice of the meeting was also published in the City's official newspaper. Total attendance at the three meetings was estimated at 235. IV. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: It is anticipated that all costs except for enhancements to the City's water distribution and sanitary sewer systems will be eligible for reimbursement from the City's regular Municipal State Aid Street Fund Account. However, it is recommended that special assessments be levied against the benefited commercial properties which abut 69th Avenue and have their primary access to 69th Avenue and to benefited residential properties which abut the completed project. (The answer to the question of which properties will abut the completed properties depends on which of the three alternate plans is selected.) The following estimated assessment rates assume that construction will occur in 1992 and reflect the City's established policies for special assessments relating to this type of improvement as established in Resolution No. 89 -234: Land Use 1990 (estimated 1992) Assessment Rate R -1 zoned, used as one - family site $1,410 ($1,550) per lot that cannot be subdivided R -2 zoned, or used as a two - family $18.74 ($21.00) per front foot site that cannot be subdivided with a minimum of $1,410 ($1,550) per lot R -3 zoned Assessable frontage x $18.74 ($21.00) z Number of residential units All R -4, R -5, R -6 and R -7 properties and all Commercially -zoned and Industrially -zoned properties: Zone A (those portions of properties $ 0.45 per square which lie within 200 feet of 69th Avenue) foot Zone B (those portions of benefited $ 0.20 per square properties which lie more than 200 feet foot from 69th Avenue) Application of these rates would result in the following total assessment levies shown on the next page: -3- Total Assessment Levies Based on Engineer's Estimate Unit Alternate A Alternate B Alternate C Assessable Assessable Est. No. Est. Total Est. No. Est. Total Est. No. Est. Total Land Use Unit Rate Of Units Cost Of Units Cost Of Units Cost R -1 lot $1,550.00 10 to 22* $15,500 to 9 to 29* $13,950 to 18 to 30" $27,900 to $34,100 $44,950 $46,500 R -3 front feet $21.00 700 $14,700 700 $14,700 700 $14,700 All R -4 properties and all commercially and industrially zoned properties: A -Zone square feet $0.45 270,000 $121,500 270,000 $121,500 270,000 $121,500 B -Zone square feet $0.20 450,000 $90,000 450,000 $90,000 450,000 $90,000 TOTALS $241,700 to $240,150 to $254,100 to $260,300 $271,150 $272,700 "NOTE: The estimated number of R -1 properties to be assessed is shown as a range, to reflect the City's policy of allowing corner lots and double - fronted lots to pay special assessments for the current improvement or to elect to pay special assessments only when a street reconstruction improvement is made on the "other" side of that lot. 40 40 0 I V. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: Following is a summary of estimated costs and revenue sources for the proposed improvements: V -A COST SUMMARY: The 4/4/89 report by SEH, Inc. estimated project costs for the three segments identified in that report as follows, based on 1990 property values and construction cost index: For either of the five -lane alternates (Alternate A or Alternate B): Segment Right No. Segment of -way Construction Engineering Total 1 Zane Avenue to Brooklyn Blvd $ 0 $1,400,000 $150,000 $1,550,000 2 Brooklyn Blvd to Shingle Creek Parkway $2,100,000 $1,800,000 $200,000 $4,100,000 3 Shingle Creek Parkway to Dupont Avenue S 0 $1,300,000 $150,000 $1,450.000 $2,100,000 $4,500,000 $500,000 $7,100,000 For the three lane alternate (Alternate C): Segment Right No. Segment of -way Construction Engineering Total 1 Zane Avenue to Brooklyn Blvd $ 0 $1,400,000 $150,000 $1,550,000 2 Brooklyn Blvd to Shingle Creek Parkway $ 815,000 $1,600,000 $170,000 $2,585,000 3 Shingle Creek Parkway to Dupont Avenue S 0 $1,300,000 $150,000 $1,450,000 $ 815,000 $4,300,000 $470,000 $5,585,000 -4- The currently - proposed project includes the entire "Segment 2" and approximately one -third of the length (and one -half of the cost) of Segment No. 1. Estimated costs also need to be adjusted to reflect anticipated increases in property values (i.e. right -of -way costs) and in construction and engineering costs, based on an estimated 1992 construction schedule. Accordingly, the costs for the currently - proposed project are now estimated as follows: Estimated Costs Estimated Costs If Either 5 -lane If the 3 -lane Alternate (A or B) Alternate C Item Is Selected Is Selected Right -of -way $2,400,000 $ 930,000 Construction 2,300,000 2,050,000 Engineering, Legal & Admin. ( @20% of construction) 460,000 410,000 Contingency ( @15% of Constr. Engr., Legal & Admin. 414,000* 369,000* Totals $5,574,000** $3,759,000 ** * Note 1: The construction cost estimates are based on very preliminary evaluations of several construction features for which no detailed information has been developed. Detailed design level studies are needed to more accurately evaluate the costs for the following items: Item Discussion Storm Sewer System Improvements and The cost estimates are development of Storm Drainage based on "normal" costs facilities which meet the current for storm sewer system requirements of the Watershed improvements. Full Commission, the DNR and the Corps compliance to all current of Engineers, including ponding, requirements may result in compensatory storage and wetland significanat cost increases. requirements. Construction of the new roadway The cost estimates are based thru the unstable soils encountered on the use of geotextiles in the Palmer Lake area. and a "surcharge" procedure. Detailed soils engineering studies may indicate that these costs have been underestimated, or overestimated. Or, they may dictate the need to use a different method for establishing a suitable subgrade for the new roadway. -5- Item Discussion Extraordinary landscaping costs The cost estimates include a fairly generous allowance for landscaping costs. However, extraordinary landscape treatments could significantly increase costs. Accordingly, a 15% contingency is recommended to allow for these "unknowns ". * * Note 2: These cost estimates do not include the following items, for the reasons as noted. Items Not Included Discussion Enhancement of the City's Water Main Studies to date have focused and Sanitary Sewer systems on transportation needs. If such enhancements are needed in conjunction with this improvement, Public Utility Funds would be used to cover those costs. At this time, we do not anticipate that any major enhancements will be needed. Traffic Control Signal System(s) Detailed (design - level) other than at the Brooklyn studies are needed to Boulevard /69th Ave. intersection determine if traffic control signal system(s) are warranted, based on final design details. However, the cost estimates include installation of conduits to allow future installation of traffic signals. Removal of overhead electrical, Development of a meaningful telephone or CATV wires and cost estimate for this work installation of these facilities requires detailed design -level underground studies. Accordingly, if a decision is made to "underground" these facilities, the project costs estimates can be amended based on specifics available at that time. -6- V -B REVENUE SUMMARY Following is a summary of estimated revenues from various revenue sources for this project: Service Amount Estimated Special Assessments $ 240,000 Municipal State Aid Street Fund Account 2613 For Alternates A or B 4,5844,000 For Alternate C 2,769,000 County State Aid Highway Funds from 750,000 Hennepin County (for segment west of Brooklyn Boulevard) Brooklyn Center Public Utility Fund All costs for utility system enhancements (not included in current estimate) TOTALS For Alternates A or B $5,574,000 For Alternate C $3,759,000 VI. FEASIBILITY The improvement is feasible as described above, under the conditions outlined and at the costs estimated. VII. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direction and that I am a registered Professional Engineer in accordance with the Laws of the State of Minnesota. February 22, 1990 � Sy Knapp,- irector of Public Works Registration No. 6242 0 -7- Ck �,x AJOR r' LVE. N. kN WO lomml r' = o KY(. E, rn JUICE i O � INDIANA I NDIAI z man ?.� ,. `. HALIFAX IE AVE. GRIMES z m �4 G RIME S P i FRANC AVE N. I -i �_ 8° t 69th Avenue Public Meetings Constitution Hall /Brooklyn Center Community Center January 31, February 1 and February 5, 1990 I An informational report and notice of public meetings was sent to all property owners and residents on and within one block of 69th Avenue from Dupont Avenue to the west City limits. A copy of that report and notice is attached to this report. As there are over 800 property owners and residents in this area, three informational meetings were scheduled. The first and third meetings were to focus on the western segments of 69th - from Shingle Creek Parkway to the west City limits - while the second focused on the eastern segment. The report of public meetings below first relates the introductory remarks, which were similar at all three meetings. The report then details the public question and answer sessions at each of the three meetings. INTRODUCTION (at each meeting) City Manager Gerald G. Splinter opened these public meetings by noting that a few years ago the City Council authorized a study of 69th Avenue, requesting that traffic and other conditions be evaluated and that alternative solutions be proposed. The City is now conducting three meetings for neighborhood residents and property owners to review that study and the recommendations. He noted that these would be informal meetings, and that when the Council wanted to actually consider a construction project, more formal hearings would be held. Director of Public Works Sy Knapp described the three segments into which 69th has been broken, and briefly described the report's findings and recommendations on all. He noted that there are three reports describing various parts of the project: the detailed study, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, and a 6(f) report; and that all three are available for review at City Hall and at the Brookdale Library. Knapp described the possible timeline, and noted that the earliest possible date any construction could begin is 1992. Segment 2 is where the most urgent problems lie; however, the bridge over Shingle Creek in Segment 3 is also a high priority. Glen Van Wormer, Short Elliot Hendrickson, reviewed the traffic analysis in more detail. He said his study considered three options: do nothing, divert the traffic elsewhere, or reduce the congestion. He described the recommendations in detail. City Manager Splinter explained that it is important to have public input to the process, and would at this time open the meeting to questions and comments 1 , c from the audience. A break would be held during which people could ask individual questions. The public portion would reconvene for additional questions. The presenters would be available after the meetings for additional individual questions. January 31. Focus: Segments 1 and 2. Attendance: about 150. PUBLIC QUESTIONS [Note: these are not verbatim minutes. Answering speaker is CGS unless otherwise noted.] Q: Would you consider entirely removing the curves from Oliver to Palmer Lake Drive? A: (GGS) We're restricted in what we can do in Palmer Lake Park. Sometimes curves help to slow down traffic. [Showed new alignment on map] We had in mind when looking at this to stay out of the park and the wetlands as much as possible. Q: Did this study look into the effect on the value of adjoining properties? A: (GVW) No. Q: I would suggest you do that. A: (GGS) Generally, the closer your home is to a busy street, the more detrimental to its value. Q: Will you be displacing homes on segment 1? A: No, but depending on final alignment of Brooklyn Boulevard /69th, there might be some question on the northwest corner of that intersection. Q: Is there any compensation if the City acquires more right of way, or for degradation of property values? A: The City would have to pay for acquisition of property. Also, if a portion of a property is taken, the entire property must be appraised on a before and after basis. Then, if appraisals before and after show a decrease in value, the City must pay damages. To clarify the concept of right of way, the road width is about 33', and the right of way is 66'. That means that the City's right of way .extends about 15' on either side beyond the actual road - the actual width varies along the road. Acquisition of property is only required if construction of the project extends outside of the right -of -way limits. 2 • Q: When was the public notified of this study? A: A report was made in the paper about 4 years ago, (and several articles have been in the paper covering various discussions of the project at Council meetings). Q: Will there be landscaping? i A: There would be tree planting, depending on the width available. We haven't done a lot of detail yet. Plantings do improve appearance and cut down on noise. Q: Would the road be concrete? A: (SK) Blacktop, with concrete curbing. Q: What would be the effect on property taxes? A: Neutral. Q: I remember plans to move traffic to Brooklyn Park, extending the road through Palmer Lake. Why move this traffic to us? Why not improve 610, Humboldt, 252? The traffic increase has to be due to the growth up north - why make this improvement for Brooklyn Park traffic? [Applause] A: The traffic forecasts have tried to take other improvements into account. There will be improvements to Brooklyn Boulevard in the next 10 -15 years. 69th is now about as discouraging a roadway as possible - yet 13,000 cars per day are using 69th Avenue. These improvements would at least get the traffic through there, reduce the backups, and idling. Environmental factors eliminated the option of running Xerxes through Palmer Lake. (GVW) Some of the traffic through here is being generated in the area - we looked at this commercial area, at the office park [indicates on map], and saw a lot of traffic being generated there. Q: Has the Council considered stopping traffic on 69th, to try to discourage the short - cutters? A: (GVW) A lot of the traffic is local; I think the congestion problems at Shingle Creek Parkway and 1694 will discourage Brookdale Shopping Center traffic. Once we get Brooklyn Boulevard and I694 taken care of, we will get rid of some of the short - cutters. Q: We're concerned about the effect on left turns into our driveways at Pilgrim Cleaners. A: (CGS) I encourage the owner to call the Engineering office and talk one on one. We will need to work closely with you. The current proposal eliminates left turns. 3 I Q: I see that the plan will have the road right up close to the businesses at Brooklyn Boulevard. A: Yes, we will be taking some right of way, at Tires Plus, Saba Flowers and Orbit T.V. We will be adding a right turn lane there. Q: How will we get onto 69th from France? A: It could either remain a 4 -way Stop or we could look at a traffic signal, depending upon traffic conditions after the construction. Q: Did you say earlier that you would widen France? A: No, I was referring to the widening effect of having paved shoulders on 69th at France. People tend to use those as turning lanes, in effect widening the road. Q: Concerning property values, at a hearing earlier, when the car dealership was establishing a parking lot, it was noted that the intersection was the 2nd most polluted in the Metro area. Especially with added traffic, how will this affect our value? A: (GGS) After that hearing no one was able to document that this was indeed the 2nd most polluted - Q: I called the state to get the technical information. A: Well, by moving the traffic through more quickly, the idling time will be reduced, reducing the pollution. Also, landscaping will help. Q: What will the speed limit be? I urge you to keep it as low as possible. A: Now it is 30 -35 mph, depending on where you are. We've checked with the Police Department; some people are now going 45 mph. Q: How will pedestrians get from the south side to the north side of 69th? A: We will have painted crosswalks, and sidewalks on both sides, with at least one side wider for bikes. Q: What happens to the existing 69th by the cemetery? A: [Showed overhead and explained proposal] Q: Will the road be widened in Segment 1, and what happens when the road gets to Brooklyn Park? A: The existing roadway is about 36 new will be 40 -42'. It will be tapered to meet the existing roadway in Brooklyn P ark. g Y Y Q: Why did you choose the north side of 69th? 4 � 1 C . A: [Reviewed again the 3 alternatives] Q: If houses are taken, how are the payments figured? A: (GGS) There is a detailed set of procedures which will ensure fairness to the property owners. (SK) The first step is negotiation with the property owner; the City is required to pay up to $500 if the owner wants to hire his own appraiser. [Explains process] Q: Would you have any signals at Shingle Creek Parkway and 69th? A: We don't think so now. Should the traffic start building up we would look at it. Q: Would you have just crosswalks? A: Yes, painted, plus signs. Q: Why are you eliminating one of the ways out of our neighborhood? It is hard enough to get out now. Getting out on 69th from Beard is a problem. A: The design we're considering would flatten out the curve, and increase the sight distance making it less hazardous. Two entrance /exits are more than adequate. Q: Please work to keep the speed limit as slow as possible. Q: Why do we have to wait so long for improvements to Brooklyn Boulevard? I've lived on 69th Avenue for 22 years. A: Brooklyn Boulevard is a County highway. We are working together with the County on this. We are also encouraging an interchange on 694 at Zane in Brooklyn Park. Q: Have you looked into Stop signs at 69th and Beard? It is the speed and amount of traffic which makes this hazardous, rather than curves. A: Stop signs and signals don't work very well at controlling the speed of the traffic. If anything, people speed up as they speed away from the Stop sign or signal. Improving sight distances will help. Q: Would you confirm that the properties that would have to be taken under the 3 lane alternative would be by the cemetery and at Brooklyn Boulevard? A: Yes, that's correct. The maps on the wall show the details. 5 r BREAK. RESIDENTS WERE ABLE TO ASK INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS OF SPLINTER, KNAPP, AND VAN WORMER. LaVon Regen, 6842 Scott, asked during this time that her concern be recorded in the meeting notes: She stated that she is concerned that this proposed reconstruction may reduce the value of her home by bringing the roadway closer to her house, that her property taxes would remain the same, that she would receive no compensation for this lost value, and that she would have to pay a special assessment for roadway and curb and gutter improvements. PUBLIC MEETING RECONVENED. Q: If the City has to get a variance for Alterative C, and couldn't get it, what would the dollar impact be? A: It's all or none. The chances are 50/50 we could get a variance. (SK) [Explained process] You can never be sure about the variance process. It's very difficult to predict. Q: I'm part of the cut - through traffic. You may be underestimating this. On Fridays at rush hour, when 694 begins to back up, you can see people begin to peel off and exit on Shingle Creek Parkway. A: Our traffic counts tried to factor this out. We've assumed that other improvements will be done to reduce this. We are expecting a third lane to be added to 694 in '94. I'd like to note that City Council member Todd Paulson is present and Representative Carruthers was here earlier in the meeting. Q: A few years ago we had a speed study done - it showed speeds averaging more than five mph above the speed limit. A: People do drive rive above the speed limit, knowing that some leeway is given by the courts. The state will not allow us to post a speed limit less than 30 mph. Q: Can we have 30 mph all the way through? A: We don't know if we can on all parts, but we'll look into it. Q: If you are widening the roadway, getting the power lines underground would help. A: We do analyze this when we are designing a project. We are doing this on the West River Road project. It depends on a lot of things, but we will be working together with NSP to look into it. Cost is a factor. 6 Q: If you make this four lanes, we will get more traffic. I live on Beard, and get noise from 694. Will you take into account noise? A: Yes, noise studies are included. We will be doing some planting, which will help to buffer the noise. Q: Have you ever considered a frontage road along 694? A: No, but that would probably be much more expensive because we would need to take more houses to get the necessary right of way. Q: Have you estimated the impact on the values of properties between 694 and 69th? A: (CGS) I think it would probably be neutral. Q: I've heard several people on the south side say they would like to sell their properties. I live on the north side and would like to stay in my 110 year old farmhouse. How should we make our views known? Should we write letters? A: (CGS) I would suggest you wait until the Council schedules a formal hearing to consider the project. Then oral or written individual communication would be appropriate. A public hearing is the most appropriate forum for expressing your views. Q: Will there be a study done on access from the north and south, on getting on to 69th? A: (GGS) We'll be sure to detail it at later hearings. Q: I suppose that Segment 1, because of the need to work together with the County, might never get done? A: (SK) I think never is too strong a word. It could be a long time. (GGS) Sy, could we get a better idea from the County of a possible timeline for the later hearing? Q: It seems that almost everyone here is against these improvements. We will be circulating a petition against it. A: (GGS) That's a legitimate way of expressing yourself. However, individual communication would be better. We have had problems with the same people signing petitions on both sides of an issue. Q: Would you consider putting up traffic lights to see what happens? A: Signals have their pros and cons. Again, signals and signs don't usually slow traffic. We would have to use MNDOT criteria for signals and signs. 7 Q: I don't agree with the gentleman that everyone here is against this. There comes a time when progress has to be made. We live on 69th and have problems backing out. We think you should take the properties on both sides and get rid of the property devaluation problem. THE PUBLIC MEETING WAS ADJOURNED, FOLLOWED BY ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS. February 1. Focus: Segment 3. Attendance: about 25 [INTRODUCTORY AND EXPLANATORY REMARKS ESSENTIALLY SAME AS JANUARY 31 MEETING. NEW MATERIAL IS PRESENTED BELOW.] Director of Public Works Sy Knapp asked for a show of hands of those present who were from the areas of .segments 1 and 2. There were none. He said the meeting would then concentrate on segment 3. He briefly described the report's findings and noted that improvements to segment 3 would probably not occur until 1992 -95. However, residents were being alerted now, so that they have an idea what might be ahead, and when it might take place. PUBLIC QUESTIONS [Note: these are not verbatim minutes. Answering speaker is CGS unless otherwise noted.] Q: What will be the traffic control after the improvements at Shingle Creek Parkway and 69th? A: (SK) Right now we think we can have just a Stop sign on 69th. In the future we might consider a signal. (GGS) It would also depend on how easily traffic can get onto and off of 69th. At France we put in a four way Stop because the traffic on France couldn't get onto 69th. (SK) [Explained "warrant" process] (GGS) Pedestrian access is also a factor we take into account. Q: Do you have any plans at 69th and Humboldt to lower the roadway and improve drainage? A: (CGS) Yes, this is definitely a problem. This is also a problem to the west toward Oliver. Anything we do would include storm sewer improvements. (SK) There's no question that Humboldt needs to be lowered. (GGS) This used to be a county road. Whenever the road would break up, the county would overlay another layer; soon the road is the highest 8 point around. The recent overlay by the county will last about 3 -5 years. Q: When I moved onto 69th, I wanted to ut in a culvert and the County wouldn't let me. My neighbors who moved in later were able to. A: The county has rules that it is fairly inflexible about. When the City took over the road we allowed culverts. Q: You said the proposed road section would be like 70th to Dupont. I have a big family, and we would have problems parking by my house. A: (CGS) It may be possible to arrange for parallel parking, which you would have to pay for by special assessment. Look at Lyndale from 55th -57th as an example. I � (SK) We would consider parking when looking at designing that section. With the existing right of way, a minimum roadway of 28', plus a sidewalk and trail, we would have about 11' "left over." If we have a parallel parking area, that would leave us with only a few feet of boulevard for snow storage. In that case, we might ask the property owner for an easement to move the sidewalk closer to the house. i Q: At the Earle Brown apartments, with drivers turning left into the drive, in the evening with the setting sun in your eyes, it can be dangerous. Now there is at least a shoulder to get around the left turning traffic. Without a shoulder, traffic would stack up. A: We might be able to work in a protected left turn lane there. Q: At 69th and Newton, people just roll through that stop sign. A: That sometimes happens when people get used to a stop sign. That problem is not exclusive to Newton Avenue traffic. Stop seems to mean slow down. Q: What would be the cost to the property owner, per foot? A: (SK) The City Council several years ago established a policy for major street improvements throughout all residential areas. Each year it adopts a standard assessment per property, which is intended to capture about 1/3 the total cost of reconstructing an "average" residential street. The 1990 rate is $1,410 per parcel; the rate increases with inflation. It is possible to pay this in installments over 20 years. Also, if you live on a corner lot, you have the option of choosing which street improvement you wish to be assessed for. You may choose to wait for the other street to be improved, but that may be a gamble, because the Council may in the future wish to change the rate policy, such as capturing more than 1/3 the cost. Q: Do you mean 1/3 of the cost of this project would be paid by the homeowners? g A: Not 1/3 of this project, but 1/3 of an average residential project. Q: Who pays the rest? A: Since this is a municipal state aid street, it would be funded from our municipal state aid funds. This comes from your gas tax and vehicle registration charges. I would guess that special assessments would cover less than five percent of the cost of this project. Q: There are a lot of short - cutters on 69th. A: (GGS) There were a lot during the past 3 years, due to people avoiding the 252 and 694 construction. We hope that since that is done that the number of short - cutters will decrease. (SK) Traffic, especially those wanting to exit on Brooklyn Boulevard and go west on 69th, now find it easier to exit at Shingle Creek Parkway; we know this is happening. We are working with Hennepin County and MNDOT for improvements to the Brooklyn Boulevard exit and to Brooklyn Boulevard to decrease this. There should be major improvements on Brooklyn Boulevard in the 1990 Completion of those improvements will reduce this problem. (GGS) To reduce congestion on Brooklyn Boulevard we would like to have MNDOT construct at least a half- diamond interchange at Zane. Also, a third lane is scheduled to be added to 694 in about 1994. All of these improvements will help reduce the number of cars who use 69th Avenue to bypass existing problems. (GVW) By using turning movements and traffic counts, we can reconstruct traffic flow. We also looked at the amount of traffic that "should" be there. We know that a lot of the 69th traffic is local. (GGS) MNDOT a few years ago did origin /destination studies of the traffic on the freeway river bridge. It found that 30 to 40 percent of the traffic started and /or stopped within four to five miles of the river. Q: Why do anything at all to our segment? A: (GGS) Anytime we do a project, we've found that it's better to look at the whole thing so that we know all the impacts and everything fits together. We know there are some drainage e and other problems that will need to be done sometime. Staff will definitely recommend a new bridge over Shingle Creek in the near future. (SK) Another reason is that we are required to do detailed environmental studies. We are required to cover in those studies as much of the area as possible. Also, we study the whole corridor now so that if we decide to do something in the future, we don't then have to do another environmental study. 10 (SK) We should give credit to previous City Councils, who when developing the commercial /industrial park did not allow driveways onto 69th. If we did, we'd be in a whole different ball game. (SK) People may have wondered why the City put in the reverse curve east of Dupont, and built an intersection with 252 at 70th instead of 69th. We did this to try to discourage through traffic from 252 onto 69th, and to provide better access to students attending Evergreen School. (CGS) We will look at the overhead utility lines. We will work with the utilities so that if they have projects, they do them at the same time as any projects we do. Q: What would be the assessments to the south side properties? A: We can't assess properties if they don't have access to the road. Q: Will there be additional landscaping to isolate the south side properties from view? A: We will be looking at this. We will be working with a landscape architect, and will take this into account. Q: Has a new location been chosen for the bridge? Q: Can you flatten out the curve east of the bridge? I'm the first house east of the bridge, and I peel cars off my trees very often. A: (GGS) We will look at alternatives, but we're constrained in what we can do by the park; we can't go into the park. Also, if you straighten out the curves, you may increase speed; curves sometimes help to keep speeds down. Q: Will you continue to control Humboldt and 69th with a Stop? A: (SK) For now. We will probably consider signals later. Q: Would you consider stops on Humboldt at 70th and 71st? A: (GGS) Only some intersections benefit from Stops. We will look closely at our alternatives. PUBLIC PORTION OF MEETING ADJOURNED. February 5. Focus: Segments 1 and 2. Attendance: about 60 11 X [INTRODUCTORY AND EXPLANATORY REMARKS ESSENTIALLY SAME AS JANUARY 31 MEETING. NEW MATERIAL IS PRESENTED BELOW.] Director of Public Works Sy Knapp asked for a show of hands of those present who were from the area of segment 3. There were a few. He said the meeting would then cover all segments. PUBLIC QUESTIONS [Note: these are not verbatim minutes. Answering speaker is CGS unless otherwise noted.] Q: Would the improvements to segment 2 attract additional truck traffic? A: (GVW) Probably not. The truck traffic from the commercial /industrial area is already there. Most trucks are going to destinations where they're better off using the freeway. Q: Where would the funding for these improvements come from? A: (SK) Segment 2 is a municipal state aid street. We would expect that almost all the funding would come from the MSA fund. There would be some cost to the abutting property owners. [Explained city special assessment policy.] The only properties that would be assessed would be P P properties fronting on 69th. In 1990 the standard rate is $1,410 over 20 years. Special assessments would cover less than five percent of the project's cost. (SK) This is by buildable lot, so if you have a large lot which could legally be subdivided, it would be more. Q: I'm really tired of this City losing houses to roadways. Why are you considering taking more? A: (GGS) We will run into a problem by the cemetery and Brooklyn Boulevard no matter which alternative is chosen. We just can't improve those areas without taking some houses. On the rest of the street, at the other meetings and in person some people have told us they want to stay no matter what, and some want to go. Some people want to stay, but don't want the road closer to their houses. On West River Road, people didn't want the roadway being closer to their yards and houses. .These are all concepts for discussion and we obviously want to avoid taking property but at times we have to make the road work and buffer it from neighboring properties. (SK) Both alternates A and B take the same number of houses -24. Alternate C would take 10. The City ssessor did some preliminary Y P y estimates of the cost of right of way acquisition, and the right -of -way costs for A and B are almost identical. Q: Will you be rezoning any property from residential to commercial? 12 A: (CGS) We really haven't looked at it. There may be some areas, possibly at June Avenue. If the Council wants to pursue a project, we would probably talk to some of the owners and see if there's any interest in redeveloping the area. Q: So, it would probably stay the same? A: This is preliminary. We don't now have a proposal. If the Council gets more serious, we will get more serious about reviewing zoning. Q: Why wasn't this advertised in the City newsletter or in the parks newsletter, just in a paper we have to pay for? A: As for the newsletter; we weren't really sure of the timing of the meetings. We instead chose to send out 800 letters to residents. We did purchase an ad in the Post, and they wrote a news story regarding it. Q: If there is a formal hearing, will there be better notice? A: (GGS) We find our best response is by directly notifying owners by mail. Under state law, we are only required to notify abutting property owners of a hearing by mail. We will also notify owners about a block in each direction from 69th. Q. The road at Beard would still have a bend. Is there any chance of straightening that out more? A: (GGS) This is a preliminary design. We will make it as safe as possible. We are constrained by the cemetery and wetlands. We will work on it. Q: Where will you have any signals and signs to stop traffic? A: (GVW) This is a preliminary design. It would depend on when it is built, and which alternative is chosen. The potential is there for a signal at Shingle Creek Parkway. Q: You're opening this up for speeding traffic. I realize that stops increase pollution, but without them you will get a lot of speeders. A: (GGS) We will look at speeds. We will landscape, curve the road a little. That will make it less attractive to speeders. Stops slow down traffic temporarily. We obviously have more work to do on the traffic control part of this improvement. Q: I'm between a rock and a hard place - either you take my house or my neighbor's. I don't like it one bit. Q: Have you considered a signal at Beard? It's hard to get on. 13 A: (GVW) A four lane road tends to "platoon" traffic, creating more gaps in traffic. You have a better opportunity to get on. If after improvement you are having trouble, then chances are everyone else is also having problems. Then we would consider a signal somewhere to meter the traffic. Q: Would you increase the speed limit? A: (GGS) Cities are limited in what we can do with speed limits. (SK) There is one person in the state which sets speed limits - the Commissioner of Transportation. MNDOT does speed surveys, accident surveys, etc., and from that information, state law says the Commissioner shall decide what is a safe speed for that road. The City Council can either go ahead with what the Commissioner says, or choose to set the limit at 30 mph. The options here realistically are 30 or 35 mph. On City streets the City Council does have the authority to drop a speed it doesn't agree with to 30 mph. BREAK FOR INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS. Q: How wide is the proposed landscape area, and who would maintain it? A: (GGS) The City would maintain it if not a part of a front yard. (SK) [Showed cross - section] The current right of way is 66 Most houses have about a 25' setback, meaning most houses are about 60 -75' from the road's centerline. If we bought a house, no matter which side of the street, we would add another 130' of right of way. We could then look at distributing some of that right of way on both sides. With the proper landscaping, we think this could look more like St. Anthony Parkway than Shingle Creek Parkway. We can also provide plantings in the median, do things there. (GGS) We can do things like putting in small bends in the road, such as we're doing on West River Road, so people can't see a straight shot down the road. That may slow people down. Q: It appears that the only access to the cemetery will be from eastbound, and exiting will also only be eastbound. A: (GGS) It appears so. We really haven't planned this much. (GVW) This will be a toug_i problem to solve. The cemetery road might have to be moved - we can't do that, but they could. (SK) Such as at City Hall, we could think about a drive -over median for use by funeral procession only. There is now a sign at the cemetery which says Right Turn Only. This is because of the sight distance problem. [Members of the audience noted that that sign is no longer up.] 14 M Q: There is another gate, another entrance to the cemetery. A: (GGS) If there are any alternates, we will consider them. Q: Is there a chance this will take a long time to start, like West River Road? We don't want to be left in limbo for a long time. A: We think we have enough information for the City Council to choose an alternate. We should know by the end of summer which alternate is preferred. We won't necessarily run out and start construction, but we will at least know which houses might be necessary so you can plan accordingly. We will seek authorization to buy from willing sellers as soon as possible. THE PUBLIC MEETING WAS ADJOURNED, FOLLOWED BY ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS. Respectfully submitted, Diane Spector Public Works Coordinator Attachments: - Notice of meeting as sent to property owners including the summary report - Copy of article in Brooklyn Center Post (before) - Copy of ad in Brooklyn Center Post Copy of article in Brooklyn Center Post (covering meeting) - 2/7/90 edition • 15 r CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE C ENTER 911 TO: Property Owners and Residents January 24, 1990 in 69th Avenue North Corridor from West City Limits to Dupont Avenue FROM: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager RE: Neighborhood Meetings to Discuss Improvement of 69th Avenue North Enclosed is a summary report regarding proposed future improvements to 69th Avenue North. Although a substantial amount of work and effort has been expended to investigate the feasibility of the proposed improvement, no commitments have been made to proceed with any of these improvements. We believe it is appropriate to present the proposal to you in a series of informal meetings so that you may become acquainted with the proposal and so that you have an opportunity to discuss the proposal and to advise us of your concerns, your needs and your opinions. With your cooperation, we hope to is develop a coordinated plan which will serve your needs, the needs of your neighborhood, and the needs of all City residents. Accordingly we have scheduled the following informal neighborhood meetings: Meeting Segments to be Date & Time Location Discussed Wed., Jan. 31, 1990, . 7:00 p.m. (all meetings will be held in 1 and 2 Thurs., Feb. 1, 1990, 7:00 p.m. Constitution Hall, Brooklyn 3 Mon., Feb. 5, 1990, 7:00 p.m. Center Community Center - 1 and 2 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway) You are invited to attend any or all of these meetings. However, our emphasis during the first and third meetings will be on the area west of Shingle Creek Parkway, while our emphasis during the second meeting will be on the area east of Shingle Creek Parkway. We will appreciate your attendance and participation in these meetings. As noted above, this proposal is still under discussion. All concerns, questions, ideas and comments brought to these meetings will help the City of Brooklyn Center to better understand and meet your needs. Following the conclusion of these meetings, we expect that the City Council will conduct at least one formal public hearing regarding the proposal.... probably in March or April of 1990. No decision to proceed (or not to proceed) with the proposal will be made ntil after completion of the formal public hearing(s). Gera Splinter, City Manager 4 rou,ua�u`ivan SUMMARY REPORT CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 69TH AVENUE NORTH FROM WEST CITY LIMITS TO DUPONT AVENUE NORTH INTRODUCTION This report is an overview of the studies to date regarding proposed improvements to 69th Avenue North. These studies have been conducted by Short- Elliott - Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH), consulting engineers, in cooperation with City staff. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION This report focuses on 69th Avenue North from the Brooklyn Center /Brooklyn Park border or er to Dupont Avenue North, a distance of 2.8 miles. From the west City limits to Brooklyn Boulevard, 69th Avenue North is Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 30. From Brooklyn Boulevard to Dupont Avenue, 69th Avenue is a Municipal State Aid street. The existing right -of -way is primarily sixty -six (66) feet wide. Pedestrians and bicyclists must use the shoulder from Palmer Lake Park to Dupont Avenue North, while a sidewalk is provided on one side of the roadway from the west City limits to Palmer Lake Park. Pedestrian trails are provided in Palmer Lake Park. Average daily traffic is approximately 9,000 vehicles per day from Zane Avenue North to Brooklyn Boulevard (Segment 1), 13,000 vehicles per day from Brooklyn Boulevard to Shingle Creek Parkway (Segment 2), and 6,500 vehicles per day from Shingle Creek Parkway to Dupont Avenue North (Segment 3). PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The proposed improvements to 69th Avenue North are intended to: improve traffic safety, improve pedestrian and bicycle safety, improve the level of service at major intersections, and enhance the environment in the neighborhoods within the project corridor by reducing congestion and air pollution and by providing additional landscaping. The improvements proposed for 69th Avenue North include grading, curb and gutter, bikeway /walkway, surfacing and landscaping. All improvements must be approved by MNDOT's state aid office. Due to the variations in existing and projected traffic volumes and in traffic characteristics between the three segments of 69th Avenue, the proposed improvements have been designed to meet the individual needs of each segment, i.e.. -1- IL Segment Proposed No. Description Improvement 1 From west City limit to A 3 -lane section is proposed (one lane Brooklyn Boulevard in each direction, with a continuous left -turn lane) 2 From Brooklyn Boulevard Three alternates are under consideration, to Shingle Creek Parkway i.e.: two 4 -lane alternates (A & B) and one 3 -lane alternate (C) - (Note: The 3 -lane alternate will not receive state aid approval unless a variance from standards is obtained.) 3 From Shingle Creek Parkway A 2 -lane section to Dupont Avenue North Note 1: At the Brooklyn Boulevard intersection, additional lanes need to be added to increase the capacity of the intersection. Note 2: It is proposed to correct existing alignment deficiencies in the Palmer Lake Park area by flattening curves and moving slightly into Palmer Lake Park. Note 3: Implementation of either of Segment No. 2's 4 -lane alternates would require acquisition of approximately 24 parcels of property. Implementation of Segment No. 2's 3 -lane alternate would require e acquisition of 10 parcels of property. Note 4: It is also proposed to realign the 69th Avenue /Shingle Creek Parkway intersection to align Shingle Creek Parkway with the westerly leg of 69th Avenue North. COST ESTIMATE Following is a preliminary cost estimate for the various segments of the project. These estimates include the costs of right -of -way acquisition, engineering and administrative costs and the costs for construction. Alternates A or B Alternate C Segment Segment No. 2 Segment No. 2 No. Description �4 -lane alternates) (3 -lane alternate) 1 West City limits to $1.55 million $1.55 million Brooklyn Blvd. 2 Brooklyn Blvd. to 4.10 million 2.59 million Shingle Creek Pkwy. 3 Shingle Creek Pkwy. to 1.45 million 1.45 million Dupont Avenue North Totals $7.1 million $5.59 million -2- ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Because the proposed realignment of 69th Avenue through the Palmer Lake Park area would utilize: 3.44 acres of the lands previously acquired with the use of Land and Conservation Fund grant funds, an application for amendment of the grant was prepared and submitted to the United States Department of Interior. That amendment, which provides for the acquisition of 7.5 acres of replacement land has been approved, and the replacement land has been acquired by the City. The City of Brooklyn Center has also prepared a discretionary Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and submitted it to the required governmental agencies for their.review and comments. Following receipt of comments from these agencies the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board has authorized the City to proceed with the:project subject to obtaining needed permits. Copies of these documents and copies of an earlier, more detailed report (69TH AVENUE CORRIDOR FROM ZANE AVENUE TO DUPONT AVENUE, as prepared by SEH and dated April 4, 1989) are available for public review at the office of the City Engineer in Brooklyn Center City Hall. PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE Following is a preliminary schedule for proposed improvements to the various segments of 69th Avenue: Segment Segment No. Description Preliminary Schedule 1 West City Limits to After 1992 (no definite schedule) Brooklyn Boulevard 2 Brooklyn Boulevard Right -of -way acquisition... 1990 and 1991 to Shingle Creek Pkwy. Construction ...............1992 3 Shingle Creek Parkway After 1992 (no definite schedule) to Dupont Avenue North THIS SUMMARY PREPARED BY Sy Knapp Public Works Director City of Brooklyn Center_ January 22, 1990 -3- City of Brooklyn Center 69th Avenue North From West City Limits to Dupont Avenue North R. �- LU� ' � t wX•r R. { / 1210 x /4•A � �: � 2. K. X `>• SEGMENT 1 d ,� ,`, ^ ' K , i 4 � R AIM .K. l � • K E.Egd � 1. e, • Q SEGMENT 2 SEGMENT 3 S � �I F' ;i /TR •K. , R AM, x[. l tE ,•� b. fb f� ernt •K. •K � � � -� ry ..lr cf �- i� il E ^� sn .K ^ '��.' -„ a . y �1 -..,_ �—J •v... Lm. / �� I �I . '"'J' ='l FI f— II I --� IF F F FIRtI Appeared in PostNews on 1/24/90 69th Ave improvements discussed Public hearings to discuss possible changes on 69th Avenue from the Crystal border to Dupont Avenue have been sched- uled by city officials for Jan.31, Feb.1, and Feb.5 at 7 pm. in the Community Center, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway. (See legal notice and map in this issue.) • Designed to improve traffic, bicycle and pedestrian safety on the busily traveled route, the changes would take place in three stages beginning later this year and costing up to $7.1 million. Realignment of 69th Avenue would require acquisi- tion of private properties as well as permission from the fed- eral government for utilization of parts of the Palmer Lake Park preserve. Widening of the highway to either three or four lanes is planned to alleviate problems resulting from the up to 13,000 vehicles using sections of the roadway daily. Nevertheless, the proposal could prove controversial with nearby residents, 800 of whom have been sent notices of the meetings. "We've held off a long time," notes City Manager Gerald Splinter of the proposal, which would go to the city council after the hearings. "But nothing is officially decided." 4 { PUBLIC N OTICE i NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS RE: PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 69TH AVENUE NORTH WEST CITY LIMITS TO DUPONT AVENUE NORTH Informal neighborhood meetings will be held to provide opportunities to discuss proposals for the improvement of 69th Avenue North from the west City limits to Dupont Avenue North (see map below): Meeting Segments to he Date & Time Location Discussed Wed., Jan. 31, 1990.1:00 p.m. (all meetings will be held in 1 and 2 Thurs., Feb. 1, 1990, 7:00 p.m. Constitution Hall, Brooklyn 3 Mon., Feb. 5, 1990, 7:00 p.m. Center Community Center - 1 and 2 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway) Individual notices of these meetings and a summary report regarding the proposed improvements are being sent to all property owners within one block of 69th Avenue. Additional copies of the summary report may be obtained at the City Engineer's office, City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway. You are invited to attend any or all of these meetings. As noted, emphasis during the first and third meetings will be directed to the area west of Shingle Creek Parkway, while emphasis during the second meeting will be directed to the area east of Shingle Creek Parkway. The purpose of these meetings is to present the proposal for public information and discussion. All concerns, questions, ideas and comments will assist the City in better understanding individual needs, neighborhood needs and the needs of the City. • Following conclusion of these meetings the City Council will conduct at least one formal public hearing regarding the proposal - probably in March or April, 1990. No decision to proceed (or not be proceed) with the proposal will be made until after completion of the formal public hearing(s). By: C. C. Splinter, City Manager Published: Display Ad Brooklyn Center Post ...January 24, 1990 t lt lltt PARK t :rA c� _ k o© _ SEGMENT 1 , .._:.; t j I ..SEGMENT 2 -� ^ � � SEGMENT 3 '� - ., c� _ � �� : �� ►� a( if ',l�?� imolans f or 69th Appeared in Po: on 2/7/90 ■ s � - 1 (a l V � • Jon Kerr up to 13,000 vehicles make By necessary some form of 69th Avenue changes, Van Wormer City plans for remodeling argued in seriousness. "We and widening 69th Avenue really don't think that just from Dupont to the Crystal leaving it alone is a good op- border got a mixed reception tion," he said. last week. A series of public hearings brought out numbers City proposals call for three of Brooklyn Center homeown- phases of construction begin - ers and residents from both ning later this year that could sides of the highway, and of cost up to $7.1 million and take the issue. out homes, businesses and part of Palmer Lake Park. "We have a couple of op- Hearing -goers responded to tions that have met with either three alternate plans that in- total enthusiasm or total cluded widening 69th Avenue disbelief," joked Glen Van to four lanes at some points by Wormer in introducing a study as early as 1992. done by Short, Elliot, Hen - drickson Inc. "You can have a "Why are we affecting 69th wider road by taking out some Avenue when the main effect neighbors across the street, is to help the traffic in Brook - depending on whether you like lyn Park ?" asked Lee Snapko them." to nods and applause from some. "We are the ones bear - Current traffic problems • resulting from daily traffic of Hearings /see page 2 w rings, ■ ■ from page one ing the brunt of people cutting years," said Mary Heitzig. be devalued with a three- or through our area. There's no "There comes a point where four -lane highway running by growth to Brooklyn Center in we have to realize that prog- it. I'd rather not see any of it this area, so growth must be to ress has to be made ... I think done," he said, adding that the north." they should take houses on several persons planned to both sides of the road if they start a petition drive. Short - Elliot's study showed need to." much of the traffic coming "We don't want to feel like from nearby businesses on Few speakers echoed that we're railroading this thing Shingle Creek Parkway, how- approach, with most home or through," said City Manager ever, said Van Wormer, who business owners questioning Gerald Splinter, describing added that their projections of whether they would receive the process that would con - over 35,000 vehicles daily by fair compensation for their tinue through more public the year 2007 even assumes property losses or deprecia- hearings at the city council road improvements to alter tion. "Selling the land to the level. "But we want to move nate highways such as Brook- city would probably get you at along the process so that peo- lyn Boulevard. Similarly, least as much money as you ple will know what properties more stop signs and police would get from any other are affected and can make patrols would have only a buyer,'' answered city plans." minimal discouraging effect engineer Sy Knapp. on the amount of traffic, he That approach seemed to said. At least one homeowner, agree with Steve Dockendorf. Jeff Trieb, doubted that the "My concern is that the city • Other residents agreed with road - widening wouldn't have does something soon, because Van Wormer that current negative effects, however. it's going to affect my proper - problems were intolerable. "It's absolutely ludicrous to ty value either way. If they're "We've lived with this for ten say that your home isn't going going to do it, do it soon." CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2 -26 -90 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF ROBBINSDALE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TWIN LAKE /RYAN LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AS AUTHORIZED BY THE SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAP DIR CTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS ************* �************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *� * * *� * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: tx- No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes On several previous occasions the Brooklyn Center City Council has adopted resolutions supporting the implementation of the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Outlet Modifications as described in a report prepared by the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission. Following is an update of events which have occurred since the date (11- 13 -89) of the last City Council action: 0 on 11/30/89 City staff conducted a public informational meeting regarding this proposed improvement. Attached hereto is a copy of the notice of this meeting which was sent to all 107 property owners in Brooklyn Center who own lakeshore property on these lakes or which lies within the flood plain. Of the six residents who attended that meeting, two major concerns were expressed, i.e.: Item 1: They wanted assurance that the proposed improvement would not lower the water levels during extended dry periods. Answer Both the Commission's engineer and the City staff have advised that this would not happen. Item 2: They expressed the opinion that they would prefer to have the City spend money on raising the water level during dry periods than to spend it for flood control. Answer City staff agrees that low water levels in these lakes are a matter of public concern. Unfortunately, the development of an answer to • that concern is more complex and would certainly be much more expensive than the proposed flood - control project. (Note: witness the extreme difficulties relating to this issue in the Lake Minnetonka area). 0 on December 14, 1989, the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission conducted a public hearing regarding this project. Following completion of the hearing, the Commission adopted a resolution which ordered construction of the proposed improvement and designated the City of Robbinsdale as the agency to contract for the improvements, with cost participation in accordance with the Commission's adopted Capital Improvements Policy, i.e.: Share of City Trunk Sewer Costs Local Costs Total Costs Brooklyn Center $ 12,160 $700* $ 12,860 Brooklyn Park 18,546 -- 18,546 Crystal 48,325 -- 48,325 Minneapolis 12,461 -- 12,461 New Hope 28,241 -- 28,241 Robbinsdale 34.167 _ 34.167 $153,900 $700 $154,600 * Brooklyn Center's "local share" covers the costs for constructing the contol weir at the new France Avenue culvert, and the costs of obtaining an easement for the purpose of allowing that weir to be constructed. o the City of Robbinsdale has developed proposed agreements with each of the other five participating cities. The proposed agreement with Brooklyn Center is attached, for consideration by the Brooklyn Center • City Council. If all six cities execute these agreements, Robbinsdale will then have full authority to proceed with the project. Council Action Required Adoption of the attached resolution. Note A final meeting of the "Commissioners" representing the six cities will be held on Monday morning. I assume there could be some very minor language revisions. However, if any substantial changes are to be made, I will report them at the Council meeting. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF ROBBINSDALE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TWIN LAKE /RYAN LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AS AUTHORIZED BY THE SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is a member of a joint powers group known as the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission, and WHEREAS, the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission has studied and reviewed engineering problems relating to Ryan Creek and the Twin Lake /Ryan Lake area, and there are certain deficiencies which must be corrected to manage surface waters in that area and to prevent flooding, and WHEREAS, the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission held a meeting on December 14, 1989, to consider the matter and ordered said improvements, WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is one of the member Cities in the subwatershed benefitted by the Twin Lake /Ryan Lake improvements, and WHEREAS, the City of Robbinsdale was designated as the member to contract for the improvements, and the City of Robbinsdale has prepared a contract pursuant to the joint powers agreement and the state statutes, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The document entitled "Agreement Entered Into Pursuant to Provisions of the Joint Powers Agreement of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission for Construction of the Twin Lake /Ryan Lake Improvement Project" attached hereto and marked Exhibit A is hereby approved. 2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute the contract with the City of Robbinsdale for the construction of said improvements. 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. CIT OF Y 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 1' C ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Property Owners with Frontage on Twin Lakes and Property Owners with Property In or Near the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Flood Plain FROM: Sy Knapp Director of Public Works DATE: November 20, 1989 RE: Proposed Modification of Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Outlet During past years some of you have experienced problems with high water levels in the Twin Lakes and Ryan Lake areas. These problems can generally be described as: Flooded houses: (in Brooklyn Center there are approximately 25 houses which have lowest floor elevations below the 100 -year flood level); or damage to shoreline and /or yards resulting from water levels which remain high during extended wet periods. At the same time, it is recognized that, during dry years, the water level in these lakes is lower than the level which most of you would prefer. At the request of the Brooklyn Center City Council, the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission has studied this matter in detail and has developed a proposal to construct a system of improvements which will meet the following goals: • Lower the maximum high water level (i.e. - the 100 -year flood level by approximately 9 inches). • Substantially reduce the length of time during which the lake levels remain high during extended wet periods; while • maintaining the same "runout elevation" which now exists, so as to assure that the lake levels during normal and dry periods will be no lower than they are with the present system. L Page Two November 20, 1989 The Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission is a special purpose joint powers agency formed by agreement between the cities which lie within the watershed. The Brooklyn Center City Council has appointed me as its representative on the Commission. That Commission will conduct a public hearing regarding this proposal at its December meeting. The estimated total cost of the proposed improvements is $154,600. This cost is proposed to be shared between the six cities whose boundaries include portions of this watershed area. Brooklyn Center's share of that cost is estimated at $12,859. It is proposed that Brooklyn Center's share of these costs be paid from its General Funds, so that no special iq-,essments or other special charges would be levied against your property as a result of this proposed project The purpose of this letter is to inform you of this proposal and to inform you that an informational meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. on November 30, 1989 at the Northport Elementary School, 5421 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. The purpose of this meeting is to provide you with an opportunity to ask questions and discuss this project so that I may have the benefit of your questions, concerns and comments. Yours very truly, Sy 4 KnaPP Director of Public Works AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT OF THE SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE TWIN LAKE /RYAN LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 1990, by and between the City of Robbinsdale, Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "Robbinsdale ", and the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "Brooklyn Center ", WHEREAS, the Cities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Maple Grove, Minneapolis, New Hope, Osseo, Plymouth and Robbinsdale have entered into a Joint Powers Agreement creating the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission (the "Commission "), and WHEREAS, the Commission has been funded by the nine member cities (the "Members ") and has conducted extensive engineering studies and has adopted a watershed management plan, and WHEREAS, the Cities of Brooklyn Center, Crystal and Robbinsdale have incurred flooding problems along Ryan Creek and in the Twin Lake /Ryan Lake area and the Commission believes it is in the interests of all parties to correct the deficiencies in Ryan Creek as outlined in a feasibility report prepared by James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers and dated June, 1989, to prevent flooding and the report outlines the cost distribution to do the work, and WHEREAS, as a part of said feasibility report Appendix B is included which is an estimate by the City of Minneapolis of costs to oversize a storm sewer in Minneapolis from Oliver Avenue North to Sheridan Avenue North and to increase the pipe size from 54" to 60" at an estimated increased cost of $36,678.42 and the costs of said oversizing are to be considered as a part of this project and monies will be collected by Robbinsdale from all responsible members and paid over to the City of Minneapolis when they complete that section of storm sewer as outlined on 31 of the report and in Appendix B page P PP ► and WHEREAS, as a part of said feasibility report the City of Brooklyn Center (see Appendix C) has agreed to pay the cost of construction of the weir at France Avenue and also has agreed to pay any right of way acquisition costs that may be required to construct the weir at France Avenue, and WHEREAS, on December 14, 1989, the Commission held a public hearing pursuant to Article VII, Subd . 4, of the Joint Powers Agreement, and the Commission ordered the improvements (the "Improvement ") set forth below: Construction of the improvements proposed for the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake outlet as presented in the feasibility report dated June 8, 1989, which recommended that capital improvements are needed to accomplish the Commission's goals of increasing the low flow capacity of the Twin Lakes Outlet at France Avenue and reducing the 100 -year flood elevations in Ryan Lake and WHEREAS, the City of Robbinsdale has been designated as the member of the Commission who will contract for the Improvements subject to all provisions of the Joint Powers Agreement, and it is deemed necessary that Robbinsdale have contracts with each of the other five members who have financial responsibility for this subwatershed and to contract and outline the method of proceeding to be followed in constructing this work, and WHEREAS, Robbinsdale will prepare or hire a registered professional engineer to prepare plans and specifications and to work with the engineering departments of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Minneapolis, and New Hope in preparing the plans for the Improvements, and WHEREAS, Commission Members Maple Grove, Osseo, and Plymouth have no financial responsibility for the improvement work in this subwatershed and therefore need not be parties to this agreement, and WHEREAS, at the public hearing the total cost of the project was estimated to be $153,900, including the cost of oversizing in Minneapolis but excluding the estimated cost of $700 to construct the weir at France Avenue, and the allocation of these costs was established by the Commission on the basis of percentages, and WHEREAS, the allocation of costs set forth by the Commission is as follows: Municipality Percent Estimated Cost Per Notice Brooklyn Center 7.9% $12,160 Brooklyn Park 12.1% 18,546 Crystal 31.4% 48,325 Minneapolis 8.1% 12,461 New Hope 18.3% 28,241 Robbinsdale 22.2% 34,167 and WHEREAS, upon receipt of the final plans and specifications, Robbinsdale will proceed to advertise for bids and award contracts for the Improvement, and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59 and Chapters 429 and 475 provide that two or more governmental units may enter into a cooperative agreement for the exercise of any power common to the contracting parties and the parties hereto do have power to construct flood walls; provide drainage of surface waters; construct, reconstruct, extend and maintain dikes and other flood control works; and to finance the same, and Robbinsdale plans to enter into contracts with each of the other five financially responsible Members affected by this construction of improvements: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED By and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Robbinsdale will prepare or will hire qualified professional engineers to prepare plans and specifications for the construction of the aforesated projects, which plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City Engineers of the five other contracting parties for review and comment. 2. Robbinsdale, after the aforementioned review of plans and specifications, and approval by the Robbinsdale City Council, will advertise for bids for the construction of the aforestated project, receive bids pursuant to said advertisement, and enter into a contract with the successful bidder or bidders at the unit price specified for the construction of the Improvements. Copies of the bids received will be furnished by Robbinsdale to the City Engineers of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Minneapolis, and New Hope promptly after opening thereof. Said bids will be open to review by all Members of the Commission for the period of twenty days after such bid opening. Robbinsdale shall award the contract in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 and any other applicable state laws and shall conduct all bidding requirements pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 429.041. 3. The construction of the entire project contemplated herein (excluding the storm sewer construction in Minneapolis) shall be under the supervision and direction of Robbinsdale, in consultation with Brooklyn Center Crystal, and Minneapolis, relating to work to be done in Brooklyn Center,. Crystal, and Minneapolis and all Members of the Commission who have entered into a similar contract with Robbinsdale shall have the right to enter upon the place or places where said construction is in progress for the purpose of making reasonable tests and inspections. 4. a) Robbinsdale will pay all of the construction costs, engineering costs and restoration costs as payments become due, from its funds and from funds received from the other governmental units, including payment to Minneapolis of the aforementioned oversizing costs, subject to the right of Robbinsdale to withhold from contractors for nonperformance and /or customary or contractually specified reserves. Each of the Members will pay all costs of right -of -way acquisition within their respective Cities for lands needed to construct the improvements, except Brooklyn Center has agreed to pay right -of -way acquisition costs in Robbinsdale to construct the weir at France Avenue. b) The final costs of the Improvement shall be apportioned and divided between the six Members of the Commission in the percentage ratios stated above and as approved after a duly called and held public hearing by the Commission. The final computation of costs shall be calculated by Robbinsdale and the consulting engineer hired to design and construct the improvements pursuant to the approved percentages as approved by the full Commission after the public hearing held on December 14, 1989. c) It is further agreed that the cost estimate of One Hundred Fifty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars ($153,900) is an estimate of the total cost of the Improvement and that the actual unit price set forth in the contracts with the successful bidders and the actual final uantiti q es as measured by the Robbinsdale Engineering Department (or the Minneapolis Engineering Department for the Minneapolis storm sewer) and any consulting engineers hired to perform professional services shall govern in computing the construction contract costs for apportionment pursuant to the aforestated formula. 5. Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Minneapolis and Robbinsdale agree to provide without cost to the other Members of the Commission any permits necessary for Robbinsdale to enter into any public right -of -way under the respective jurisdiction of either Brooklyn Center, Crystal, or Robbinsdale if the consent of said parties is required for construction and maintenance of these improvements. It is further understood and agreed that Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Minneapolis and Robbinsdale will obtain all necessary construction, slope, storm sewer, drainage, or other easements to cross private property within their respective corporate boundaries except that Brooklyn Center has agreed to acquire the necessary right -of- way to construct a weir at France per Appendix C of the feasibility report. The acquisition costs shall be borne by the acquiring municipality. 6. It is further agreed that within 60 days after an award by Robbinsdale to the successful bidders, the City of Brooklyn Center shall deposit with the treasurer of the City of Robbinsdale eighty percent (80 %) of the estimated costs of its proportionate share computed as stated in paragraph three using actual unit prices contained in such contract with the successful bidder and the engineer's estimated quantities set forth in the construction contract. The Minneapolis storm sewer construction costs may be deferred if work will be delayed more than 60 days after the construction of the work supervised by Robbinsdale. The remaining twenty percent (20 %) of such proportionate share shall be paid to Robbinsdale by the City of Brooklyn Center upon the completion of the Improvement and certification by Robbinsdale to Brooklyn Center of Robbinsdale I s final costs for the project. The final costs to be paid to Robbinsdale by the City of Brooklyn Center shall be verified by the professional engineer hired or in charge of the project based upon the aforestated formula for each responsible Member. 7. The P improvements constructed pursuant to this agreement P shall become the property of the City wherein the improvement is located and shall be maintained by said City where the improvement is located at the sole cost and expense of the latter. This maintenance requirement may be changed by the Members of the Commission if the authority is extended to the Commission and maintenance is included as a portion of the responsibilities of the Commission and duly ordered by the Commission. Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Minneapolis and Robbinsdale agree that the Improvements are available for the drainage of surface waters including the waters flowing to the Improvement from any other Member of the Commission and from lands located within the Shingle Creek Watershed. 8. Brooklyn Center, Crystal and Minneapolis hereby grant to Robbinsdale permission to enter into and upon those portions of public rights -of -way under Brooklyn Center, Crystal or Minneapolis' jurisdiction or under the jurisdiction of Hennepin County or the State of Minnesota if the consent of Brooklyn Center, Crystal or Minneapolis is required, for the purpose of constructing the Improvement. Robbinsdale, Brooklyn Center, Crystal and Minneapolis agree that they will permit all Members of the Commission, for the purpose of inspection or review, the right to enter on to all public rights -of -way included within the Improvement for the purpose of inspecting the Improvement. 9. Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Minneapolis and Robbinsdale agree to take all necessary action to provide for access to public and private lands as may be required for the design and construction of the Improvement. 10. Whenever there arises a disagreement between the parties hereto as to plans and specifications as provided in Paragraph 1, or as to the proper costs due and payable by them under the terms hereof, or as to their proportionate share of costs or as to any other matter relating to this agreement, then any party hereto may apply to the American Arbitration Association for arbitration in accordance with the rules and regulations of said Association. Pending conclusion of such arbitration proceedings, any costs admittedly owed by one party to another pursuant to the terms hereof shall be paid in full and such payment shall be deemed not to prejudice or act as a waiver of any rights or claims asserted or held by any of the parties. 11. This agreement shall remain in force and effect throughout the period of useful life of the joint installation or of any renewals or replacements thereof; provided, however, that this agreement may be amended, extended or modified at any time by mutual consent of the parties set forth in a written amendment to this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be executed by their proper officers on their respective behalfs pursuant to resolution duly adopted by their respective governing bodies. CITY OF ROBBINSDALE By Its Mayor By Its City Manager CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER By Its Mayor BY Its CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2 2s so Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AMENDING 1990 PAY PLAN DEPT. APPROVAL: hfok Personnel Coordinator Signature - itle MANAGER'S ,....:: GER S No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _) The 1990 budget for the Economic Development Authority and Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, allocates funding for one additional full -time staff person. The City will be posting a notice of position opening for an EDA assistant coordinator. Attached is a position description outlining the duties and responsibilities of this position. There is no such position listed in the 1990 pay plan, so the attached resolution would authorize the addition of the position to the plan. The proposed monthly salary range is $2,620 to $3,189. (The budget allocated $38,616 for this position, and the maximum annual salary as proposed is $38,268.) Once the city council amends the pay plan, the notice of position opening will be posted; the anticipated hire date is April 9, 1990. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Pass a Resolution Amending 1990 Pay Plan • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING 1990 PAY PLAN WHEREAS, City of Brooklyn Center Resolution No. 89 -251 sets wages and salaries for calendar year 1990; and WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority and Housing. and Redevelopment Authority of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, 1990 budget allocates funding for one additional staff position; and WHEREAS, it is the City Council's intent to add a position titled EDA Assistant Coordinator to the 1990 pay plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the 1990 pay plan is hereby amended as follows: 1. Supervisory- professional Schedule C is amended to add the position of EDA Assistant Coordinator with a grade range of S21A to S25C and monthly salary range of $2,620 to $3,189. 2. The city manager's office section of the 1990 Positions Authorized, Schedule A is amended to add the position of EDA Assistant Coordinator which will be exempt from overtime. 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 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY POSITION DESCRIPTION POSITION IDENTIFICATION TITLE: EDA Assistant Coordinator DEPARTMENT: Economic Development Authority (EDA) STATUS: Exempt SALARY LEVEL: Supervisory- Professional Schedule C DATE WRITTEN /REVISED: February 1990 POSITION SUMMARY This is a professional position with the main responsibility of administering housing programs in the City of Brooklyn Center. Performs duties under the general supervision of the EDA coordinator. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Administers housing programs, including, but not limited to, housing rehabilitation grant /loan program, first -time home buyers program, and the EDA's home buy out program. 2. Acts as neighborhood liaison to develop individual neighborhood approaches. Works directly with neighborhood residents to increase awareness of available programs. Develops new or innovative housing programs for individual neighborhoods. 3. Coordinates federal, state, and county housing programs with local programs to reach a comprehensive neighborhood approach to housing issues. 4. Assists in the development of housing policy. 5. Monitors state, federal, and county housing programs, as well as other municipal programs. 6. Assists in the negotiation of housing related issues. 7. Lobbies elected and nonelected officials on housing related issues. 8. Coordinates the sale of excess land. 9. Writes development proposals. 10. Prepares special projects and performs other duties and work as required. KNOWLEDGE SKILLS AND ABILITIES 1. Knowledge of Housing and Redevelopment Authorities (HRAs) and Economic Development Authorities (EDAs) and how they function. 2. Knowledge of municipal government and how it functions. 3. Knowledge of intergovernmental relations. 4. Knowledge of the Minnesota state legislature and the lobbying process. 5. Knowledge of tax increment financing. 6. Ability to evaluate state, federal, and county housing programs to determine their appropriateness and applicability to Brooklyn Center and the City's plans. 7. Ability to develop housing programs. 8. Ability to assess and resolve problems with the tools available to do so. 9. Ability to work tactfully and congenially with residents, other members of the public, and other City personnel. 10. Ability to work independently with little direction. 11. Performs other duties as assigned. REQUIREMENTS 1. Bachelor's degree in urban studies, planning, public administration, business administration or related field required. Master's degree in one of these fields preferred. 2. At least two years of demonstrated municipal government administrative experience preferred. POSITION DESCRIPTION APPROVED B y a /�s1 EDA dinator S Date Approved B 2, o /90 City Manager Date Approved k CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2 -26 -90 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution Amending City Council Resolution No. 86 -123 Regarding the Schedule for Planning and Inspection Department Fees DEPARTMENT AL: Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: ` t+" No comments to supplement this report Comments below/attached- SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X With the recent adoption by the City Council of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance comes the need to establish the Planning Commission Application fee for consideration of a PUD. e It has been suggested that the fee for a PUD application be equivalent to our current rezoning application fee and also our site and building plan application fee because aspects of both are included in a PUD application. Currently the fee for a rezoning application is $350.00 and the fee for site and building plan approval is $250.00. It is, therefore, recommended that a PUD application fee of $600.00 be established. This fee would be in addition to the applicant also being responsible for paying the actual costs incurred for engineering, planning and legal expenses required for the City to process such an application which is also now common with other applications. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution amending the Planning and Inspection Department fee schedule to add a new PUD application fee in the amount of $600.00. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 86 -123 REGARDING THE SCHEDULE FOR PLANNING AND INSPECTION DEPARTMENT FEES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center adopted Resolution No. 86 -123 on August 11, 1986 which established new fees collected by the Planning and Inspection Department; and WHEREAS, it has been recommended that the City Council alter this fee schedule relating to Planning Commission fees to add a new fee for Planned Unit Development (PUD) applications; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it appropriate to add said fee consistent with its recently adopted ordinance amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to amend City Council Resolution No. 86 -123 which contains the Planning and Inspection Department fee schedule in the following manner: 6. Planning Commission Fees Planning Commission fees shall be collected at the time applications are executed according to the following: (a) Rezonings $350.00 (b) Site and Building Plans 250.00 (c) Preliminary Plat 100.00 (d) Variance 50.00 (e) Special Use Permit 50.00 (f) Extension of Special Use Permit 25.00 (g) Appeal 50.00 (h) Determination 50.00 W PUD 600.00 In addition to the above fees, the applicant shall sign an agreement, on forms provided by the City, to pay the cost of all engineering, planning and legal consulting expenses incurred by the City in processing the above applications. (Underline indicates new matter.) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the above fee shall become effective immediately. RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2- Agenda Item Number (IRSDESC2) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM THE IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1970 DEBT SERVICE FUND TO THE IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1976 DEBT SERVICE FUND DEPT. APPROVAL: U a�x a.zm (�a C� r can a.►i cz �Utt. t,-r �G'1f't!�`N"td� �.,i a— Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: V No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached The final debt service payment for the Improvement Bonds of 1970 was • made during December 1989 in order to meet a January 1, 1990 due date. Once the bonds have been paid, there is no longer any reason to maintain a separate debt service fund. In December, we recommended that this fund be closed and the remaining assets be transfered to the Capitol Projects Fund. The City Council passed Resolution 89 -238 to accomplish this. Since that time, we have decided that it would be better to transfer the assets to another debt service fund, rather than.to the Capitol Projects Fund. Accordingly, this resolution is now being submitted to rescind the December resolution and instead transfer the assets to another debt service fund. One side effect of this change is that the funds will be tied up until this debt service fund can be closed at the end of 1991. The final amount available for transfer will be the December 31, 1988 fund balance of $684,904 plus this year's net of revenues over expenditures. Assets transfered will include cash and some delinquent taxes receivable. (ISADEBT) I Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM THE IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1970 DEBT SERVICE FUND TO THE IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1976 DEBT SERVICE FUND ---------------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, Section 7.11 of the City Charter does provide the City Council with full authority to make transfers between all funds which may be created, provided that such transfers are not inconsistant with the rovisions of related covenants, P oven nts the rovisions of the Cit Y Charter, or State Statutes; and WHEREAS,. the Improvement Bonds of 1970 Debt Service Fund was established to receive special assessment income and to make debt service payments on bonds sold to finance improvements related to said assessments; and WHEREAS, there now exists accumulated cash surpluses and residual special assessment receivables which are primarily a result of the interest earned on the investment of special assessment pre- payments and annual assessment levies; and WHEREAS, the Fund Balance in this fund as of December 31, 1988 was $684,904; and WHEREAS, all obligations of the Improvement Bonds of 1970 Debt Service Fund were satisfied and all bonds paid by December 31, 1989; and WHEREAS, the City Council had previously passed Resolution 89 -238 which transfered these funds to the Capital Projects Fund. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to transfer the amount of $684,904 from the Improve- ment Bonds of 1970 Debt Service Fund to the Improvement Bonds of 1976 Debt Service Fund; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to transfer the excess of 1989 revenues over expenditures of the Improvement Bonds of 1970 Debt Service Fund to the Improvement Bonds of 1976 Debt Service Fund when they have been determined at year end; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to close the Improvement Bonds of 1970 Debt Service Fund; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to rescind Resolution 89 -238. a e 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 90 Agenda Item Number 7/ (IRSDESCI) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION • ,tr * * # *f •, r«, r**, r, t*#.*#* rt, t** w**#*+ r**., r, r,►***«*• tr«.*, r*, rt r.*., r* ,r + *t,rwr,► *,r * *,rt,r,r *w *st+rf # * *,r * *tw * *w. *. * * * *+,r,tt,rt,r ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM THE BUILDING AND IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1969 DEBT SERVICE FUND TO THE IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1976 DEBT SERVICE FUND DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:�� No comments to supplement this report Comments below/attached- SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached The final debt service payment for the Building and Improvement Bonds of • 1969 was made during December 1989 in order to meet a January 1, 1990 due date. Once the bonds have been paid, there is no longer any reason to maintain a separate debt service fund. In December, we recommended that this fund be closed and the remaining assets be transfered to the Capitol Projects Fund. The City Council passed Resolution 89 -237 to accomplish this. Since that time, we have decided that it would be better to transfer the assets to another debt service fund, rather than to the Capitol Projects Fund. Accordingly, this resolution is now being submitted to rescind the December resolution and instead transfer the assets to another debt service fund. One side effect of this change is that the funds will be tied up until this debt service fund can be closed at the end of 1991. The final amount available for transfer will be the December 31, 1988 fund balance of $512,760 plus this year's net of revenue over expenditures. Assets transfered will include cash and some deinquent taxes receivable. • (IGODEBT) Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM THE BUILDING AND IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1969 DEBT SERVICE FUND TO THE IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1976 DEBT SERVICE FUND -------------------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, Section 7.11 of the City Charter does provide the City Council with full authority to make transfers between all funds which may be created, provided that such transfers are not inconsistant with the provisions of related covenants, the provisions of the City Charter, or State Statutes; and WHEREAS, the Building and Improvement Bonds of 1969 Debt Service Fund was established to receive ad valorem taxes and interest earnings and to make debt service payments on the bonds sold; and WHEREAS, there now exists accumulated cash surpluses and delinquent taxes receivable which are primarily a result of interest earned on investments; and WHEREAS, the Fund Balance in this fund as of December 31, 1988 was $512,760; and WHEREAS, all obligations of the Building and Improvement Bonds of 1969 Debt Service Fund were satisfied and all bonds paid by December 31, 1989; and WHEREAS, the City Council had previously passed Resolution 89 -237 which transfered these funds to the Capital Projects Fund. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to transfer the amount of $512,760 from the Building and Improvement Bonds of 1969 Debt Service Fund to the Improvement ement Bonds of 1976 Debt Service Fund; and p BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to transfer the excess of 1989 revenues over expenditures of the Building and Improvement Bonds of 1969 Debt Service Fund to the Improvement Bonds of 1976 Debt Service Fund when they have been determined at year end; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to close the Building and Improvement Bonds of 1969 Debt Service Fund; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to rescind Resolution 89 -237. Date Mayor ATTEST: er The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date Agenda Item Numbe (IRSDESC6) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING PRACTICE TO RECORD THE FULL LIABILITY IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR VACATION AND SICK LEAVE OF CITY EMPLOYEES DEPT. APPROVAL: i✓� �I a��, �•,.� F,�t�c,� Otis- ,� G��S"°''`,� g`^��b' Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: E ^. Za No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached The Government Accounting Standards Board, which is the rule - making e authority for accounting practices the City must follow, is likely to require all Cities to record vacation and sick leave liability for their employees in their General Fund sometime in the next several years. If this change is made in 1989, there will be a one time charge against the General Fund of $371,967. This is not actually costing the City any money. It is just recognizing a liability which already existed. In the absense of this change, the General Fund balance would increase slightly for 1989. With the change, it is likely to decrease by about $250,000, which is close to the budgeted transfer from fund balance. The main reason for making the change at this time is that there are sufficient unexpended appropriations left in the General Fund budget to make the change. That isn't always the case. e 7j* (IRESOLUT) Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING PRACTICE TO RECORD THE FULL LIABILITY IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR VACATION AND SICK LEAVE OF CITY EMPLOYEES ------------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, Section 7.08 of the City Charter does provide the City Council with the authority to transfer unencumbered appropriation balances from one office, department or agency to another within the same fund; and WHEREAS, the Government Accounting Standards Board, which is the rule- making authority for accounting practices the City must follow, is likely to require all Cities to record vacation and sick leave liability for their employees in their General Fund in the near future; and WHEREAS, the City has unemcumbered balances remaining in the 1989 budget which are sufficient to accomodate the one time expenditure of $371,967.00 resulting from this accounting change; and WHEREAS, the charge for this accounting change will be recorded in the Unallocated Department and there is an unencumbered balance of $60,000.00 in that department. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Finance Department is authorized to make a change in its accounting practices to record the liability for employee vacation and sick leave in the General Fund and the one -time expenditure resulting from the change in fiscal year 1989. 2. The 1989 General Fund Budget be ammended by increasing the Unallocated Department Appropriation by $311,967 and reduce the appropriations of other Departments as follows: City Council $10,000 City Manager 15,000 Assessing 25,000 Finance 5,000 Legal 5,000 Government Buildings 25,000 Police 100,000 Fire 10,000 Planning 5,000 Engineering 20,000 Street Maintenance 50,000 Vehicle Maintenance 10,000 Traffic Signals 5,000 Street Lights 20,000 Parks Maintenance 6,967 $311,967 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 2/26/90 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING GENERAL LICENSING REGULATIONS DEPT. APPROVAL: Personnel Coordinator Signature title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _) t At its January 29, 1990, meeting, the city council passed for a first reading an ordinance amendment that would prohibit the sale of cigarettes through vending machines. The second reading and public hearing is scheduled for February 26, 1990. Notices announcing the public hearing were sent to Brooklyn Center cigarette vending machine license holders and interested citizens. Copies of these notices are attached. Any written comments received by the City are also attached. A variation of the ordinance amendment is included in this packet. This amendment would permit cigarette vending machine sales with some restrictions regarding location and operation. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Hold a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances Regarding General Licensing Regulations. • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 26th day of February 1990, at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 23 regarding general licensing regulations. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the personnel coordinator at 561 -5440 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING GENERAL LICENSING REGULATIONS The City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center does ordain as follows: Section 1. Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 23 -105 RESTRICTIONS. No license shall be issued except to a person of good moral character. No license shall be issued to an applicant for sale of cigarettes at any place other than his established place of business. No license shall be issued for the sale of cigarettes at a movable place of business; nor shall any one license be issued for the sale of cigarettes at more than one place of business or applicant. No person shall sell or dispense any cigarettes or tobacco product cigarette paper or cigarette wrapper through the use of ..a vending machine No person shall sell or give any cigarette, cigarette paper or cigarette wrapper to any person below the age of 18 years. No person shall keep for sale, sell or dispose of any cigarette containing opium, morphine, jimson weed, bella donna, strychnia, cocaine, marijuana, or any other deleterious or poisonous drug except nicotine. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1990. Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) OPTION B CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the of , 1990, at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 23 regarding general licensing regulations. 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 23 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING GENERAL LICENSING REGULATIONS The City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center does ordain as follows: Section 1. Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 23 -105 RESTRICTIONS. No license shall be issued except to a person of good moral character. No license shall be issued to an applicant for sale of cigarettes at any place other than his established place of business. No license shall be issued for the sale of cigarettes at a movable place of business; nor shall any one license be issued for the sale of cigarettes at more than one place of business or applicant. No person shall sell or give any cigarette, cigarette paper, or cigarette wrapper to any person below the age of 18 years. No person shall keep for sale, sell or dispose of any cigarette containing opium, morphine, jimsonweed, bella donna, strychnia, cocaine, marijuana, or any other deleterious or poisonous drug except nicotine. A tobacco vending machine may be located in an establishment upon the following conditions• A--- the tobacco vending machine shall be located within the immediate vicinity. plain view and control of a responsible employee so that all tobacco purchases will be readily observable by that employee the tobacco vending machine shall not be located in a coatroom restroom unmonitored hallway, outer waitin area or similar unmonitored area tobacco vendinjz machine shall be inaccessible to the public when the establishment is closed: and b. the tobacco vendine machine shall be operable only by activation of an electronic switch operated by an employee - the establishment before each sale: or by insertion of tokens provided by an employee of the establishment before each sale. ORDINANCE NO. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1990. Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) OPTION C CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the of 1990, at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 23 regarding general licensing regulations. 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 23 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING GENERAL LICENSING REGULATTONS The City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center does ordain as follows: Section 1. Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 23 -105 RESTRICTIONS. No license shall be issued except to a person of good moral character. No license shall be issued to an applicant for sale of cigarettes at any place other than his established place of business. No license shall be issued for the sale of cigarettes at a movable place of business; nor shall any one license be issued for the sale of cigarettes at more than one place of business or applicant. No person shall sell or give any cigarette, cigarette paper, or cigarette wrapper to any person below the age of 18 years. No person shall keep for sale, sell or dispose of any cigarette containing opium, morphine, jimsonweed, bella donna, strychnia, cocaine, marijuana, or any other deleterious or poisonous drug except nicotine. No cigarette or tobacco sales may be made from any vending machine except upon the following conditions: A—. the tobacco vending machine shall be located within the immediate vicinity, plain view and control of a responsible employee so that all tobacco purchases will be readily observable by that employee, tobacco vending machine shall not be located in a coatroom restroom unmonitored hallway, outer waitin area or similar unmonitored area: the tobacco vending machine shall be inaccessible to the public when the establishment is closed: and b. the tobacco vending machine shall be operable only by activation of an electronic switch operated by an employee of the establishment before each sale: or by insertion of tokens provided by an employee of the establishment before each sale. ORDINANCE NO. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this P day of 1990. Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) RESPONSE RESEARCH STUDY of TEENAGE CIGARETTE SMOKING AND PURCHASING BEHAVIOR The 1980's have witnessed a substantial change in the American Public's attitude toward smoking cigarettes. Along with this attitude switch have come new laws regulating smoking. This has had an impact on the companies and organizations which are associated with the selling of cigarettes. N; A M A, which is the national trade association of the merchandise vending machine industry, is one such organization which has been affected by this attitude change. It is specifically concerned about proposals to ban the sale of cigarettes through vending machines. The rationale for such a ban is the allegation that many teenagers purchase cigarettes from vending machines. As a result, N A M A commissioned Response Research, an outside, independent marketing firm located at 500 North Michigan Avenue in Chicago, Illinois 60611, to conduct a survey to determine how and where teenagers ages 13 through 17 who smoke currently obtain cigarettes. The study also makes findings about what influences teenagers to begin smoking. It is hoped that the findings presented here will assist interested organizations and lawmakers in getting factual and current data regarding the involvement of vending machines in the smoking habits of teenagers. L FINDINGS STUDY OF TEENAGE CIGARETTE SMOKING AND PURCHASING BEHAVIOR June /Jul y 1989 Introduction This study was conducted to determine how and where teenagers who smoke currently obtain their cigarettes. More specifically, this study was done to measure the following: the extent to which teenagers obtain cigarettes by purchasing them, and the portion of the cigarette purchasing that is done through vending machines. • Methodology This was a mall intercept study which surveyed 1015 males and females between the ages of 13 and 17 who smoke cigarettes. The number of teens interviewed from each age group mirrored the 1987 Census Data of the teenage population. Additionally, half of the interviews were conducted with females and half were conducted with males. In order to obtain a geographically dispersed sample of teens, the study was conducted in twenty cities throughout the U.S. Two different mall locations were used in each city. One mall was located in an average to above average income area and the other was in an average to below average area. This was done to get the best possible representation of different socioeconomic areas. Overall Findings This study found that vending machines are not a primary source of cigarettes for teenagers. When teens first start smoking, they rely heavily on their friends for cigarettes. After this initial phase, the main source of cigarettes for teens is an over- the - counter location. Detailed findings Initial Smoking . Behavior • On average, the teens included in this study started smoking at the age of thirteen. There was not a lot of difference between the males and females as to when they started smoking. • Tlie teens were asked to express in their own words the reasons why they started smoking. They indicated that the primary motivator was knowing someone else who smoked (58 %). This other person was usually a friend (42 %). Social pressure also played a role in the teens' trial of cigarettes (30 %). • Friends who smoked were both the main reasons why others started and the main source of cigarettes for these new initiates. Almost three in five of .the teens (57 %) said that their main source of cigarettes when they first started smoking was their friends. Unlike the others, the teens who started smoking before they were ten years old were equally likely to rely on their friends and on family members for cigarettes. . Most of the teens who primarily got their cigarettes by purchasing them when they first started smoking bought them over - the - counter (84 %) and not from a vending machine (only 16 %). Current Cigarette Consumption • The teens were asked about their daily and' weekly cigarette consumption. On average, these teens smoked half a pack of cigarettes the day before the interview. Additionally, the average male smoked more (11 cigarettes) than the average female (9 cigarettes). • As can be expected, the younger teens smoked less than the older teens. In fact, the 17 year olds smoked twice as many cigarettes as the 13 year olds (14 cigarettes vs. 7 cigarettes on average). • The number of cigarettes that the teens reported smoking in the week before the interview was slightly less than seven times their reported daily consumption. On average, the males smoked just over 3 and a half packs (73 cigarettes) and the females had smoked just over two and a half packs (56 cigarettes); while the youngest teens smoked about half as much as the oldest teens (13 year olds - -45 cigarettes and 17 year olds - -88 cigarettes). • 2 Current Source Of Cigarettes • While friends were initially the primary source of cigarettes, this is not the case beyond the first phase of smoking. The most frequently used source of cigarettes is to purchase them. Nearly three- quarters of the teens (72 %) reported that they bought cigarettes more often than they used other methods of obtaining cigarettes. Furthermore, there was little variation on this measure between males and females. However, the older teens were more likely than the younger ones to buy cigarettes frequently (60% of 13 year olds vs. 85% of 17 year olds). And, very few of the 17 year olds (5 %) never buy cigarettes. • While friends are not the primarily source of cigarettes once teens have established their smoking habit, they are an important secondary source. Almost half of the teens (45 %) rely on friends occasionally for cigarettes. Friends are of particular importance to the younger teens. Almost four out of five 13 year olds (79 %) go to their friends often or occasionally for cigarettes. • Family members are not a significant source of cigarettes for teens regardless of their age. • Cigarette Purchasing Behavior • Frequent Purchasers, those who buy cigarettes often or occasionally, rely much more on over- the - counter sources than on vending machines. Almost two - thirds of the Frequent Purchasers (64 %) buy over - the - counter often whereas only one in eleven (9 %) buys from a vending machine often. • Over -the- counter sources are used more by the older teens than by the younger teens. Over three- quarters of the 17 year olds (78 %) buy over - the- counter frequently whereas only half (46 %) of the 13 year olds do. • Those who purchase over -the- counter often or occasionally cited four locations as the ones they go to most frequently: convenience stores (43 %), gas stations (29 %), grocery stores (11 %) and drug stores (6 %). • As mentioned, less than one in eleven Frequent Purchaser uses a vending machine often. In fact, over three - quarters of the Frequent Purchasers (78 %) seldom or never buy from a vending machine. Of course, this varies by age. The 13 year olds are the most likely to use vending machines (22% do so often) and the 17 year olds are the least likely (2% do so often). • The primary location of the vending machines used by teens is a restaurant or other eating establishment. Almost half (47 %) of those who buy from a 3 vending machine often or occasionally go to a restaurant most often. Bowling alleys (11 %) and gas stations (11 %) are also popular locations. • Those who use over - the - counter locations often or occasionally gave their reasons for this usage. There were three main reasons: they are convenient (31%), they will sell them to the teens (18 %), and they prefer these locations because they dislike vending machines. • Those who seldom or never bought over- the - counter did not buy from this source more frequently primarily because they were underage and felt they would be asked for an ID or hassled in some other way (59 %). • Teens who bought from vending machines often or occasionally found this source to be attractive because no one will stop them from buying cigarettes this way (56 %). • The teens who seldom or never bought from vending machines did not buy there because they felt that these machines were not conveniently located (48 %) and cigarettes in machines were more expensive than those sold in stores (35 %). Difficulties Encountered When Trying To Buy Cigarettes • The teens who buy cigarettes (often, occasionally or seldom) were asked if .they had ever been prevented from buying cigarettes. Three in five of them had, with more 13 year olds having been refused (71%) than 17 year olds (50 %). • Those who had been refused were asked if they had been refused when buying over - the - counter and /or from a vending machine. Virtually all of these teens (98 %) had been refused when buying over- the - counter, while about one in nine (11%) had been prevented from buying from a vending machine for a reason other than that the vending machine was broken. Teen Awareness Of Cigarette Purchasing Laws • Three - quarters of the teens (76 %) were aware of a state law which prohibited certain kinds of people from buying cigarettes. When asked what the law said almost everyone (95 %) indicated that it required the residents to be a certain age in order to buy cigarettes. 4 Parental Awareness and Approval Of Their Teenager's Smoking • The teens were asked who else in their family smoked. Only 15% said that no one else did. Almost half of the teens had a father and /or mother who smoked (49% and 45 %, respectively). • As a way of determining whether or not their parents were aware of their smoking and approved of it, the teens were asked if they were permitted to smoke at home. Almost two in five teens (38 %) were allowed to. The portion of teens who could smoke at home varied by age. Less than a quarter of the 13 year olds (22 %) were able to while over half of the 17 year olds (54 %) could. • Additionally, almost half (45 %) of the teens were permitted by their parents to purchase cigarettes. This too, varied by the age of the teen. Almost two - thirds (64 %) of the 17 year olds were permitted to while only a quarter of the youngest teens could. • When asked where they got the money for their cigarettes, three main sources came up: a job (63 %), from parents /mom /dad (26. %), and from • one's allowance (26 %). Since the older teens are the most likely to hold jobs, this was their primary source of cigarette money, wheras the younger teens relied more on their allowance and their parents. The complete study including the questionnaire and methodology used and a description of the pretest is available upon request at a price of $20 from the National Automatic Merchandising Association, 20 North Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606. 5 CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 j� TELEPHONE 561 - 5440 C ENTE R EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE 911 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO: City of Brooklyn Center Cigarette Vending Machine License Holders FROM: Geralyn R. Barone, Personnel Coordinator lb DATE: January 31, 1990 SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance Regarding Cigarette Vending Machine Sales The Brooklyn Center city council has scheduled a second reading with a public hearing of an ordinance which would ban the sale of cigarettes through vending machines. The public hearing, at which all interested parties are invited to speak before the city council, is scheduled for Monday, February 26, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. in the city council chambers at city hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. If you wish to submit written materials to the city council, please send them NO LATER THAN 4:30 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1990, to: Geralyn R. Barone City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Please call me at 561 -5440 if you have any questions regarding this. ~ 1986 ALL WRKA(M CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF :BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 C ENTER TELEPHONE 561 -5440 ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE 911 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO: Interested Citizens FROM: Geralyn R. Barone, Personnel Coordinator gh DATE: January 31, 1990 SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance Regarding Cigarette Vending Machine Sales The Brooklyn Center city council has scheduled a second reading with a public hearing of an ordinance which would ban the sale of cigarettes through vending machines. The public hearing, at which all interested parties are invited to speak before the city council, is scheduled for Monday, February 26, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. in the city council chambers at city hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. If you wish to submit written materials to the city council, please send them NO LATER THAN 4:30 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1990, to: Geralyn R. Barone City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Please call me at 561 -5440 if you have any questions regarding this. 19A6 Li i UAERIG Qf1' February 1, 1990 Council Members City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Dear Council Members: With regard to your proposed ordinance banning cigarette vending machines, this would cause a complete hardship on our business. We respect the city's concern about minors smoking cigarettes; however, in our establishment we would like to move the cigarette vending machine within plain view of a responsible employee. A cigarette rack would be an acceptable way to sell cigarettes but would leave me with more exposure to theft whether by a minor or an employee and it would require more work for the bartender. My vending company has offered a solution whereby a locking device would be attached to the cigarette vending machine and the machine would not dispense cigarettes without a responsible employee of ours depressing the button behind the bar. The machine would be within sight of the employee operating the button and it would seem to me that this process really makes the sale similar to selling cigarettes behind the bar from a rack. If the vending company is willing to put these devices on the machines, I think the city should seriously consider this method of selling cigarettes. Did probihition stop the sale of liquor? Here we go again. Sincerely, La Casita 2101 Freeway Blvd. Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 3310 South Highway 101 f Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 SALOON SUPPER CLUB 475 -1766 Corporate � Offices FEBRUARi 14. 1-) )0 G8RALUI FLINTER CGITY MANAGER CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 6101 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOKLYN CENTER. MINNESOTA 55430 DEAR MR- SPLINTER. I AM VIrR C;C}fJ(' F;PJEr7 A)3CatJ'I' THE' F'i l :�F(! OEV 1 -ITAL HAN f C l t;Al,b:17 F. 'v1,Td[ ?IIJG MACH INFS F'E;R THE MEE TING THAI WE HAD WITH TOO THEISEN LAST HONI'H I TIiINi; WE ALL C' ONC'ITR 'THAT ESN UPDINANC'E iS NEF:I)ED TO LIM11 THE t_!!'JRE TI?IC:1E:L' ND UIP3UPERVISED SALE OF' Cl ,ARET'1F;; TO t -SSIJ >R:� I .:AI1Id�_1P UJIDER�=I'AND EllHr;ti IHE REAS011IPRI OR LOGIC BEHIND A 'TOTAL LAN ON c= PjAltl✓TI L MACHINES. THE LOOIC_AL ORDIPJAIJCE WOULD BE RE 'rilE USE ( 'I'HF ELE�I'l:ulJ1C O LOCkrtJ0 Lit= VI( ' , 2 "HAT AN ENFL HAZ TC ACTPJATE: IN C)RL)b,R F'C?Ft T'I {P: IIACHIPJF: TC' WORK F. IT IS THE 0Rl. T0A'T I(=,pJ OF THE EHPL!;1 's EE TO " HECK FOR AGE 'THF SAHE AS IT WoULI) LSE MDR A -SALL r}VER THE C' THE ONLY APGUEHF I HAVE HEARD AGATN T THIS IS "HOW DO 14E I THE DF,VICE I3ORb'Sr" SINc;,'J`s THE i_I'TY ^Cj {JT�CIL HAS. ARSOLUTI PC- jt.)ER O�IEr ALL-DW114%; THE` =E MACHINES IT WILL BE SIMPLE 1Cj 9AN THEM IF THEY DON'T WOPK . TO SIMFL`i SAN 'TGARETTE VENUTN(; W L'1 Ht ?rtT r:;IVlfJc, THE VENDING fJG I9AC;HINE OPERATt R: _ A CHANC'F: TO D t T141'' UEVIt: ISN'T LOGICAL OR FAIR. MANY OF THESE UPERATOR, W(DULD Pl.XE'ERIRNLI.h, F::'.TPENE P INANCIIAL HAPL)SHIt'' Al LEA�,*'l IF TH2Y ARFf4l I' GIVEN T HE E;)UAL OFFt.) Tt1111TY .I_O SELL THH;_)UGH TI•IEII? N1AC'ITITJE IT WILL CRF;A`I'E: A HT.0 F'CJP ON— :.ALIJ OPERATORS TO t C +TJTR;�I. THE CIGARLTIE:S THEY WILL BE FORCED TO _.,ELL L?VFP, THE couriI'ER. AGAIN SINCE THE S PERSON H A S �. f _ H A.� I � ?.AKF f NF LtE!__ ".I.�Ir: ?N 'I'C:� _ c' r.'' �c�� - THE I _, AI�E,T T Ems' L'I'I FdER B'x I'f,i✓w•� IfJ�; 'I'I!E BUTT (JTJ OR BY SELLTN {_. '1'IfEm C>L'EE' THE +: ".0 >LINTEP 14H`i WILL TT SE EA.SIER TO CON"IEOL THE SALE' T MINORS OVER THE Ct_ I APPP.ECIATF' THE TIt Yt' lC! HAVE SE'E'P t,C;rc�F'.ITdC= 1f -11'0 1'Hl;--> MAIIEE AND I'LI:Ati;F: FEF;L FREE TO (.:ALL MF Al 475 .176r-, IF Y(DU 14AVE ANY REGAP,DING THIS MAT'TE;R- SINC:EREL`t" YOURC, t :ENN R;)r'KLER T OR101II ' S SALOON AND ,ItPF=F'r� !FLUB RECE1 VFD FEHiawatha B 2 0 1990 RUbber CO. 1700 67th Avenue North ,linneapolis. MN 55430 -1786 (612) 566 -0900 FAX: 612 - 566 -9537 February 16, 1990 City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Attention: Geralyn Barone, Personnel Coordinator Re: Proposed ordinance banning the sale of cigarettes through vending machines. Dear Ms. Barone: The following information is submitted for consideration by the city council concerning the proposed ordinance. 1. The assumption, from your correspondence is that this ban would be a total ban on the use of vending machines for the sale of cigarettes in any location. 2. The position of Hiawatha Rubber Co., that is, the posi- tion of management, is that we would not object to such an ordinance. In fact, we would have the machine removed if an ordinance requiring supervision of sales were enacted since this would require inordinate time for supervisors /managers to monitor. 3. If the purpose of this ordinance is to prevent sales to minors, then it is misdirected when applied to factories since no minors are employed at our firm and none allowed on the premises except an occasional escorted tour. 4. We permitted our employees to express their opinion on this subject. The results of a poll taken after receipt of the notice of a second hearing. There are 110 employ- ees currently and 58 responded to the questionaire: Opposed to a total ban 37 In favor of a total ban 11 Undecided 10 I hope this information is helpful in the councils deliberations. Sincerely, HIAWATHA RUBBER CO. r Fr Y VPr M f catturing LF /j mh District Office Stadium Square, Suite 160 (612) S54 -5211 7920 Cedar Avenue South Bloomington, Minnesota 55425 February 19, 1990 Cf City ouncil Representative FFB , 1996 Y P City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy Br. Center, MN 55430 Dear City Council, I have become aware of the intent of Br. Center to propose an ordinance banning all cigarette vending machines. While I support the position of a complete restriction of cigarettes to minors,.I do feel they should remain available to adults. We are in the hospitality business. One suggestion would be to require all liquor establishments to move their cigarette vending machines into the lounge. Our guests are required to be of age, twenty -one, prior to entering our lounge. Our employees are trained to serve alcoholic beverages to adults only and to do so very responsibly. The sale of cigarettes in our lounge would also be done just as responsibly. By eliminating cigarette vending machines, this would force us to sell them behind the bar from a rack and leave us exposed to theft and require more work for the bartender. I feel it would be a gross injustice to take the convenience of our cigarette vending machines away from our customers. I respect the City's concern about minors smoking cigarettes. However, I feel there are other solutions other than banning these machines completely and would like to share those with you. Your attention and strong consideration to this matter will be appreciated. Thank you. Sincerely, n< r Robert E. Schams District Manager cc: The Ground Round Corporate - Rick Hummrich William Schoener General Managers J l CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2 -26 -90 Agenda Item Number - - ,,: ? ' b 4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances Declaring Certain Activities as a Public Nuisance; and an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding * and Walls # DEPARTMENT APPROV Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X On the City Council's February 26, 1990 agenda are two ordinances which are offered for a first reading that relate to a discussion the City Council held on February 12, 1990. The first ordinance is an amendment to Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances declaring certain activities to be a public nuisance. The ordinance proposes restrictions on the parking and storage of vehicles and equipment in residential areas within the City. It prohibits the parking or storing of vehicles, equipment, etc. on any vacant property within the City and also limits the parking and storage of vehicles, boats, trailers, etc. in front yard areas and yard areas abutting public streets to authorized driveways or paved or graveled extensions of authorized driveways. The storage of equipment, supplies, materials, etc. which are stored in other yards may be done provided the area is screened from view by an opaque fence or wall at least six feet high. The ordinance requires that any vehicles, watercraft, equipment or other articles which are allowed to be stored outside in an approved manner must be owned by a person occupying the residentially used property. The ordinance further makes some common exceptions to the ordinance amendment including such things as playground equipment, allowable accessory structures, flagpoles, air conditioner condensers, etc. Attached for the City Council's review are copies of the February 12 1990 Request for Council Consideration and the September 25, 1989 Request for Council Consideration which backgrounds the proposed ordinance amendment. Also enclosed is a copy of the article that appeared in the December, 1989 Brooklyn Center City Newsletter. SUMMARY EXPLANATION CONTINUED Page 2 February 26, 1990 The second ordinance amendment amends Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances regarding the height of fences, hedges and walls. At the February 12 City Council discussion regarding the above mentioned ordinance, it was pointed out that there were some inconsistencies regarding the current restrictions on the height of opaque fences, hedges and walls within the City. The City Council, after much discussion, requested the staff to draft an ordinance amendment that would allow modifications to the current ordinance to allow opaque fences, hedges and walls to exceed four feet in height in certain yard areas that abut public streets. The proposed ordinance now would limit opaque fences, hedges or walls to four feet in front yard areas only. Fences, hedges and walls located in yard areas along public streets which are not considered the front yard would be allowed to exceed the minimum four feet in height. Also, the ordinance would allow fences along interior property lines to be higher than four feet. The ordinance goes on to state that no fence, hedge or wall. shall be allowed which constitutes an unsafe sight obstruction for pedestrians or motor vehicle operators. The ordinance also defines, in Section 35 -900, a front yard. It • clarifies that portion of a corner lot which would be a front yard, namely, the portion of the lot in which the house faces. We will be prepared to further review and discuss with the City Council the impact of this ordinance, particularly as it relates to corner lots within the City. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council take action to approve both ordinance amendments for first reading. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 1990 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Nuisance Ordinance by declaring certain actions as public nuisances. 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 19 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES BY DECLARING CERTAIN ACTIONS AS PUBLIC NUISANCES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended as follows: Section 19 -103. PUBLIC NUISANCES FURTHER DEFINED. It is hereby declared to be a public nuisance to permit, maintain, or harbor any of the following: 13. The outside parking and /or storage on vacant Property of useable or unusable vehicles trailers watercraft, snowmobiles recreational vehicles all - terrain vehicles, construction vehicles and equipment, or similar vehicles, materials, supplies, equipment ice fish houses skateboard ramps, play houses or other non - permanent structures except as may be permitted by the Zoning or Sign Ordinances 14. The outside parking and /or storage on occupied residentially used property of useable or nonusable vehicles, trailers watercraft, snowmobiles recreational vehicles, all terrain vehicles and similar vehicles materials supplies equipment ice fish houses skateboard ramps play houses or other non - permanent structures unless they comply with the following: ORDINANCE NO. aZ Vehicles, trailers and watercraft may be parked or stored outside in any yard provided however, if they are parked or stored in the front yard area or a yard area abutting a Public street, they must be parked or stored on an authorized parking or driveway area or a paved or graveled extension of an authorized Parking or driveway area and be in compliance with Section 19 -1301 through 1305 of the City Ordinances. Authorized driveways and paved or graveled extensions thereof may not exceed 50% of the front yard or a yard area abutting a Public street unless approved by-the City Council as part of a plan approval for an apartment complex pursuant to Section 35 -230 of the City Ordinances. b1 Materials supplies equipment other than construction or farm equipment may be stored or located in any yard other than a front yard or a yard abutting a public street provided they are screened from public view by an opaque fence or wall at least six feet high or high enough to prevent these items from being seen from abutting property at ground level c1 All vehicles, watercraft and other articles allowed to be stored outside in an approved manner on occupied residentially zoned Property must be owned by a person who resides on the property. (Persons who are away at school or in the military service for periods of time, but still claim the property as their legal residence shall be considered residents on the property.) dl The prohibitions of this section of the ordinance shall not apply to commonly accepted materials or equipment such as playground equipment, allowable accessory structures flagpoles, air conditioner condensers laundry drying equipment, arbors trellises properly_ stacked firewood and temporary storage of building materials for home improvement proiects in process. ORDINANCE NO. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1990. Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter) . CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2 -12 -90 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Discussion Item - An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances Declaring Certain Activities as a Public Nuisance. DEPARTME OVAL: Signature - title Di rector of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X Attached is a copy of a draft ordinance amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances declaring certain activities to be a public nuisance. The draft ordinance proposes restrictions on the parking and storage of vehicles and equipment in residential areas within the City. This particular idea has been discussed off and on by the City Council for almost two years, most recently on September 25, 1989. At that time, the Council directed the staff to put out information to the public to notify citizens that the City Council was considering such amendments to hopefully allow for citizen input regarding this proposal. An article appeared in the December, 1989 Brooklyn Center City Newsletter (copy attached) explaining the proposal and requesting citizen input. The Brooklyn Center Post News has also been contacted as well. Also attached is a copy of request for Council consideration form from September 25, 1989 explaining the proposed ordinance along with a copy of the then draft ordinance presented to the City Council at that time. Some slight modifications, along the lines suggested in the September 25 report, have been made in the revised draft now before the City Council. SUMMARY EXPLANATION CONTINUED I have received a number of calls regarding the proposal. Some were requests for clarification. Most, however, had strong feelings regarding the proposal, both pro and con. Some people wanted stronger regulations and favored no parking at all of large recreation vehicles and boats in yards abutting public streets. Concerns about the deteriorating effect the parking and storage of vehicles and equipment had on the neighborhood were also expressed. Other persons believed the City would be going too far with these regulations and should not restrict people from using their own property, on which they pay taxes, in the manner they choose. One person even suggested that the regulations were for the purpose of forcing the working class citizen, who could not afford to store these vehicles anywhere else,out of Brooklyn Center. A few people that lived on corner lots brought up a problem that the City Council may wish to look at further if it is inclined at all to adopt these kinds of regulations. That problem is the impact the restrictions have on limiting the parking of vehicles in yards abutting streets. These people claim, rightfully so, that because they are on corner lots, they have no rear yard and are, therefore, limited in the area in which they can store otherwise authorized vehicles or equipment. Another problem that is raised, which I believe the City Council may wish to review further, is the current height limitation of fences and hedges in yards abutting public streets. The maximum height in these yards is now 4 It appears that this limitation should be loosened up in some cases, particularly certain areas in side yards that abut streets provided the higher fences do not create site line visibilty problems for vehicles. We will be prepared to discuss this further at Monday's meeting. We will also have various slides showing situations related to the proposed regulations. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council continue discussion and seek further public input on these proposed regulations which may lead to consideration of a first reading on the proposal and eventually a public hearing. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 9 -25 -89 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Additional Nuisance Ordinances DEPARTMENT APP Signai:ure - title Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached x ) On the September 25 City Council agenda is a discussion item regarding additional Nuisance Ordinances. Attached is a copy of a draft ordinance amending Chapter 19_ Which would attempt to regulate certain activity. This amendment goes back over a year ago when the City Council was considering Nuisance Ordinance amendments relating to the parking and storing of vehicles, equipment and material in residential areas. The last time the attached ordinance was reviewed by the City Council was on December 5, 1988 at which time the Council proceeded to adopt the ordinance regulating the parking and storage of commercial vehicles and equipment in residential areas. The City Council wanted to review further the other nuisance regulations before considering adopting them. It is these regulations that are before the City Council for discussion. First of all, Section 19 -103, Subdivision 13 of the proposed ordinance is intended to prohibit the parking and storage of any vehicles or equipment on any vacant Property in the City regardless of its zoning designation. The proposed Subdivision 14, which is perhaps the most controversial, regulates where vehicles or equipment may be parked or stored in residential areas. The idea in Subdivision 14a is that all vehicles, including cars, authorized trucks, recreation vehicles, trailers, boats, etc. when parked or stored in front yards or yards abutting a public street, must be on an authorized driveway or a paved or graveled extension of an authorized parking or driveway area. These paved or graveled driveway and parking areas may not exceed 50% of that yard area. Vehicles, trailers, boats, etc. may be parked in other yard areas (side or rear yards) without being on paved or graveled surfaces and without being screened from view (Note: The draft ordinance does not specifically provide for parking and storage in the side and rear yards and should be changed to make clear that this can be done. The City Council previously did not want to require screening when parking .K r these vehicles and equipment in side or rear yards) N4 1a .� y l rr , r d. ^`' c .c` r+ 4 �XIq ZZ�m, + �4` ... y.....,CW+rsr+.F -. ,: '_.,�_ * � D ,.- „ ter -rr - ° .r.wlYut: +l�rak,�iB � �rrYl►"►, 4� ;y��►�Sf.'•Si6rtnNL�ifiw�wa =' � � I S Summary Explanation Page 2 September 25, 1989 Subdivision 14b of the proposed ordinance deals with the storage of materials, supplies, or authorized equipment in residential areas. It prohibits such storage in front yards, or yards abutting a public street, and requires screening by at least a 6' high opaque fence if these items are stored in any other yard areas. The proposed ordinance goes on in Subdivision 14c to require that any vehicle, equipment, etc. allowed to be parked or stored on occupied residential used property must be owned by the person who resides on that property. Subdivision 14d provides for some commonly accepted exceptions to the regulations. One suggestion that I would make is that the proposed ordinance should refer to "residentially used" property, rather than "residentially zoned" property so as to regulate all property being used for residential purposes and not legal nonconforming uses. For instance, residences along Brooklyn Boulevard which are being used as residences, but are in commercial districts, would be subject to these regulations while a legal nonconforming commercial use in a residential zoning district, such as Malmborg Is Nursery and Garden Center, would not be affected by the regulations. It is recommended that the City Council thoroughly discuss these proposed nuisance - regulations and give the staff direction as to how they wish to proceed with this proposal. f Y r t Yr1�1a. f �� �r . ! �.�. .. 4v� -:ar �tiY�`�± > Y � �� 3y F.+Ci�`f+e $ *�,i' �5E . J `'K �' S F /F T � ��� V t t � • sl+ :- t ' ='•a�""r " <' ',,,. ° �...w�"� `§: ±.- °,r } : ` t r = : 1.e Yom;? ac-W K ' �T a., cd � ' `�„ �' k s - •dre t � +" 7 � r ' ' t.TM r'"x r,� ��, � - t�i � � �, ,.�. ,',.a Z , - .�" R � r t � c, �`.,r � � h ♦"Fs+"e„ Y — - - " " w•- ,.. > +.ia }� °iY Yiii(i�..fr.aLie�� t! � - ;> 't 'a..`,��e „ 'y}'Y`�F , .�.K �` ai"at rL "' 19b1 d11'1.tlEFK/QiT =� k, t_ �. N 7E R UA LY CITY NEWSLETTER NUMBER 65 DECEMBER, 1989 H omestead Property Tax Cards Lust Be Piled By January 1 An application for the homestead card, or place it in an envelope if property tax classification must be you prefer. submitted each Year. The 1990 s application cards will be mailed to If you have purchased your home Brooklvn Center home owners on during the past year and are MINNESOTA 1990 or about January 2, 1990. applying for homestead for the first time, you must make the In 1990, Minnesota will host The Homestead Application card application in person at the As- the United States Olympic Fes - will be attached to your 1990 valu- sessor's Office at the Brooklyn tival -'90. In conjunction with ation notice. Please separate the Center City Hall, 6301 Shingle this event there will be a state card, complete with the signa- Creek Parkway. You will need to wide undertaking called Cele- tures and social security num- bring the deed which transfers brate Minnesota 1990. bers of the owners residing at the ownership and the social security The City of Brooklyn Center property, and return it to the numbers of all owners. Once this has become one of 400 Cele- Brooklyn Center Assessor's Of- has been done, a homestead card brate Minnesota 1990 con- fiee no later than January 15. will be mailed to the property-. Again, the deadline for filing s January munities, and the 8th Annual g The form of the card has changed 15. Earle Brown Days festival will from previous years. The card and be dedicated to this event. The valuation notice will be part of a A property which is classified as dates for Earle Brown Days are three part booklet package which homestead pays a much lower tat June 15 -24. Additional details is opened by tearing off the edge than a non - homestead property of will be provided in the sum- strips. The card may be returned by equal value. Some propern owners mer newsletter. stamping and mailing as a post- may also qualify for refunds from the State of Minnesota. Call 296- 3781 for information and applica- lion frms. There has been much O ther Re {. ions Considered confusion regarding the homestead credit" and the homestead tax clas- f ®r Par'xing, Stora of sification, but you must still file a homestead card in order to receive Vehicles an Eq uipment these benefits. In an effort to maintain the resi- storage of vehicles and equipment If you have any questions about dential character of the commu- in residential areas. the homestead process, your 1990 nity's neighborhoods, the Brooklyn valuation, or have not received your Center City Council is considering At the end of 1988, the Council homestead card by Tuesday, Janu- the adoption of additional regula- adopted an ordinance which took ary 9, please call the Assessor's tions involving the parking and (Continued on Page 2) (Continued on Page 2) _.; n a AV 0 I fig i / Parking, Storage... Mediation: How (Continued from Page 1) This Free Service effect in June, 1989, prohibiting vehicles. trailers, boats, etc., when works For You the parking and storage of con- parked or stored in front yards or struction equipment, farm vehicles yards that abut a public street. Mediation is an extremelv effec- and equipment, and certain sized must be parked or stored on an tive way of resoking disputes. Since commercial vehicles (longer than authorized driveway or a paved or the North Hennepin Mediation 21 feet, and higher than 8 feet, or graveled extension of an author - Project (NHMP). founded in Brooklyn with a gross weight of more than ized parking or driveway area. These Center, opened for business in 1983, 9,000 pounds) in residential areas. paved areas cannot exceed 50 per- hundreds of persons have used cent of' that yard area. Vehicles, mediation as a means to settle a This fall, the Council reviewed trailers, boats, etc., may be parked dispute. Please call 561 -0033. additional regulations which are in other vards, such as the rear or expected to be on the Council It is especially helpful in situ - agenda in January, 1990, and side yards, without being paved or ations where there will be an on o- graveled surfaces. g resident input is requested. The ing relationship such as with fam- proposed ordinance will not al- The third aspect of the regula- ily members, neighbors, business low the parking and storage of tions deal with the storage of mate- and consumers, and so on. any vehicles or equipment on rials, supplies, or other authorized any vacant property in the City, equipment. The proposed ordinance Mediation is nonthreatening. It regardless of its zoning designa- would prohibit the storage of such allows people to meet in a neutral tion. materials in front yards ' or yards setting with impartial mediators to abutting a public street. Storage of discuss the situation in a construc- Also, all vehicles including cars, tive wa_v. The few rules that govern authorized trucks, recreational such material in any other yard the session have to do with com- would require that the materials or mon courtesy and confidentiality. supplies be screened from public view at ground level by at least a 6 Mediation is free. At the present ®RTY3WE.S1' foot high opaque fence or wall. time, mediation services are avail- able to Brooklyn Center residents COMMUNI71Y The proposed ordinance would at no cost to the users. Funds from also require that any vehicle, equip- Hennepin County, municipalities TELEVISION V ment, material, or supplies which including Brooklyn Center, foun- are allowed to be parked or stored dations, businesses and organiza- on occupied residential property tions are covering the costs. Outreach Special must be owned by the person who resides on that property. Mediation is quick. The goal of Each week, Northwest Commu- the NHMP is to have the parties nity Television presents "Outreach The ordinance provides for some into a mediation session within two Special ", a program in which pro- commonly accepted exceptions to weeks of the time NHMP receives ducer /host Joanna Foote show- these regulations and would not the initial call. cases a non - profit organization and apply to such things as playground its work. equipment, allowable accessory Homestead structures, flagpoles, airconditioner ... Many of these organizations are condensers, laundry drying equip- (Continued from Page 1) found in the surrounding north- ment, arbors, trellises, properly west suburbs with the rest existing stacked firewood and the tempo- Office at 561- 5440 or stop by City in the larger "Twin Cities metropoli- rary storage of building materials Hall. tan area. Recent past editions of for home improvement projects in "Outreach Special" have dealt with process. Due to the 1989 special legisla- topics such as runaways, pregnancy tive session, the 1990 tax state - loss, and disabilities, while featur- If you are interested in obtain- ments will be mailed later this vear. ing the different organizations and ing additional information regard- Hennepin County expects to mail persons involved. ing these proposed ordinances, them in late March, although the or would like to express your mailing deadline is April 15. Ques- Interested residents should tune comments to the City Council, tions regarding the tax statements in to Channel 33, Sundays at 6 please contact the City Hall at can be directed to Hennepin County p.m. and Mondays at 8 p.m. 561 -5440. at 348 -3011. 2 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 1990 at p.m, at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the height of fences, hedges and walls. Auxiliary ids for handicapped Y pp persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE'AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE HEIGHT OF FENCES HEDGES AND WALLS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35- 400.8a. 8. The following shall not be considered as encroachments on yard setback requirements. a. In any yards: Offstreet open parking spaces; terraces; awnings; canopies; steps not exceeding 10% of the area of the yard; chimneys; flagpoles; air conditioner condensers; opaque fences, hedges, or walls provided they shall not exceed four feet in height in front [,side or rear] yards [abutting streets] and provided they do not impede vision within the sight triangle described in Section 35- 560, or a clear view of the address of the Principal building. Fences hedges or walls may exceed four feet in height alongside interior property lines. No fence hedge or wall shall be allowed which constitutes an unsafe sight obstruction for pedestrians or motor vehicle operators. Section 35 -900. Yard, Front - A yard extending along the full width of the front lot line between the side lot lines. Notwithstanding Provisions to the contrary, on corner lots the front yard shall generally be the full width of the yard which the front of the house faces, lying between the side lot line and the opposite lot line abutting a Public street. ORDINANCE NO. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 1990. Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted,. underline indicates new matter). A 3 M GARA6 3/� Ian Io♦ i A►,x. P11,I l o t Zo MINIMUM T4PICAL FRbWr AND SIDE YA GET Ac --L. 8 res LE-6Ac- ARo j t S FENCES IN REAR YARD AREA -MAX. �<c�'�O �G� HEIGHT SIX (6) FOOT-& Q) t4 LL • d% l k .. 1 �' i �• FENCES, FRONT ; : FENCES IN FRONT YARD ABUTTING ry • YAFD AREA - , 'AX. v � STREETS - MAX. HEIGHT v .r 3 H _ i E�GH T F FOOT: i tp OUR 4 F 4 . ( ) OUR ( ) F OOT ♦ / „� 'B0 ULEVARD , SITE TRIANGLE I TYPICAL ALL �•.q � 4 4 � FOUR (4) CORNERS + r_ • � i O s 1{ ' f • 3 f ' Jt � G, x I V14 V�Ir{ LU Li I t Fr - if 0 iJ ALA ,; ' F a�j c - -V D LO (( f t ° • �� U 3 1 L, ey i • �� F 1' t wI � ev II /� o. r \ Al uj 60 UL-FUAOZjD Y SYP(r- AL f} (L ^► � I � patUR Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A MODIFIED PROJECT PLAN FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 01 AND A MODIFIED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 01 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (City) as follows: Section 2. Recitals 1.01. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center (HRA) adopted a project plan (Project Plan) for the project area (Project Area) in accordance with Minn Stat. Sections 469.001 through 469.047 and a tax increment financing plan"TTIF Plan) in accordance with Minn Stat Sections 469.174 through 469.179 (collectively, the Plans) for the Brookwood project (TIF District) and said Plans were thereafter approved by the city council of the City of Brooklyn Center (City). 1.02. Responsibility for the Project Area and TIF District was shifted from the HRA to the Economic Development Authority for Brooklyn Center (EDA). 1.03. Changes in the public purposes and goals in the Project Area have prompted the EDA to prepare modified Plans. 1.04. The modified Plans are contained in a document entitled "Modified Housing Development Project Plan and Modified Tax Increment Financing Plan (Brookwood)" dated August 16, 1989, now on file with the EDA. 1.05. The modified Plans were referred to the Brooklyn Center planning commission which on Noveriber 16, , 1989, found that they conform to and are not in conflict with the general plans for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole. 1.06. On February 26, , 1989, the EDA approved the modified Plans for the Project Area and TIF District and referred them to the city council for public hearing and consideration as provided by state statute. 1.07. Copies of the modified Plans have been forwarded to Independent School . District No. 286 and Hennepin County along with a notice of the public hearing as required by Minn Stat Sections 469.174 through 469.179 (TIF Act). 1.08. The city council has fully reviewed the contents of the modified Plans and has this date conducted a public hearing thereon at which the views of all interested persons were heard. Section 2. Findings; Project Plan 2.01. It is hereby found and determined that within the Project Area there exist conditions of economic obsolescence, physical deterioration, underutilization and inappropriate uses of land. 2.02. It is further specifically found and determined that: a) the land in the Project Area would not be made available for redevelopment without the public intervention and financial assistance described in the modified Plans; b) the modified Project Plan for the Project Area will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the redevelopment of the Project Area by private enterprise; c) the modified Project Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City as set forth in the comprehensive municipal plan. 2.03. The findings in this section are made in compliance with state statute for the purpose of showing the City's intent to exercise, in conjunction with the EDA, the powers granted to the City and the EDA by state statute. Section 3. Findings; Tax Increment Financing District 3.01. It is found and determined that it is necessary and desirable to the sound and orderly development and redevelopment of the Project Area, the TIF District and the City as a whole, and for the protection and preservation of the public health, safety, and general welfare, that the authority of the TIF Act be exercised by the EDA and the City to provide public financial assistance to the Project Area and TIF District. 3.02. It is further found and determined, and it is the reasoned opinion of the EDA and the City, that the redevelopment of the Project Area and TIF District outlined in the modified Plans could not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that therefore the use of tax increment financing is necessary. 3.03. The modified TIF Plan conforms to the general plans for development of the City as a whole as set forth in the comprehensive municipal plan. 3.04. The modified TIF Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the redevelopment of the Project Area and TIF District by private enterprise. Section 4. Modified Project Plan and TIF Plan Adopted 4.01. The modified Project Plan is approved. 4.02. The modified TIF Plan is approved. 4.03. The geographic boundaries of the Project Area have been expanded and are now as outlined in the modified Project Plan. There has been no change to the boundaries of the TIF District as a result of this modification. 2 4.04. The EDA is requested to file a copy of the modified Plans with the Minnesota commissioner of revenue as required by the TIF Act. 4.05. The city clerk is authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of the resolution to the EDA. Passed this day of , 1989, by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. Dean Nyquist, Mayor ATTEST: Darlene Weeks Cit Clerk Y BR291 -002 3 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2/26/90 Agenda Item Number / i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RECOMMENDATION FROM HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESOURCES COMMISSION TO CONTRIBUTE FUNDING TO PEACEMAKER CENTER DEPT. APPROVAL: Personnel Coordinator Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: r No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _) In December 1989, the City received a request from Brooklyn Peacemaker Center, Inc. for a $5,000 contribution. Because the 1990 budget had already been established, the request was forwarded to the human rights and resources commission for its review. At its February 14, 1990, meeting, the commission reviewed the request and recommended to the city council that it contribute $5,000 to Peacemaker Center if the funds are available. The commission plans to establish criteria to determine whether or not to recommend future requests to the city council. In the absence of such criteria at the present, the commission's rationale for its recommendation is that Peacemaker Center serves its purpose and is available to and benefits the entire community. Minutes of the commission's meeting are attached as is a copy of Peacemaker Center's application for contributions. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Consider the recommendation from the human rights and resources commission to contribute $5,000 to Brooklyn Peacemaker Center, Inc. I MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESOURCES COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION FEBRUARY 14, 1990 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center human rights and resources commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairperson Stoderl at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Stoderl Commissioners Larsen Sullivan, Eckman, and Smith. Also present were Susan Rest, planner of Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council (NWHHSC), and Recording Secretary Geralyn Barone. Councilmember Paulson was unable to attend this evening's meeting. APP ROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 10 1990 There was a motion by Commissioner Eckman and seconded by Commissioner Sullivan to approve the minutes of the January 10, 1990, meeting as submitted. The motion passed. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PROPOSAL FOR BROOKLYN CENTER Ms. Rest reviewed the proposed timeline for the paratransit needs analysis. Chairperson Stoderl asked what the deadlines are for grant submittal to the Regional Transit Board (RTB) and the City's budget process, and the recording secretary explained the City's budget process and said she did not know what the RTB schedule is. Chairperson Stoderl said she feels it would be prudent to have a slow approach to this req uest est and submit a proposal � sal for the City's 1992 budget. P P Y There was discussion on the confidence level that the transportation survey should have and discussion on whether or not to identify population subgroups and survey them separately. Commissioner Smith said he liked the idea suggested by Ms. Rest to not target subgroups but rather to include options in the body of the survey that would identify such subgroups. The commission proceeded to review the survey requirements analysis worksheet provided by Ms. Rest. The commission then reviewed and discussed the survey respondent analysis form. Based on the information provided to Ms. Rest, she will formulate a draft survey and meet with a subcommittee of the commission to review the draft. Ms. Rest will send a draft of the survey to the recording secretary no later than February 28, 1990. The recording secretary will send the draft to the commissioners for their comments by March 7, 1990. The subcommittee, comprising of Chairperson Stoderl, the recording secretary, representatives from NWHHSC and any other interested commissioners, will meet on March 8, 1990, at 5:30 p.m. at City 2/14/90 -1- Hall. Dinner will be provided to the subcommittee members. There was brief discussion on conducting the survey. In order to get a 95% confidence level, approximately 500 residents will be surveyed. If ten volunteers conduct the survey, each will be responsible for approximately 50 surveys which will be completed over a five -week P eriod. PEACEMAKER CENTER REQUEST The recording secretary noted that the City received an application for contributions from Brooklyn Peacemaker Center, Inc., which is requesting a $5,000 contribution from the City. Commissioner Eckman asked if Peacemaker Center is different from North Hennepin Mediation Project (NHMP), and Commissioner Sullivan noted that NHMP and Peacemaker Center have segregated. Commissioner Smith noted that the services of the two are totally different in that Peacemaker Center directs individuals to the appropriate resources while mediation brings opposing parties together. The recording secretary noted that the commission has been requested to develop guidelines for considering such requests. Commissioner Larsen said she feels there is a need for both NHMP and Peacemaker Center and it would be beneficial for the City to support them both. She felt the establishment of criteria for evaluating such requests should be prepared by the commission, although there is not sufficient time to do so now. Chairperson Stoderl noted that $5,000 is not a large request and noted that the Peacemaker Center does serve a purpose in Brooklyn Center. She added that there is a need to establish criteria for evaluating requests. There was a motion b Commissioner Larsen n and seconded by Commissioner Smith to recommend to the city council to contribute $5,000 to the Peacemaker Center in 1990 if the funds are available, and the commission will establish criteria for evaluating future requests. The motion passed. Chairperson Stoderl suggested that the criteria be discussed at the May commission meeting. OTHER BUSINESS Chairperson Stoderl noted that she received information from the Brooklyn Center Rotary Club regarding Brooklyn Center volunteer awards. She asked the commission if they are aware of someone to nominate, they should let her know. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Eckman and seconded by Chairperson Stoderl to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed. The Brooklyn Center human rights and resources commission meeting adjourned at 9:32 p.m. Chairperson 2/14/90 -2- 1987 APPLICATION FOR CONTRIBUTIONS CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER (FOR NONPROFIT HUMAN SERVICE PROGRAM /AGENCY) DATE SUBMITTED: December 1,1989 (Deadline is May 1 for consideration for the following fiscal year, January 1 to December 31.) APPLICANT PROGRAM /AGENCY NAME • Brooklyn Peacemaker Center, Inc. ADDRESS: 5637 Brooklyn Blvd. CITY, STATE, ZIP: Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55429 PHONE NUMBER: ( 612 ) 535 -0995 CONTACT PERSON • Ms • Barbara J. Friday 1. Generally describe the program /agency, including its mission, date established, services, and oals. The Peacemaker Center is designed to address problems in the community in a bray that will provide structure but will also provide adequate flexibility to respond to the needs of individuals, to increase community awareness of services and resources available to them, and to structure programs that are designed to solve problems and heal relationships. It was established 5 years ago and recently reorganized to take a broader approach to problem solving. (see also report included). 2. Explain the program /agenc 's need for Cit contribution The entire city of Brooklyn enter will benefit y having Peacemaker Center in your city. Wr target area is Brooklyn Center and we would like to see the city of Brooklyn Center showing support of those services. 3. List specific secured and anticipated sources of contributions available to the applicant. Brooklyn Center Charitable Foundation Family Hope Services Printing Arts, Inc. Individuals -1- 10. List percent of budget appropriated for overhead and administration costs. 100% to date, however, we have a line item that includes diagnostic fees and counseling fees but at this time have no realistic figures. 11. Describe use of volunteers. Board of Directors, which directs and over_ seep' - _ the - organizations- promotion and marketing, office staff and secretarial work. 12. Describe use of in -kind contributions. Rent, office supplies, office equipment, printing, salary. 13. Describe how the program is marketed, and to what geographical and demographical areas. Brochure Local news media Presentations to local organizations, schools,city council,police,churches. flyer in City Managers Newsletter Yellow page listing word of mouth 14. Discuss the methodology employed in measuring the effectiveness of the program /agency. Diagnostic team review the results of the prescribed program and either closes the case or prescribes a program of further appropriate options. 15. List dollar amount of contribution requested from the City. $5000 16. List in -kind contributions requested from the City. Computer Typewriter Office space -3- _ Ef}c15/yj ?" -_ �._ oG oc 333 3 -- - -- -- — 0o- - -� - - - -- - - i 5 Q/ -- O✓ Z - ' i 10 O �r 4e IT 366 m _ 1I ocl 19UO }� z g j / v S vt PTA/ �� i3 t ci o . 16 L /V /.�q S 20 34,0 7 21 23 24 .�.esT7c f I 25 6 - -- �. L- - — - 27 - -- - - -- - - --- -- -- i - 1 a 0 2i 1 30 T " - - -- - -- - -- j 33 34 - 35 38 39 - -- - - - -- L i j } 40 — I I r BARBARA J. FRIDAY 5225 Camden Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota 55430 1612) 522 -7509 CAREER To utilize my communication skills and human telattvn OBJECTIVE: abilities in coordinating options and opportunities Got those desiring assistance. PROFESSIONAL - E66eetive otganizational and leadership abilities PROFICIENCIES: - Demonstrated skills in human relations - Strong cteative problem solving and con6lict resolution abilities EXPERIENCE: ADMISSIONS COUNSELOR Notthwestetn College, St. Paul, Minnesota August 1987- Re6ponsible Got administeting individual, small and large group August 1989 ptesentations, interviewing ptospeetive students, meeting with patents, high school counselots, alumni, pastots, and youth leaders, evaluating. applications and credentials 6or admission, .and coordinating extensive travel itinetaties and program planning. ACCOUNTING. TECHNICIAN Dayton /Hudson Cotpotation, Minneapolis, Minnesota June 1986- Responsible 6or ptepatation o6 foutnal entries, balancing and July 1987 veti6ieation o6 6inancial reports, internal and external communi- cations tegarding any report concerns, tepott distribution and special ptoiects. SHIPPING DISPENSER Dayton /Hudson Cotpotation, St. Paul, Minnesota October 1984- Responsible jot organization and implementation o6 merchandise June 1986 shipments, managed continued training o6 new employees. OFFICE ASSISTANT Suburban Law En6oteement, Minneapolis, Minnesota June 1984- Coordinated cotrespondence, light bookkeeping, maintained August 1984 611ing tecotds. EDUCATION: NORTHWESTERN COLLEGE, St. Paul, Minnesota Degree: Ba.chelot o6 Science, 1986 Maiov Social Science Concentration: Psychology - Honots: Fitst Bank Scholarship REFERENCES: Available upon request BROOKLYN PEACEMAKER CENTER, INC. Position Title: Executive Director Primary Objective of Position: To develop and maintain the program and procedures through paid staff and volunteers whereby effective programs can be used by the people of Brooklyn Center and surrounding communities. This position which reports to the Board of Directors of Peacemaker Center, Inc., shall include but not be limited to these duties. 1. Develop, maintain, and administer the office and volunteer and paid staff and procedures necessary to conduct the Peacemaker program. 2. Develop and implement an integrated fund raising program which insures adequate support for the budget. 3. Recommend budget to Board of Directors. 4. Develop all promotional materials for the organization. 5. Coordinate the development of a marketing plan and implement the measures. 6. Perform public relations tasks for the organization and represent it at appropriate functions. 7. Staff the committees and coordinate the preparation of meeting minutes. 8. Coordinate case development including calls to parties; identify times for conferences; notify the parties and team members; set up conferences. 9. Develop and maintain procedures for collecting case statistics and report progress at appropriate intervals. 10. Develop and maintain a volunteer structure which provides for adequate personnel to carry out the program and services of the organization including recruitment, training, supervision, recognition, motivation and evaluation. 11. Coordinate with and report back to referring organizatins including but mot limited to Police Department, schools, churches, etc. 12. Develope referral network. 13. Perform all other functions as indicated by the Board of Directors. BROOKLYN PEACIALU R CIs2V7 , INC. 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Tel: 535 -0995 rd of Directors: Executive Director: y A. Nyquist Barbara Friday yor & Attorney Ann Wallerstedt, Vice Chair Mediation Services for Anoka County Margie Lundberg, Secretary Northwest Conference Curt Sonnenfeld, Treasurer State Farm Insurance Barbara Jensen, Director Mediation Center Fred Peterson, Director Family Hope Services Robert Dykstra Family Hope Services Evelyn Mi sfeldt Opportunity Workshop Duane Orn, M.D. Northport Medical Center Jerry Pedlar, V.P. Operations, North Memorial 0 '. Internal Revenue Service �pnrtrnentof the Treasury District Director P O BOX A-3290 DPN 22-2 CHICAGO, IL 60690 Date: /.8UI, 1 7 1007 Employer Identification Numbpr: 41-15O5177 Contact Person: N. BRYSDN BROOKLYN PEACEMAKER CENTER INC Contact Telephone Number: � 5136 LILAC DRIVE (312) 886-1278 BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55429-0000 � ` ` -- Our Letter Dated: Dec 20 1985 Caveat Applies: yes Dear Applicant: This modifies our letter of the above date in which we stated that you would be treated as an organization which is not a private foundation until the expiration of your advance ruling period. Based on the information you submitted, we have determined that you are not a private foundation within the meaning of section 509(a) of the Internal Revenue Code because you are an organization of the type described in section 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi). Your exempt status under Code section 501(c)(3) is still in effect. Grantors and contributors may rely on this determination until the Internal Revenue Service publishes notice to the contrary. However, if you lose your section 509(a)(1)* status, a grantor or contributor may not rely on this determination if he or she was in part responsible for, or was aware of, the act or failure to act that resulted in your loss of such status, or acquired knowledge that the Internal Revenue Service had given notice that you mould be removed from classification as a section 509(a)(1)* organiza- tion. If the heading of this letter indicates that a caveat app{ies, the caveat below or on the enclosure is an integral part of this letter. Because this letter could help resolve any questions about your private foundation status, please keep it in you permanent records. Letter 1050(DO/CG) BROOKLYN PEACEMAKER CENTER INC If you have any questions• please contact: the person whose name and telephone number are 5hoNn above. Sincerely yoursi R. Starke District Director p. L� Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury District fay' Director APH ii iiw) C'ATF - -- Person to Contact 0. Whitehurst L Brooklyn Peacemaker Center Inc. Telephone Nuiiber: (312)886 -5571 5136 Lilac Drive Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Refer Reply to: 88 - 1393 Date: April 8, 1988 RE: Brooklyn Peacemaker Center Inc. EIN: 41- 1505177 This is in response to the letter dated D ecember 17, 1987 regarding your status as an organization exempt from Federal income tax. Our records indicate that a ruling letter was issued in December 1985 , granting your organization an exemption from Federal income tax under the provisions of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. Our records also indicate that your organization is not a private foundation but one that is described in 509(a) (1) and 170(b) (1) ( P�) (vi) Contributions made to you are deductible by donors in computing their taxable income in the manner and to the extent provided in Section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code. If your gross receipts each year are normally $25,000.00 or more, you are required to file Form 990, Return of Organizations Exempt from Income Tax by the fifteenth day of the fifth month after the end of your annual accounting period. You are not required to file Federal income tax returns unless you are subject to the tax on unrelated business income under Section 511 of the Code. If you are subject to this tax, you must file an income tax return on F- 990 -T. If any question arises with respect to your status for Federal income tax purposes, you may use this letter as evidence of your exemption. This is an advisory letter. Sincerely yours, R. S. Wintrode Jr. District Director A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACEMAKING Brooklyn Peacemaker Center, Inc. August 1989 SUMMARY The enclosed material describes the history, goals, and programs of Brooklyn Peacemaker Center, Inc. The essence of the proposal is to respond with a continuum of services in areas compatible with peacemaking. In setting priorities, we have attempted to respond to areas of greatest perceived need in which we can most expeditiously respond. We are therefore suggesting 1) that the diversion program for juvenile offenders be launched and phased in; 2) that we work with the police department in implementing a constructive child abuse program, and 3) that we pursue enhancement of the domestic abuse program. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. THE PEACEMAKER CENTER ORGANIZATION 2 III. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES 4 A. The Need B. The Opportunity IV. METHODOLOGY OF SERVICE DELIVERY A. Conflict Resolution Continuum B. Networking and Referral V.SERVICE AREA g VI. PEACEMAKING - OPPORTUNITIES AND OBLIGATIONS 9 A. Juvenile Diversion B. Child Abuse C. Domestic Abuse D. Peer Groups E. Counseling VII. SPACE PROJECTIONS (NEEDS) 12 A. Phase I B. Phase II C. Size of Facility VIII. FINANCING 14 A. Operational B. Facility IX. Program Priorities 15 I INTRODUCTION. As society changes, problems change, organizations must also change in order to meet the problems and challenges which they are designed to address. The following discussion is a summary result of some brainstorming and planning on the part of the Board of Directors of the Peacemaker Center. As a result, there has been some restructuring to better address and meet the needs of the community. The Peacemaker Center is designed to facilitate the coordination of resources to structure programs that are designed to solve problems and heal relationships. While there are numerous organizations that address certain specific problems, there is no organization on the local level that attempts to provide a continuum of service to address the total and profound problems. The following discussion is a start in developing responsive programs. These have been adopted by the full Peacemaker Board. 1 R THE PEACEMAKER CENTER ORGANIZATION.- The Brooklyn Peacemaker Center, Inc. is a non - profit organization which is also tax exempt by the internal revenue. The organization is managed by a Board of Directors representing a cross section of the community and a cross section of vocational disciplines. His — or' The Brooklyn Peacemaker Center was organized five years ago. In May of 1984, several individuals convened in a brainstorming session to evaluate avenues to address problems in a cooperative manner to provide a continuum of services. The two primary members of the Peacemaker Center at that time were the Brooklyn Center Mediation Project and the Brookdale Covenant Church, which provided a counseling service. The administration, including the delivery of counseling services and delivery of mediation services, was centered in the former parsonage at Brookdale Covenant Church. They have since found it necessary to utilize the facilities for one of their staff persons and therefore concurrently with that decision the church withdrew as a member of the Peacemaker Center. Family Hope Services then became a member of the organization to replace Brookdale Covenant Church. Family Hope Services is an organization which includes not only counseling but also youth and family programs which are consistent with some of the objectives of the Peacemaker Center. Present: As a result of the brainstorming session recently held by the Board of Directors, it was determined that the Peacemaker Center could be more flexible and should have the freedom to take a broader approach to problem solving. Consequently the Peacemaker Center has been reorganized so that there are no individual voting members nor voting 2 i corporate members. It does still provide, however, for associate members and therefore centers the responsibility and authority to a greater degree on the Board of Directors. (See Exhibit A for a list of the Board of Directors) Future: The Board of Directors is enthusiastic and excited about the prospects of addressing problems in the community of Brooklyn Center in a way which will provide structure but will also provide adequate flexibility to respond to the needs of individuals. The climate is one conducive for creativity in searching for those constructive approaches. 3 III. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES: The objectives as stated in h � the Bylaws and Articles of Brooklyn Peacemaker Center are to provide and coordinate programs to address conflict whether that conflict be between persons or conflict within oneself. (See Exhibit B for a copy of the purpose as set out in the Bylaws) A. The Need: In our complex society, we often encounter problems in relationships, families, business, schools, etc. which are deep and profound and which require various disciplines and extensive treatment and attention. The problems may be intra - personal or inter- personal, and involves the emotion, the mental, and the spiritual. One of the crucial elements in the process is an initial diagnosis. That is the primary need that Peacemaker Center is designed to fulfill. And, of course, the necessary follow -up and monitoring of the agreed -upon designated process is also provided. B. The Opportunity: There are, in perhaps the majority of cases involving disputes among parties, surface problems (symptom) and deeper, more profound problems. The opportunity arises to address these problems when the crisis occurs or an individual or family are confronted with a severe relationship problem. It may take the form of such things as a juvenile encountering problems with the police as a result of their behavioral problems or peer pressure, school problems, severe child /parent relationship problems, etc. The Peacemaker Center is a safe place to initially confront those problems and design a program. Obviously it is unrealistic to suggest that a problem which has developed over a period of time is going to be solved in one confrontational session, but it is a start and that is the opportunity. It's the opportunity to assist the individual in addressing the deeper problems 4 which are often evident. The question then is how best to take advantage of that opportunity. 5 IV. METHODOLOGY OF SERVICE DELIVERY: The Brooklyn Peacemaker Center was not designed or intended Y g to ded to be an organization which ultimately delivers the service. The Peacemaker Center was developed to fill a need to coordinate various services available to bring them to bear upon an individual situation. The Center will assist in analyzing the problem and coordinate organizations or functions which are appropriate for the individual situation. A. Conflict Resolution Continuum: The Peacemaker Center presents a continuum of services to address the total problem. As an example, that continuum could take the form of a mediation session followed by counselling as appropriate Or, in the case of juveniles, it may appear that a youth group, a peer group, etc. is appropriate. That continuum of services may involve such things as addressing chemical dependency problems. The concept, in summary, is that an individual or individuals or families would meet with representatives of the Peacemaker Center. Those representatives could include: a) School Social Worker or their representative; b) Psychologist or credentialed person; c) Police or representative; d) Community at large (this would include several people providing a variety of options as appropriate for each situation). B. Networking and Referral: As indicated above, the Brooklyn Peacemaker Center is not organized or intended to act as the ultimate deliverer of services. The Peacemaker Center merely attempts to coordinate and provide a vehicle to direct and refer people and problems to appropriate 6 resources to properly address the problem. School counselors may refer children with problems beyond their scope and time allotments. Police departments may refer P e er ' P Y J encountering problems which in many cases are symptoms of other conflicts. Or, often times young people and families in our churches seek help outside of their own church. 7 V. SERVICE AREA: The rima service area to which h p ry the services of Brooklyn Peacemaker Center, Inc. are extended is, of course, that of Brooklyn Center. While the emphasis is on Brooklyn Center, the services would obviously not be limited to people residing within the Brooklyn Center city limits. The reality is that because of the nature of the Brooklyn Center community, and the mobility of our society, those living outside the city of Brooklyn Center have contact in some way by way of employment, shopping, etc. Brooklyn Center is a major retail center and business area. With that activity and the convenience and advantage that goes with the business community, there are also significantly more problem areas. The regional shopping center (Brookdale) in essence increases the 30,000 Brooklyn Center population to a service area of a quarter of a million people. Nearly one -half of the police activity is directly related to the business community. That takes the form of such things as shoplifting, property damage, and certain other types of criminal activity. It is the goal of the Peacemaker Center, to work closely with the Brooklyn Center Police Department, schools, churches, medical and legal profession, and the business community to look upon the problems as opportunities to help individuals and families who are experiencing turmoil and conflict. To the extent that Peacemaker Center can be a facilitator to focus efforts on the underlying problems, the Center is doing a great service, not only to the individuals and families but to the community and to the Police Department, schools, and churches. 8 VI OPPORTUNITIES FOR AND OBLIGATIONS OF PEACEMAKING: There are a number of areas that are obvious possibilities to be of assistance. Some of those are the following: A. JUVENILE DIVERSION: Particularly in a community such as Brooklyn Center there is an abundance of juvenile offenders who have unplanned contact with the police department. There is simply not a good solution for handling the juvenile offender. Juvenile court can provide the ultimate threat and incentive for an offender to participate in a diversion program. Secondly, the large case load of the juvenile court and its limited resources simply does not permit the juvenile court to handle the juvenile with adequate individual concern about the particular problem confronting the juvenile offender. It is apparent that first of all there needs to be an alternative to or extension of juvenile court, and secondly, there needs to be a means to address the basic problem which has brought the juvenile in contact with the police department (or school authorities). The Peacemaker representatives (See IV -A) will assist in a diagnosis and prescribe a program in conjunction with the juvenile, his parents, and the victim if the victim chooses to be part of the process. The Peacemaker representatives will consist of a panel as outlined and proposed in IV -A. At the first meeting with the juvenile, a correction program will be prescribed and agreed upon. That program can take a number of possibilities either singly or in combination. Some of those alternatives are the following: 1. Counseling. The counseling may be on an individual basis or for the entire family depending upon the circumstances. There are a number of sources of counseling, some of which handle the counseling on 9 the ability to pay basis. (For instance, it is hoped that a counseling fund can be established whereby those who cannot afford the necessary ounseling rY b would have a fund to draw upon.) 2. Community Service. Another avenue may be community service which may be appropriate, particularly in the case of property damage or shoplifting. 3. Peer Groups One of the avenues which may be appropriate for certain youths is participation in the peer group program. 4. Mediation. In such case that the intake and diagnosis by Peacemaker representatives indicate that the case is one in which a dispute exists and is appropriate for mediation,that case would be referred to a local Mediation Service for resolution. Mediation may also be used in conjunction with the options in VI -A above. 5. Specific Projects. Depending upon the situation, the representatives may designate certain projects which are compatible and responsive to the offense and those kinds of projects are only limited by one's imagination and creativity. B. CHM D ABUSE: A very prevalent area of conflict is between parent and child often resulting in actual or alleged child abuse. (There can also be parent abuse!) While the specific program is not designed or operational, one of the goals of the Peacemaker Center is to work in conjunction with the police department to help develop a meaningful positive program in response to the child abuse problem. It is anticipated that the Peacemaker Center would serve as the facilitator to bring together the people and groups who are struggling with the problem with the resources to address the problem. 10 One of the possibilities, although not a recommendation at this time, is the utilization of a program involving support groups. It does appear that the child abuse area is one in which support groups both for parents and children would be most appropriate. C. DOMESTIC ABUSE: Brooklyn Center has one of the better programs and approaches to address the problem of domestic abuse. It is anticipated that the Peacemaker Center can assist by providing volunteers and assist in coordinating support groups. D. PEER GROUPS: It appears initially that there are a number of areas that would be appropriate to the establishment of peer groups where their availability does not exist. One of the things that the Peacemaker Center would endeavor to do is determine the need and the type of peer group. One of the most obvious, of course, is that of the troubled youth. E. COUNSELING. Finally, there is often a significant need for professional counseling. The Peacemaker Center would attempt to refer to the appropriate professional. As indicated above, one of the future objectives would be the establishment of a fund to truly implement and make available quality, professional counseling in accord with ability to pay. 11 VU SPACE NEEDS: The Board of Directors has endeavored to project the needs of Peacemaker Center in terms of space to carry out the objectives and programs. We are presently looking at that aspects in two general phases: A. Phase I: Since moving out of the house owned by the Brookdale Covenant Church, the office has temporarily utilized offices in the Brooklyn Law Center at 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard. We are looking at the possibility of a temporary office and meeting room. Initial indications are that the Peacemaker Center could function with that kind of facility although it may occasionally need to utilize other facilities on an as- needed basis. B. Phase R: Phase II envisions a separate facility which would obviously have to be commercial in nature from the standpoint of land use but which would have the physical appearance of a home type setting. It has become generally accepted that such a facility provides the warmth and attractiveness not available in an office complex or in the City Hall complex or in the City Hall complex. We would envision the providing of space for implementation of the suggested programs including counseling, peer group meetings, domestic abuse, child abuse, etc. The funding and the manner in which the facility may be put together could perhaps be one of three possibilities: 1) A separate private facility; one of the possibilities is a facility entirely funded by private sources. While the Brooklyn Charitable Foundation has designated the Peacemaker Center as one of its projects, the magnitude of the project is somewhat extensive. And with the upheaval in corporate takeovers, there is a serious question as to 12 i the continued generosity of foundations, and corporations in the metropolitan area. 2) Partnership with the Ci of Brooklyn - ty o yn Center Since the Peacemaker Center is endeavoring to make the community a better place in which to live in attempting on a cooperative basis to provide resources and volunteers to address problems which would be difficult or impossible for the City to accomplish, there is rationale for a partnership between the private sector and the City to develop such a facility. 3) Incorporate with proposed community center expansion There a proposal to expand the Brooklyn Center community center. One of the possibilities is to segregate a portion of that and construct a separate facility at a location away from City Hall. There is considerable merit in separating the facilities because of the need for confidentiality and protection from embarrassment in a non - threatening setting. It would be difficult to achieve the objectives if we were to incorporate a facility for domestic abuse, child abuse, etc. as part of the community center complex. Therefore a separate facility away from the community center would better serve that purpose. The center would be as discussed above in subparagraph a). C. Size. The size of the facility, of course, would be determined by the extent of involvement of various programs. We would envision programs such as domestic abuse, counseling, youth center, meeting rooms for peer groups, child abuse, etc. 13 VIII. FINANCING: The obvious question is how will the Peacemaker Center be financed. Previously the operational financing was done by mere assessment of the members of Peacemaker Center. Since Peacemaker Center does not have members as such, they will obviously have to look elsewhere for funding. Under the previous organization, the Peacemaker Center was severely limited in its funding options since there was a significant caution so as not to be seeking funding from the same sources as the individual members. The fundin g is in two categories - Operational and Facility. With respect to the Operational Funding, it would appear that the logical sources would be such things as individual gifts, gifts from businesses, financial support from churches, from service organizations such as Lions, Rotary, Kiwanis, from various fund raising projects and from purchase of service from the City of Brooklyn Center. With respect to funding the facility, sources would be such things as the Brooklyn Center Charitable Foundation, Grants, Service Organizations, Corporations, Churches, and the City of Brooklyn Center. 14 IX. PROGRAM PRIORITIES: The Board of Directors has developed the following priorities: ■ A juvenile diversion program. We are suggesting that some juveniles would be referred to the Peacemaker Center as a diversion program as previously described. We will continually evaluate the success of the program. ■ Peacemaker Center will work closely with the police department, schools, churches, medical and legal profession, and the business community to look upon the problems as opportunities to help individuals and families who are experiencing turmoil and conflict. ■ Peacemaker Center recognizes the need to expand the program to include issues of domestic and child abuse. ■ This Public Private Partnership will depend on the community to provide volunteers, facilities and services. 15 PEACEMAKER CENTER BOARD O DIRECTORS Dean Nyquist President Attomev, Nwlrtist c�c Ilomingso» r P.A. Law Fimr; Brooklyn Ccntcr Mayor Ann Wallersledt Vice - President Executive Dircctor, Atediation Semice jorAnoka County Alargie Lundberg secretary arnd Acting Executive Director ArinrinisUUtiye Assistant, Noalm Conference of Me Evangelical Covenant Church Curt Sonnenfeld Treasurer Inswance Agency Bob Dykstra Psychotherapist Family & Afaf7iar;e Counselor, Family Hobe Services Barbara Jensen Associate Director Afccliation Center Evelyn Misfeldt Team Lcaclerl Program Evaluator', opportunity 11'orkshop Fred Peterson Executive Dircctor, Family Hope Services Wayne Thy'ren Director, 7reellouse South Outreach, Family Hope Services I EVENT POLICE PEACEMAKER DIAGNOSTIC PRE - MEETING CREATING SCHOOL CENTER STAFF TEAM CASE REVIEW CRISIS PARENT OR NEED CHURCH INFORMATION ETC. RELEASE, ETC. I � � JUDICIAL SYSTEM I SOCIAL INVOLVEMENT I DIAGNOSTIC SESSION I (i.e. - SCOUTS, PEACEMAKER YMCA, TREEHOUSE, TEAM, CLIENT, PARENT, STAFF ETC.) VIC ETC. i ( COUNSELING (VARIOUS) I DIAGNOSTIC RE -ENTER TEAM EDUCATIONAL I i II SYSTEM AT REVIEW RESULTS COMMUNITY SERVICE APPROPRIATE I PHASE (INTER- RELATIONAL WITH OFFENSE AREA) ANOTHER SYSTEM 1 (i.e. - MEDIATION, $$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $ CLOSE ETC.) ( UDTD $ f � — $ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE $ 1 — — — — — — — - $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ PEACEMAKING CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2 26 90 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: LOCAL 49 CONTRACT AMENDMENT DEPT. APPROVAL: *A"U-" Personnel Coordinator Signature - Atle MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached The city council approved the 1990 -1991 labor agreement with I.U.O.E. Local 49 on February 12, 1990. Since that time, it has come to our attention that section B -II of the local addendum regarding sick leave is inconsistent with current practice for nonorganized employees. Chapter 17 of the City's ordinances regarding personnel was recently amended to allow probationary employees to use earned sick leave during their probationary periods. The amendment to the Local 49 agreement is recommended as follows: B -II SICK LEAVE a. Eligibility Sick leave with pay shall be granted to probationary and permanent EMPLOYEES at the rate of eight hours for each calendar month of full -time service or major fraction thereof [, except that sick leave granted probationary EMPLOYEES shall not be available for use until satisfactory completion of the initial probationary period]. (Bracketed material to be deleted.) Also, there was an inadvertent deletion of part of a word in the retyping of the 1990 -1991 agreement. The following correction should be made to the local addendum: B -V HOLIDAY LEAVE b. When New Year's Day, Independence Day, Veteran's Day, or Christmas Day fall on Sunday, the following day shall be observed as a holiday. When they fall on Saturday, the preceding day shall be observed as a holiday. EMPLOYEES' absence from work on the day following or the day preceding such athree -day holiday weekend without the express authorization of the EMPLOYER shall forfeit rights to holiday pay for that holiday. (Underlined material to be added.) • These changes have been discussed with Local 49 representatives who have agreed with them as presented. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCILACTION Pass a motion amending the 1990 -1991 Local 49 agreement regarding use of sick leave for probationary employees. L APPENDIX B LOCAL ADDENDUM This supplementary agreement is entered into between the City of Brooklyn Center and the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 49, AFL - CIO, for the period beginning January 1, 1990, and terminating on December 31, 1991, unless renewed or extended by mutual agreement of the parties. Nothing in this supplementary agreement may be in conflict with any provision of the MASTER AGREEMENT between the City of Brooklyn Center and IUOE, Local No. 49, AFL -CIO. In the event of conflict the MASTER AGREEMENT will prevail. B -I RELIEF AND MEAL PERIODS a. Two relief periods not to exceed fifteen (15) minutes are authorized at a practicable time within each EMPLOYEE'S shift. One relief period may be taken during the first half of the shift and the second relief period may be taken during the second half of the shift. b. Each EMPLOYEE shall be authorized one unpaid thirty (30) minutes meal period per shift. B -IT SICK LEAVE a. Eligibility Sick leave with pay shall be granted to probationary and permanent EMPLOYEES at the rate of eight hours for each calendar month of full -time service or major fraction thereof. b. Usage Sick leave may be used normally for absence from duty because of personal illness, injury, or legal quarantine of the EMPLOYEE, or because of serious illness in the immediate family. Immediate family shall mean brother, sister, parents, parents -in -law, spouse, or children of the EMPLOYEE. Sick leave may be used for the purpose of attending the funeral of immediate family members plus brothers -in- law, sisters -in -law, grandparents, grandparents -in -law, and grandchildren of the EMPLOYEE. In addition to the preceding conditions, supervisors may approve the use of sick leave, up to a maximum of four (4) days (32 hours) per calendar year, for the care of the EMPLOYEE'S children or spouse when the EMPLOYEE'S supervisor determines that the situation requires the EMPLOYEE'S presence. The four (4) special use days (32 hours) cannot be accumulated from one year to the next, and if they are not used, they are included in the EMPLOYEE'S normal sick leave accumulation. C. Accrual Sick leave shall accrue at the rate of eight hours per month until 960 hours have been accumulated and at the rate of four hours per month after the 960 hours have been accumulated. EMPLOYEES using earned vacation leave or sick leave shall be considered to be working for the purposes of accumulating additional sick leave. Worker's Compensation benefits shall be credited against the compensation due EMPLOYEES during sick leave. B -1 d. Procedure In order to be eligible for sick leave with pay, EMPLOYEES must: 1. Notify their superior prior to the time set for the beginning of their normal work day. 2. Keep their superior informed of their condition. 3. Furnish a statement from a medical practitioner upon the request of the EMPLOYER where the EMPLOYER has reason to believe that an EMPLOYEE has abused or is abusing sick leave. e. Misuse Prohibited EMPLOYEES claiming sick leave when physically fit, except as otherwise specifically authorized in ARTICLE B -II, b shall be subject to disciplinary action up to and including discharge. B -III SEVERANCE PAY Severance pay in the amount of one -third the accumulated sick leave EMPLOYEES have to their credit at the time of resignation shall be paid to EMPLOYEES who have been employed for at least five consecutive years. If discharged for cause, severance pay shall not be allowed. B -IV VACATION LEAVE a. Amount Permanent EMPLOYEES shall earn vacation leave at a rate of 6.67 hours for each calendar month of full -time service or major fraction thereof. Permanent EMPLOYEES with five consecutive years of service through ten consecutive years of service shall earn vacation at the rate of 120 hours per year. Permanent EMPLOYEES with more than ten consecutive years of service shall earn vacation leave according to the following schedule: During 11th year of service 128 hours per year. During 12th year of service 136 hours per year. During 13th year of service 144 hours per year. During 14th year of service 152 hours per year. During 15th year of service 160 hours per year. EMPLOYEES using earned vacation leave or sick leave shall be considered to be working for purposes of accumulating additional vacation leave. b. UsaZe Vacation leave may be used as earned, except that the EMPLOYER shall approve the time at which the vacation leave may be taken. No EMPLOYEE shall be allowed vacation leave until after satisfactorily completing his initial probationary period. EMPLOYEES shall not be permitted to waive vacation leave and receive double pay. Is B -2 c. Accrual An EMPLOYEE may accumulate no more than 200 hours of vacation in addition to the vacation leave the EMPLOYEE earns during the current calendar year. d. Termination Provisions EMPLOYEES leaving the service of the EMPLOYER in good standing, after having given the EMPLOYER proper notice of termination of employment, shall be compensated for vacation leave accrued and unpaid, computed to the date of separation. B -V HOLIDAY LEAVE a. Holidays Defined Holiday leave shall be granted for the following holidays: New Year's Day, January 1; Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, third Monday in January; Washington's and Lincoln's Birthdays, third Monday in February; Memorial Day, last Monday in May; Independence Day, July 4; Labor Day, first Monday in September; Christopher Columbus Day, second Monday in October; Veteran's Day, November 11; Thanksgiving Day, fourth Thursday in November; Post - Thanksgiving Day, Friday after fourth Thursday in November; Christmas Day, December 25; and one floating holiday annually to be scheduled with permission of the EMPLOYEE'S supervisor. In the event this AGREEMENT is not entered into by January 15, 1990, in 1990, one additional floating holiday shall be granted in lieu of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, to be scheduled with permission of the EMPLOYEE'S supervisor. b. When New Year's Day, Independence Day, Veteran's Day, or Christmas Day fall on Sunday, the following day shall be observed as a holiday. When they fall on Saturday, the preceding day shall be observed as a holiday. EMPLOYEES' absence from work on the day following or the day preceding such a three -day holiday weekend without the express authorization of the EMPLOYER shall forfeit rights to holiday pay for that holiday. C. EMPLOYEES working a normal Monday through Friday workweek, who are required to be on duty on any holiday, shall be paid time and one - half for the hours worked in addition to the base pay rate. B -VI COVERALLS a. The EMPLOYER will purchase and maintain sufficient sets of work coveralls to be available and specifically assigned for wear by EMPLOYEES, other than mechanics, when engaged in unusually dirty tasks for the respective job classification. A determination of coverall assignments shall rest exclusively with the EMPLOYER. Mechanics shall be provided coveralls. B -VII STANDBY PAY a. Public Utility EMPLOYEES who are designated by their supervisor to serve in a "standby" status on behalf of the City on a weekend will receive as compensation for such service five (5) hours of overtime B -3 pay for the period beginning the end of the work day on Friday and ending the start of the work day on Monday when serving in such status. Public Utility EMPLOYEES who are designated by their supervisors to serve in a "standby" status on behalf of the City on a holiday will receive as compensation for such service two (2) hours of overtime pay for each holiday served in such status. Such standby pay shall be in addition to other compensation which the EMPLOYEE is entitled to under this AGREEMENT. B -VIII PART -TIME EMPLOYEE BENEFITS Part -time EMPLOYEES shall not be eligible to receive fringe benefits under this AGREEMENT. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL NO. 49: DATED DATED B -4 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2/26/90 Agenda Item Number ci REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: STREET LIGHTING POLICY (REPORT FROM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT) DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNA P- DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:' No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Explanation • The Northern States Power Company currently counts 994 street lights in Brooklyn Center. The table below summarizes those lights by type and ownership. Owner Type Size No. Brooklyn Center Ornamental 250W Mercury 4 40OW Mercury 36 150W Sodium 1 20OW Sodium 17 250W Sodium 47 40OW Sodium 4 Northern States Power Underground 10OW Sodium 15 150W Sodium 5 250W Sodium 15 Overhead 10OW Sodium 553 150W Sodium 181 250W Sodium 94 Minnesota Ornamental 40OW Mercury 22 Total 994 In 1990, $140,000 is budgeted to pay electrical costs, while $3,000 is budgeted for maintenance. • The City's street lighting policy (Attachment 1) describes the conditions • which must be met for installation of street lights, and the type of lights to be installed. Briefly, the policy states that: • street lights shall be installed at every intersection; • mid -block lights may be installed where block length exceeds 700 feet, upon petition of a majority of block residents; • additional lights may be considered by petition or on recommendation of the Chief of Police or Director of Public Works. The City has not systematically ordered installation of mid -block lights where the distance conditions are met. Nor has the City pursued an alley lighting policy. While the existing policy specifies the size of luminaire to be installed on various types of streets, there has been no systematic attempt to meet any lighting code, such as that established by the ANSI /IES (American National Standards Institute). This code establishes various lighting standards by type of roadway and pavement. It is expected that systematic installation of mid -block lighting, and adherence to the ANSI /IES lighting code would result in a need for many more street and alley lights in the City. Other metro area cities have varying street lighting policies. Some have a policy similar to Brooklyn Center's, while others have established or are contemplating systematic installation programs. One city, Maple Grove, charges its residents on their utility bills a $5.40 per quarter street • lighting fee. Robbinsdale is considering such a fee. Some assess the cost of installation to adjacent property owners while others a installation cost J P P Y � pay s from the general fund. Attachment 2 summarizes the major components of the street lighting policies of several metro area cities. Council Action This information is provided for the Council's review and discussion. The Council may wish to direct staff to evaluate policy alternatives such as: • the cost of systematic installation of mid -block street and alley lights; • the feasibility f cha ci r esidents y g g y esid is a street lighting fee on utility bills; I • the feasibility and cost of meeting "code" lighting requirements; • modifying the existing policy to accommodate alley lighting by resident petition. Attachment 1 September, 1981 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA STREET LIGHTING POLICY WHEREAS, it is deemed necessary that a uniform policy for the placement of street lights in the City be established, the following shall constitute the policy for installation of street lights in the City of Brooklyn Center: 1. A street light shall be installed at every intersection open for traffic within the City. On any streets with a curb -to -curb width in excess of 52 feet, and where there is normally a significant amount of pedestrian traffic, two street lights may be installed at each intersection. 2. Mid -block street lights may be installed in any block in which the centerline to centerline distance between cross streets is greater than 700 feet, upon receipt of a petition signed by a majority of the residents on the block, including the signatures of the residents adjacent to the specific location where such mid -block light is requested. In such instances, additional street lights shall be installed so that the distance between street lights does not exceed 700 feet. 3. Additional street lights will be considered for individual approval upon receipt of a petition from the property owners in the affected area, or upon recommendation from the Chief of Police or from the Director of Public Works when such petition or recommendation demonstrates a specific warrant affecting traffic safety. 4. The type of street lights installed under the provisions of the above three paragraphs shall be as follows: a. If the electrical distribution system within the area is overhead, the street light shall consist of a steel mast arm and luminaire mounted on a conventional wood pole with overhead electrical service. b. If the electrical distribution system within the area is underground, the street light shall consist of a steel mast arm and luminaire mounted on a conventional wood pole with underground electrical service. c. The size of luminaires to be installed shall be as follows: High Pressure Sodium - On collector and arterial streets 250 watt - On local streets, at marked crosswalks 150 watt - On local streets, where no marked 100 watt crosswalks exist 5. All street lighting requests and installations should be coordinated through the Director of Public Works. Approved b PP Y• City Manager Attachment 2 Street and Alley Lighting Survey February, 1990 Selected Metro Area Cities Questions: 1. Do you regularly install street lights at all intersections and cul -de -sacs? Only with or without petition? 2. What is your policy regarding installation of mid -block street lights? 3. What is your policy regarding installation of lights in public alleys? 4. What is your policy regarding installation of ornamental (or decorative) street lighting in residential areas? 5. What is your policy regarding size of lighting units installed in residential areas? 6. Are you attempting to achieve "code" lighting standards? Responses: MINNEAPOLIS 1. Street lights are installed at every intersection, and at every cul -de -sac, unless petitioned against. 2. Two mid -block lights are installed when street length is greater than 660 feet, unless 65 percent of property owners petition against. Each of the 13 wards can have a total of 29 alley- entrance lights on short east -west blocks, at property owners' petition. Cost of installation is paid from the general fund. 3. Alleys shorter than 440 feet will have one mid -block alley light installed, unless the residents petition against it; longer alleys will have two lights at the one -third points. T- ssaped alleys have one light at the intersection and one at the long leg mid - point, and L- shaped alleys have lights installed on each leg. 4. Area must be eight contiguous blocks, must be by petition, and residents pay the costs of installation. The type must be approved by the City, and installable by NSP. 0&M is paid from the general fund. 5. Arterials are 150W high pressure sodium; all others are 100W sodium. 1 6. No particular standard. NOTE: 99 percent of the city is lighted; most requests coming now are from those locations that had originally petitioned out. BROOKLYN PARK 1. Will install without petitions, but if power has to come from a back yard power line, the property ownrs affected must sign an agreement guaranteeing city or NSP access for wire, pole, and maintenance. 2. In 1971, city established policy that all new plats must have underground wiring. The developer is responsible for installation of street lights to the city's specifications. Distance between lights cannot exceed 400 feet. Many older areas have distances greater than that; the city will install mid -block lights "on request." 3. No alleys. 4. All new poles are now fiberglass. The area around the golf course has ornamental lights; that area may be extended. The developer is responsible for installation, to the city's specifications. Thedeveloper then turns over the lights to the city, which accepts responsibility for O&M. 5. Local streets: 100W sodium; arterial: 150W sodium; major highways: 250W sodium. 6. No particular standard. NOTE: Mid -block lights in the old areas will probably be done all at one time as an improvement project; probably as an assessment project. All lights will be no more than 400 feet apart, and all curves, intersections, and cul -de -sacs will be lighted. FRIDLEY 1. Installed at intersections and cul -de -sacs without petition from property owners. 2. Will install mid -block lights if one of three criteria are met: 1) without petition if distance between lights is greater than 1400 feet; 2) without petition if there is a mid -block park entrance; 3) on petition of residents. If petitioned, the residents are assessed the cost of installation. 2 3. Have only a few alleys, and the city doesn't light them. 4. Will install only by petition, and will assess as much of the cost as possible to the benefitted property owners. Don't do this very often. 5. The older lights are generally 175W mercury vapor; the new lights are all 100W sodium. 6. No particular code. COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 1. Regularly installed. 2. Currently, mid -block lights are only installed by petition if the block length is greater than 660 feet; the cost of installation is assessed. The city has budgeted for, but has not yet implemented a plan to systematically install mid -block lights. The city will be divided into quadrants, and one quadrant will be completed each year. 3. Alley lights will be installed, by petition. The installation cost is assessed to the benefitted properties. 4. Do not have a policy - the issue has not come up recently. 5. Alleys: 100W sodium; others, on NSP recommendation. 6. NSP's recommendation. MAPLE GROVE 1. Regularly install, or require developers of new subdivisions. 2. Mid -block lights will be installed only on petition; the city attempts to maintain a maximum of about 400 feet between street lights. 3. Do not have alleys. 4. Will approve installation of 100W sodium ornamental lights, if NSP owns and maintains them. 5. 100W sodium on local streets; typically 150W sodium on other streets. 6. No particular code. NOTE: The city charges all residents $5.40 on the quarterly utility bill for street lighting. 3 0 �Yxxx X' X xxxXXicXx'i :xx�Y�YXXXXxxx�X�F����Y�YXXx�YX ROBBINSDALE 1. Without petition. 2. Will install without a petition on blocks longer than 660 feet. Residents may specify if they want a street or an alley light. 3. Alley lighting is between residents and NSP. 4. Don't usually get into this. 5. NSP's recommendation 6. NSP's recommendation NOTE: Considering establishing user charges for street lights on the quarterly utility bill, to cover the costs of electricity, maintenance, and installation. Might be flat fee, or by type of land use. ST. ANTHONY 0 1. Regularly install.. 2. Will install mid -block on petition. The petition must identify a location to which every agrees. Block length must exceed 1200 feet. 3. Most are night security lights, between the residents and NSP. The city has paid for a few, but only where necessary. Many street lights are near alley entrances. 4. Try not to get into this. There is one industrial area that did not have street lighting. The developer wanted decorative lighting; the city agreed to pay the 0&.M cost if to developer paid the installation cost. 5. NSP's recommendation. 6. NSP's recommendation. NOTE: Considering establishing user charges on quarterly utility bill. Estimating about $1.50 per residence; if add in signal electrical costs, would be about $3.00 per residence. 4 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2 -26 -90 Agenda Item Number /Q c REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR PERSONS 65 YEARS OF AGE AND FOR PERSONS WHO ARE TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED (REVIEW OF CURRENT POLICY) DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP D RECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS -- MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: V No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes On June 26, 1989, following the public hearings regarding alley paving projects, • the City Council requested that the existing policy regarding deferment of special assessments be reviewed prior to the formal special assessment hearings regarding these and other public improvements on which special assessments will be levied. Attached hereto are the following documents: • a copy of Minnesota Statutes 435.193 thru 435.195 which allows cities to defer special assessments under certain conditions. • a copy of Resolution 85 -143 which is the City's current policy statement. • a copy of a survey of 18 cities (questionnaire and summary of responses) which was conducted in 1985. COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED • review and discuss the attached information • provide City staff with direction as to additional information which may be needed, and /or conceptual direction regarding requested amendments to be prepared for formal consideration • 1 435.193 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, OTHER PROCEEDINGS 8492 435.193 SENIOR CITIZENS OR RETIRED AND DISABLED PERSONS HARD- SHIP SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERRAL. Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the contrary, any county, statutory or home rule charter city, or town, making a special assessment may, at its discretion, defer the payment of that assessment for any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older or retired by virtue of a permanent and total disability for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments. Any county, statutory or home rule charter city, or town electing to defer special assessments shall adopt an ordinance or resolution establishing standards and guidelines for determining the existence of a hardship and for determining the existence of a disability, but nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the determination of hardship on the basis of exceptional and unusual circumstances not covered by the standards and guidelines where the determi- nation is made in a nondiscriminatory manner and does not give the applicant an unreasonable preference or advantage over other applicants. History: 1974 c 206 s 7; 1976 c 195 s 3, 1981 c 80 s 1 435.194 PROCEDURE TO OBTAIN DEFERRED ASSESSMENT. The homeowner shall make application for deferred payment of special assess- ments on forms prescribed by the county auditor of the county in which the homestead is located. Where the deferred assessment is granted, the auditor shall record a notice thereof with the county recorder of said county which shall set forth the amount of the assessment. The taxing authority may determine by ordinance or resolution the amount of interest, if any, on the deferred assessment and this rate shall be recorded by the auditor along with and in the same manner as the amount of the assessment. History: 1974 c 206 s 8; 1976 c 181 s 2; 1976 c 195 s 4 435.195 TERMINATION OF RIGHT TO DEFERRED PAYMENT. The option to defer the payment of special assessments shall terminate and all amounts accumulated plus applicable interest, shall become due upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (a) the death of the owner, provided that the spouse is otherwise not eligible for the benefits hereunder; (b) the sale, transfer or subdivision of the property or any part thereof; (c) if the property should for any reason lose its homestead status; or (d) if for any reason the taxing authority deferring the payments shall determine that there would be no hardship to require immediate or partial payment. History: 1974 c 206 s 9 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 85 -143 RESOLUTION RELATING TO DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR PERSONS 65 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER AND ESTABLISHING AN INTEREST RATE ------------------------------------------------ WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 435.193 through 435.195 provides for the deferment of special assessments and specifies the conditions under which municipalities are authorized, on a voluntary basis, to defer such assessments; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center found and determined that deferral of special assessments for certain senior citizens is in the public interest and passed City of Brooklyn Center Resolution No. 78 -87 providing for deferment of special assessments for persons 65 years of age or older and establishing an interest rate; and WHEREAS, economic conditions over the past seven years have made it increasingly difficult for senior citizens to qualify for deferment of special assessments due to the $7,500 income limitation and persons retired due to permanent and total disability are not included in the present policy; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to update the City's Deferment of Special Assessments Policy and desires to develop a policy that responds to ever changing economic conditions: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the policy established by Resolution No. 78 -87 is hereby amended to provide for deferral of special assessments certified after the adoption of this resolution under the following conditions: 1. The property upon which the assessment is deferred must be homesteaded; 2. The property is owned by a person at least 65 years of age on January lst of the year in which payment of the first installment of the subject assessment levy is due; or is owned by a person who is retired due to permanent and total disability. RESOLUTION NO. 11 -111 3. The applicant must have a "financial hardship" defined as: a. An annual income at or below the two person rate established by HRA Section 8 housing guidelines (two person household rate is $17,400 in 1985); and b. The aggregate total of special assessment installments from previously- existing special assessment levies plus the first year of the current levy will exceed two percent of the applicant's annual income. 4. The portion of the current levy which will be deferred will be that portion of the levy against the applicant's property which requires a first year installment payment which, when added to the applicant's annual payments from previously existing special assessment levies, would result in an aggregate total of special assessment installments totaling more than 2 per cent of the applicant's annual income. The portion of the current levy which can be paid without aggregating total installments above 2 percent of the applicant's annual income shall not be deferred. 5. Special assessments levied due to the applicant's failure -to -pay charges for City services or failure to comply to City codes (i.e. delinquent utility assessments, assessments for weed removals, assessments for nuisance abatement, etc.) shall not be deferred, and installment payments for existing levies for such services shall not-be included in calculating the maximum 2 per cent aggregate payment defined in paragraph 4 above. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that interest at the rate for that particular assessment levy shall be added to the deferred assessment and shall be payable in accordance with the terms and provisions of Minnesota Statutes 435.195; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is directed to provide application forms, as may be necessary , and is authorized to process said applications signed by the qualified persons prior to September 15th of the preceding year of date which payment is due and direct Hennepin County to defer the special assessments within said application. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -143 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the right to defer assessments is hereby terminated when the subject property owner no longer meets the criteria established in this resolution except that a surviving spouse of a qualified applicant need not meet the age requirement. August 12, 19K Dat Mayor U ATTEST: r`k The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY f'a OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY .. ... 5 BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 r. ROOK w TELEPHONE 561 -5440 E N r" E TO: City Engineers /Directors of Public 1eorks FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public 1dorks DATE: February 28, 1985 RE: Deferral of Special Assessments for Age or Disability We will appreciate your response to the following questions relating to deferral of Special Assessments to persons over 65 or retired by virtue of disability, as per Minnesota Statutes 435.193 to 435.195. 1. Has your City adopted a policy for deferral under these statutes? 2. If "Yes": a, please describe the standards and guidelines established for defining the existence of a HARDSHIP. and /or send a copy of your policy resolution or statement. b. please describe the standards and guidelines established for defining the existence of a DIS.UILITY. and /or send a copy of your policy resolution or statement. 3. Airy comments? 4. Do you want a copy of our survey summary? Your name Address City /Zip Thanks for your cooperation. Please return in the enclosed stamped, self - addressed envelope. Sy' Knapp „� mau SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERMENT POLICY TABLE OF RESULTS Cities Responding to Survey: Number of Cities: 18 Bloomington Edina North St. Paul Brooklyn Park Fridley Plymouth Burnsville Golden Valley Richfield Champlin Maple Grove Roseville Coon Rapids Minnetonka St. Cloud Eden Prairie New Brighton St. Louis Park Cities with Deferment Based on Age Only: Number of Cities: 9 Bloomington Edina North St. Paul Brooklyn Park Fridley Plymouth Coon Rapids New Brighton St. Louis Park City with Deferment Based on Age or Disability: Number of Cities: 6 Burnsville Eden Prairie Richfield Champlin Minnetonka Roseville Cities with Deferment Based on Low Income: Number of Cities: 1 St. Cloud Cities Using Annual Income Basis of Qualification: Number of Cities: 10 Brooklyn Park Minnetonka St. Cloud Burnsville North St. Paul St. Louis Park Eden Prairie Plymouth Edina Richfield Statistics: Mean: $12,572 Median: $12,750 Mode: $11,000 (2) Cities Using Percent of Annual Income Basis of Qualificiation: Number of Cities: 7 Bloomington Edina Roseville Burnsville Fridlev Champlin New Brightcn Statistics: Mean: 1.9% Median: 2% Mode: 1% (2) 2% (2) 0 Cities Using Both Methods: Number of Cities: 2 Edina $15,000 and 20 Burnsville $10,000 and 3% .............................................................................................. CITY /CONTACT ELIGIBILITY I QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS PARTICULARS •------------- --- -- -- ------ ------- I•-- - - --9 pr P __ Bloomington/ - over 65 - average annual and interest due on all - current policy adopted in 1975 not identified special assessments exceeds 1.5% of annual income - deferment automatically terminates when: - property value does not exceed $75,000 1. owner dies and spouse is not qualified - interest at the rate for that assessment shall be 2. property is sold, transferred or subdivided added to the deferred assessment 3. property no longer homestead 4. the City determines the owner is no longer in the hardship category ----------------- ----- ----- -- ---- - - --- -- P---- Brooklyn Park/ -over 65 - defers current and future special assessments if - current policy adopted in 1981 Charles Lenthe annual net income minus annual principle and interest deferment automatically terminates when: payment on assessments does not exceed $12,000 I 1. owner dies and spouse is'not qualified -Assessors estimated market valuation does not exceed 2. property is sold, transferred or subdivided $100,000 3. property no longer homestead -owner has not signed petition for said improvement 4. the City determines the owner is no longer in on current projects the hardship category --- -- - ---- - -- Burnsville/ -over 65 - defers payment of any special assessment if annual - current policy adopted in 1981 Chuck Siggerud - permanent and gross income does not exceed $10,000 - deferment terminates and all amounts accumulated � I I total -the average annual payment for all assessments plus aplicable interest shall be due when: disability exceeds 3% of owner's income 1. owner dies and spouse is not qualified - special assessments deferred must exceed $400.00 2. property is sold, transferred or subdivided -total assets of owner and spouse do not exceed 3. property no longer homestead $20,000 excluding homestead 4. the City determines the owner is no longer in -City Council may consider exceptional and unusual ( the hardship category circumstances if applicant not covered by above 5. failure to renew application standards ........... I---------- - - - - -- ---------•--------- Champlin/ -over 65 - annual principle and interest due on an assessment - current policy adopted in 1982 Sue Knight - permanent and exceeds 2.5% of current annual income -interest rate applies to pP principle and interest of total -Assessor's market valuation must not exceed $80,000 the assessment but shall not apply to the interest disability of the deferment ----------------- - --- --- -•-- -----• - -•-- --- - ---- --- -- ---- -- Coon Rapids/ -over 65 -the only req uirement uirement is that one spouse must be Bill Ottensman over 65 _.....__•--••--•.--•-_-•-•-••------•- ............. I- . - - - -- ------- - ------- -------------•------ ---- •- -•------------ ••---- -•--- 0 i i -------_••-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------•_•-.--•---•------- CITY /CONTACT I ELIGIBILITY I QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS I PARTICULARS I ----------------- I ----------------- I I.......................................... Eden Prairie/ I -over 65 I - defers payment of special assessment if annual I - deferred interest is to be added but not to exceed Kathy Herman I - permanent and I household income exceeds the following limit;,: I 50% of the original principle amount of the total I I assessment disability I # of People in Household Total Annual Income I - deferment terminates and all amounts accumulated plus - ----------------------- I applicable interest shall become due when: I I I 1 $13,700 I 1. owner dies and spouse is not qualified I 2 $15,650 I 2. property is sold, transferred, or subdivided 3 $17,600 I 3. property no longer homestead 4 $19,550 I 4. the City determines that the owner is no longer 5 $20,750 I in hardship category 6 + $22,000 I I I I I - Assessor's estimated market valuation does not exceed $130,000 -assessments Levied or pending prior to ownership by the applicant are not eligible ....----- Edina/ -over 65 -applicant's income must not exceed $15,000 - current policy adopted in 1977 not identified ( I -the first year's installment of the proposed special I - deferred assessment shall bear interest of 1% in assessment must increase the aggregate total of I excess of interest rate for that assessment special assessment payments to more than 2% of applicant's income -City Council may consider exceptional and unusual circumstances if applicant not covered by above I I standards ----------------- I ----------------- I ----------------------------------------------- ------- --- i � Fridley/ I -over 65 I -The City Council considers each application on an I - current policy adopted in 1981 Sidney Inman I I individual basis. (The general policy is to grant I - deferral terminates when: deferment when annual payment for the special I 1. owner dies and spouse is not qualified assessment exceeds 2% of the adjusted gross income I 2. property is sold, transferred, or subdivided from Federal Income Tax.) I 3. property no longer homestead 4. the City Council decides that further deferments are not in the public interest I..::..�........ I Golden Valley/ I -no policy Lowell Odland I I I I ................. I ----------------- I --------------------------------------------------- ------ I -------------------------------------------- ------------- I Maple Grove/ I -no policy Gerald Butcher � ................. I ----------------- I ---•-•-•--•-•--•------•----•------------- -------------------- -- •----- •----- .-- ..---- .• - -•- • - -- . -_.... CITY /CONTACT ELIGIBILITY I QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS I PARTICULARS ------- --------- - i PP policy ---- --------- -------- ----- --- ------ Y Minnetonka/ - retired due -applicant's income must not exceed $13,500 - current adopted in 1984 to age (actual - certification may be made at any time following the age is not adoption of the assessment roll by the City Council specified -deferment of an assessment may not exceed 15 years - retired as a result of permanent and total disability ----------------- I ----------------- I New Brighton/ -over 65 -average annual payments for all assessments levied - current policy adopted in 1977 Les Proper against the subject property exceeds 1% of adjusted - deferral terminates and all amounts accruing plus gross income interest are due when: 1. owner dies and spouse is not qualified 2. property is sold, transferred or subdivided 3. Loss of homestead status 4. the City council determines that no hardship exists ---- ------------- ----------------- North St. Paul/ -over 65 -income of all owners does not exceed $11 - current policy adopted in 1981 Judy Auger -other persons determined ' qualified by the City Council -------- --- ---- -• - ---- ------ - - - - -- --------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- Plymouth/ -over 65 - Owners gross income does not exceed $13,500 for a one -current policy adopted in 1983 Fred person household. Add $1,000 to qualifying income for -interest on deferred assessments shall cease to accrue each additional person. on the original date for final payment of the - property does not exceed 1 acre unless property is special assessment not subdivideable - ---------------- --------- ---------------------- Richfield/ -over 65 -gross household income does not exceed $11,000 - current policy adopted in 1981 Mike Eastling - permanent and ( -City Council may consider exceptional and unusual total circumstances if applicant not covered by above disability standard I ................ �------- --- - ----- -----.---.---.--._--.-.-- -•.--- -•-----•- •-----•- • -- --•- ------------------------------------------ .I - ------ - - ---- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- • - - - - -- ------------------ CITY /CONTACT I ELIGIBILITY I QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS I PARTICULARS I -- ----------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- Roseville/ I -over 65 I - average annual assessments levied after July 27, 1981 I - current policy adopted in 1981 Charles Honchelll -permanent and I exceeds 1% of adjusted gross income (income 1, not I - deferment terminates when: I total I include Social Security, Retirement incomes, I 1. owner dies and surviving owner does not qualify I I disability I Disability, Workers Compensation) I 2. request of property owner I I I 3. propery is sold, transferred or subdivided 4. the City determines that no hardship exists I I ----------------- '----------------- I--------------------------------------------------------- I--------------------------------------------------------- I St. Cloud/ -low income -percent credit toward special assessment based upon I - current policy adopted in 1984 I Steve Gaetz I I HUD income guidelines I - percent formula is: I I I - retirement credit for adjusted income is $4,500 I HUD Adjusted I I ( for retired single owner and $7,200 for retired I Income (minus) Income X 100 I married owner I Guideline I I I --------------------------------------------- I I HUD I I INCOME I I GUIDELINE -- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- I St. Louis Park / I over 65 I -total household income must be Less than $10,500 - current policy adopted in 1980 I B. Stepnick I I I I ----------------- I--- ----- --------- I---- -- - --- -- ---------- ----- ------------ ----- --- - --- -- I ------------------------ --- --- -------- --- -- ----- - - - - --- I CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2/26/90 Agenda Item Number %C REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: ALTERNATE FUNDING SOURCES FOR PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS (REPORT FROM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT) *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP IRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes The attached report prepared by Public Works Coordinator Diane Spector identifies a number of alternative funding options for public works projects • and programs which warrant consideration and discussion. It is recommended that the City Council discuss this report at the February 26 Council meeting and provide staff with direction regarding those options which the Council believes warrant more detailed consideration. The adoption of one or more of these options could have a dramatic impact on the City's 1991 budget considerations. Council Action Required • Review the options discussed in the report. Each has advantages and disadvantages. Some have a specific purpose, while others are more general. • Discuss the alternatives in light of budget considerations and directions you may wish to take regarding capital improvements in general. • Identify options which could be pursued. • Provide staff with specific directives concerning what types of improvements should be considered for inclusion in the financing alternates; what plans should be developed; and when these should be brought to the Council for further consideration. 1 February 19, 1990 TO: Sy Knapp FROM: Diane Spector SUBJ: Funding Options for Public Works Improvements and Programs The keyword in municipal financing of capital improvements in the 1990's will be "creativity." Many municipalities are developing multiple sources of funding, especially user fees, and will be relying on revenue from a mix of sources for larger projects. A major reconstruction project might in the future be funded from: water utility, storm sewer utility, an infrastructure replacement reserve, sidewalk improvement district, watershed management district, state aid, and special assessment revenues. When complete, maintenance of the area might be funded from the various utilities, the general fund, and from other user charges. For developing areas, development impact fees, subdivision extractions, and tax increment financing might be added to the mix. This report describes several options for the financing of public works improvements, with an emphasis on the funding of storm sewer improvements. One option, storm water utilities, includes a rough estimate of revenue which could potentially be raised in Brooklyn Center. The discussion is presented in two sections: specific public works options, and general financing options. I. SPECIFIC PUBLIC WORKS OPTIONS The Minnesota statutes provide authority for several different funding mechanisms for public works improvements. Some of these options have the advantage of being exempt from property tax levy limits. Option 1 -A: Storm Sewer Utility A storm sewer utility may be established under the authority of S. 444.075(1)(a)(iii), MS. Municipalities are allowed to create a storm sewer utility to: — build, construct, reconstruct, repair, enlarge, improve, or in any other manner obtain storm sewer systems, including mains, holding areas and ponds, and other appurtenances and related facilities for the disposal of storm water,..., and maintain and operate the facilities ... Municipalities may finance the above activities by collecting user fees or by issuing general obligation bonds, which may be paid from net revenues derived from water or sewer charges, special assessments, or from real estate tax revenues. Tax revenues may only be used when the other sources are insufficient to meet obligations. User charges must be as nearly as possible proportionate to the cost of furnishing he service, or on some other equitable g � q basis. The charges may recover the costs of the "...establishment, operation, maintenance, depreciation, and necessary replacements of the system, and of improvements, enlargements, and extensions necessary..." Many storm sewer utilities base user charges on the anticipated relative contribution of storm drainage runoff volumes to the storm water drainage system. A parcel's contribution is determined by its size and its land use, under the principle that more intensively developed land uses typically have a larger percentage of impervious surface and contribute a greater volume of water and /or sediment and nutrient loadings into the system. The user charges generally establish a rate for each type of land use, with the charge based on parcel size. Some parcels, due to their unique topographic, vegetative, geologic, or other characteristics, may contribute more or less heavily than other parcels with the same land use, thus most utilities allow for adjustments to be made to the user fee. However, the municipalities surveyed reported no petitions to reconsider the charges established by the utility. Advantages and Disadvantages The advantages of a storm sewer utility to fund storm sewer maintenance and improvements are several. • It can provide for a comprehensive approach. Through a funding mechanism of user charges and /or special assessments, the municipality may address all aspects of its watershed or local water management plan. o Because of this tie to the local water management plan, the utility mechanism encourages long -range planning. • This funding mechanism is especially useful to municipalities which are developed, which have fewer large capital projects and more repair and maintenance projects, and which may have fully assessed residents for installation of the system. Fridley funds primarily maintenance through its utility, while Robbinsdale funds both maintenance and reconstruction. Roseville funds improvements which provide systemwide benefits, or which have already been fully assessed. • It is equitable, as the charges must relate to the property's proportionate contribution to the problem. • As a user fee, it can capture revenue from tax - exempt properties. • Costs are not included in the yearly tax levy, so utility funding is not perceived as a tax increase. In some cases the utility mechanism may 2 result in a tax decrease, or at least reduce the need for a tax increase, as the costs of maintaining the system are transferred from the levy to the utility. Y • As a user fee, its funding is exempted from tax levy limits. • Since most municipalities already have a water utility in place, the day to day administration of the system may simply piggyback on its administrative structure, reducing administrative costs. • While the municipality must consider the establishment or modification of rates in a public hearing, this need be done only when rates need to be adjusted. No public hearings approving n expenditure from the utilit g P y fund need be held • The utility fees provide a stable, reliable source of revenue which, again, encourages long -range planning. There are some disadvantages to the utility concept. • Some time investment is needed to clarify for the public the nature of storm management and magnitude of the benefits it can bring. Cincinnati, Ohio found that that link was best made at neighborhood meetings, where known neighborhood trouble spots and proposed improvements could be placed in the context of the water management lan. B seeing how their P Y g neighborhood g could benefit from the local water management plan, the residents felt more comfortable with the plan, and thus the utility. • The user charge is et another cost added g Y to the utility bill. • Utility charges are not deductible from gross income for individual income tax computations. • There can be substantial administrative costs to establish the utility. Since all properties must be charged equitably, all properties must initially be investigated and a determination made as to their relative contribution to the problem. However, after the set -up the administrative requirements are minimal. • Residents are more accustomed to user fees based on their consumption or production of something more personal, such as water or sanitary sewer user fees, electricity and natural gas charges, etc., rather than a fee relating to their property's ability to drain storm water. • Relative contribution is not an easy concept to grasp. It is not easily measurable or meterable. A great many factors contribute to the ability to infiltrate stormwater, and many of these are expressed and measured in engineering terms. Property owners may believe that they are not knowledgeable enough to evaluate the equity of their charge. o Many municipalities avoid some controversy by mandating that all single family parcels be charged a single rate. However, there will always be 3 property owners who believe that treating all these properties alike still leaves some owners unfairly treated. Examples from the Metro Area Stormwater management utilities have become increasingly common across the country. The municipalities in the Metro area which have implemented storm sewer utilities have primarily used the "Roseville model." This extensive study, done in 1985, distinguishes several different types of property use, and, using several formulas calculates an average residential equivalency factor for each. These uses are: single and double family, parks, cemeteries, schools, multiple family residential, churches, government buildings, commercial and industrial properties, and vacant land. Single and double family properties are assigned a factor of one, with other land uses being expressed as a fraction or multiple. Single and double family properties are charged per parcel, while other land uses are charged per acre. Using this model, and those cities' average charges, a very rough estimate of the amount of annual revenue Brooklyn Center could raise is detailed in Table 1. TABLE 1 Preliminary Estimate of Area By Land Use Estimate of Annual Revenue Using Representative Quarterly Charges City of Brooklyn Center Quarterly Total Average Average Area Area Charge Annual Total Area Quarterly Land Use REF* (sf) (acre) Per Acre Revenue Parcels (Acres) Charge -- --------- - - - - -- --- ----- --- ----- ---- -- -- -- ------------------------------------------------------ Cemetery .25 392,000 8.999 $3.25 $116.99 1 8.999 $29.25 Golf Course .25 763,780 17.534 3.25 227.94 12 1.461 4.75 Parks .75 15,598,946 358.103 9.75 13,966.00 38 9.424 91.88 Single /Double Family 1.00 82,993,994 1,905.280 4.35 1lot 128,272.80 7372 0.258 4.35 Schools 1.25 4,405,089 101.127 16.25 6,573.25 7 14.447 234.76 Multiple Family 2.50 10,302,532 236.514 32.50 30,746.77 773 0.306 9.94 Churches 2.50 2,695,201 61.873 32.50 8,043.53 27 2.292 74.48 Govt Bldgs 6 Comm Ctr 5.00 3,469,635 79.652 32.50 10,354.74 16 4.978 161.79 Commercial 5.00 10,593,925 243.203 65.00 63,232.79 128 1.900 123.50 Industrial 5.00 9,903,663 227.357 65.00 59,112.77 63 3.609 234.57 Vacant As assigned 0.000 As assigned Sngl /Dbl Family 1,549,104 35.563 4.351lot. 378.45 87 0.409 4.35 Multiple Family 2,271,732 52.152 9.75 2,033.92 44 1.185 11.56 Commercial 2,333,785 53.576 9.75 2,089.48 25 2.143 20.89 Industrial 3,492,048 80.166 9.75 3,126.49 24 3.340 32.57 Open Space 47,700 1.095 9.75 42.71 2 0.548 5.34 ----------------------- TOTAL 150,813,134 3,462.193 $328,318.63 8,619 $9.52 Less vacant land 9,694,369 222.552 7,671.04 182 ------------------------- - -- --- --------- ---- - - -- -- ----- -- -- -- TOTAL 141,118,765 3,239.641 $320,647.58 8,437 $9.50 * Residential Equivalency Factor. NOTE Initial summary. The area of just less than one percent of parcels was estimated. "Vacant land" may include some streets. ets. 4 Several municipalities in the metro area have implemented this type of mechanism: Roseville, Robbinsdale, Richfield, Fridley, and Edina are just some. The metro area municipalities surveyed reported few complaints from residents. Fridley prepared but did not send a flier to residents announcing the utility. When residents received their first utility bill including the storm water fee, the city received 30 -50 calls, mostly from seniors and businesses. Robbinsdale staff conducted cable TV discussions, and had few complaints from the public. A majority of municipal parcels are single or double family residential, for which the quarterly charge is modest; the small charge is generally not considered a hardship. Option I -B: Storm Sewer Improvement District A storm sewer improvement district may be established by ordinance under the authority of S. 444.17, MS. Municipalities may "...acquire, construct, reconstruct, extend, maintain, and otherwise improve storm sewer systems and related facilities within the district." These activities are financed through a tax levy on all taxable property in the district. The procedures mandated for levying special assessments (e.g., mailed notice, public hearings) apply whenever an improvement is considered and when a levy is to be certified. The district may be as small as the municipal council wishes, or it may encompass the entire municipality. The advantages of storm sewer improvement districts are: • This is an ad valorem special levy, which is not subject to levy limits. • There is no municipal administrative operating cost beyond establishing the levy and certifying it to the county. • The revenue may support maintenance and other costs as well as capital improvements. • It is a good source of revenue for developing cities which need to maintain existing improvements while constructing additional improvements. • The municipality may issue general obligation bonds to finance the construction of capital improvements, and finance them through the tax proceeds. There are some disadvantages to storm sewer districts: • It is an ad valorum tax, levied on the basis of property value rather than system impact. • The larger the district, the more burdensome the special assessment procedures become. Any time an improvement is to be made, all properties affected must be notified by mail, and public hearings must be held. A 5 district encompassing an entire municipality may incur significant administrative expenses meeting this obligation. o This mechanism is primarily focussed on capital improvements, although it does allow for maintenance. It works best when it is a small district in a developing area, spreading the cost of constructing (or reconstructing) improvements to an area to the properties in that area. Option I -C: Watershed Management Tax Districts A municipality may under the authority of S. 473.882, MS, establish by ordinance a watershed management tax district within a watershed to pay: district planning, administrative, and operating costs; the capital costs of the water management facilities described in the capital improvement program of its approved local water management plan; and the cost of normal and routine maintenance of the facilities. Among the advantages of these districts are: • This is a good method for recovering the cost of participation in a watershed district, and for paying the cost of preparing the required plans. • The municipality may levy a tax on the taxable property of the district to pay the above costs; this levy is exempt from levy limitations. • The district may levy a tax for the payment of principle and interest on bonded indebtedness; this indebtedness is not included in the municipality's net indebtedness. • Because this is a tax, it is a deductible expense on individual income taxes. • The taxes levied are not subject to redistribution under the Metropolitan Fiscal Disparities Act. However, there are some disadvantages: • This does establish a new special taxing district, which is a separate line item on the property tax bill. This may be unpopular with taxpayers, who see yet more taxes and another taxing authority. • The levy limit exemption for capital improvements applies only if the district and the municipality have an approved and adopted watershed management plan and local water management plan. • Funds may only be used for the purposes specified in those management plans. 6 The city of Fridley does levy a tax in its minor watersheds for administrative and operating costs, but has not used this mechanism for capital costs. Option I -D: Infrastructure Replacement Reserve Fund A municipal governing body may, after holding a public hearing on the question, establish an infrastructure replacement reserve fund. This reserve fund may be used to finance the replacement of streets, bridges, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, trees, and storm sewers. When a tax is proposed to be levied for this fund, city residents are given the option of requesting by petition that the levy be considered by referendum vote in a regular or special election. The principle advantage of this mechanism is that it can be used to finance a variety of improvements. However, since the funds may only be used to replace existing infrastructure, this is an advantage only to developed cities, especially those which are establishing or have established a program of street reconstruction. A tax levied for this fund is subject to the property tax levy limitations. Robbinsdale has established an Infrastructure Fund to help fund improvements to streets, curbs, and gutters. It is also a source to help fund improvements to "hard to assess" alleys. Street permit fees are deposited into this fund, as is the city's state aid maintenance allocation. No tax has been levied, but it may be in the future, especially if levy limitations are lifted. Roseville finances its street overlay program through its infrastructure fund. it levies a tax totalling about $100,000 annually. Option I -E: Subdivision Extractions Subdivision extractions can take several forms. In general, they are development costs and other fees charged developers for the infrastructure improvements made to or for a development. These extractions can be agreements executed between a developer and the city in which the developer promises to make particular improvements, at his own expense, to the property being developed. The extractions can also be: special assessments to pay the costs of construction; utility hookup fees to pay the property's share of the cost of installation of water and sewer service to the area; or an agreement to pay a share of the costs for future installation of, for example, a traffic control signal system needed as a direct result of development. In most cases, subdivision extractions are charged solely for on -site improvements, or for improvements immediately off -site installed solely to benefit the development, such as the construction of a turn lane. Subdivision extractions cannot capture the costs of, for example, construction of a new city well required due to increased water demand from a new subdivision. 7 _Option I -F: Development Impact Fees Impact fees and subdivision extractions are terms which are somewhat interchangeable. Subdivision extractions are one type of impact fee. More broadly, impact fees are designed to capture the costs of the impact a new development has on the area or even on the entire municipality. Impact fees are used extensively in states such as California and Florida, which are low property tax and high growth, and in several large urban areas around the country. In Minnesota, SAC fees can be considered as a type of impact fee. IN Brooklyn Center, utility hookup fees can be seen as a type of impact fee. They are designed to capture the property's fair share of the cost of bringing utility service to the area', which may have been deferred becaue the property was not fully developed. As with subdivision extractions, impact fees can take several forms. An impact fee may require a developer to dedicate a certain amount of land per acre for park purposes. Or, an impact fee may charge the developer with the incremental cost of upgrading the size of a water main serving the development. Some impact fees are road maintenance charges based on traffic generated by a new development. Impact fees are regulatory tools often implemented under the statutes enabling municipalities with broad police powers to promote and protect the public health, safety, and welfare. They provide a mechanism for municipalities to recover the costs of upgrading public facilities which have become inadequate due to development. Impact fees have been recognized by the courts as valid if they are implemented to assure the provision of adequate facilities and services; impact fees may not be used simply as a way of raising revenue to expand fac p facilities. Case law has held that municipalities must, have statutory authority; demonstrate that the fee is proportional and is a fair share of costs; demonstrate that expansion of existing facilities and services are necessary and caused by new development; and use the fees for their intended purpose. To be fair, impact fees may only be charged for the incremental cost of increased services, and may not be used to correct other deficiencies. For example, a development might require improvements to a sanitary sewer system, and the municipality might decide to take advantage of construction increasing system capacity to redesign the system to eliminate safety problems. The impact fee may only recover the cost of increasing capacity, as calculated prior to the system redesign. Case law suggests that impact fees may be held invalid if the municipality does not have the appropriate planning studies and standards corroborating the effect of development on infrastructure capacity. Chapter 462, Minnesota Statutes, does provide municipalities in Minnesota with broad police powers to plan and regulate development. Planners at the Metropolitan Council are aware of at least half a dozen cities in Minnesota which have required some type of impact fee. Because there is no explicit 8 authority in the statutes for these fees, they believe that there may be more municipalities which use the mechanism, but which do not advertise the fact. While case law has upheld the validity of properly structured impact fees, they are unpopular with developers. Option I -G: Municipal State Aid Maintenance Allotments Municipalities are allowed to take up to 25 percent of their annual municipal state aid allocation for road construction as a "maintenance allotment." In 1990, Brooklyn Center's maintenance allotment of $31,950 represented just over four percent of its total allocation of $763,097; the remainder was its "construction allotment. ". ' While increasing the maintenance allotment percentage provides more funding for maintenance activities, it does have other effects. Regulations state that a municipality having a state aid balance in excess of twice its annual construction allotment will be penalized if it does not encumber the excess within a certain amount of time. Taking a larger proportion of the total allocation as a maintenance allotment reduces the size of the city's construction allotment. As the construction allotment decreases, the allowable fund balance decreases, and the city must spend its state aid funds at a faster rate. If it does not plan carefully, a city may lose construction funds by increasing its maintenance allotment. As noted earlier, Robbinsdale deposits its maintenance allocation in its Infrastructure Fund. II. GENERAL FUNDING OPTIONS Other funding options that a municipality may consider for financing public works improvements include lease - purchase agreements, installment purchasing, tax increment financing, and privatization. In general, these mechanisms are less useful than the mechanisms described in the previous section, and municipalities may be able to develop less restrictive options through their own internal borrowing procedures. Option II -A: Lease - Purchase Agreements Lease - purchase financing allows municipalities to finance an improvement while avoiding the debt issuance provisions of the Minnesota statutes. Typically, a third party would issue debt to finance a project, then would lease the facility to the municipality. The municipality negotiates a renewable annual lease, and pledges financing on an annual basis. The third party uses the lease payments to make debt payments; when the debt is retired, the facility is purchased by the municipality for a nominal fee. There is no binding, long -term commitment, and a municipality entering into such a lease does not 9 pledge its full faith and credit or unlimited taxing authority. The annually appropriated lease is not subject to debt limit, structuring, or referendum requirements. This type of mechanism does have disadvantages. • Unlike general obligation bonds, a levy made to make lease payments is subject to levy limitations. The municipality must be certain that it will have both current and future ability to include a levy for this purpose within its limits. • These types of agreements are not suitable for all types of facilities. State law requires that tax - exempt leases be subject to annual appropriation, meaning the city must have the right to abandon the project and walk away from the lease on an annual basis. To successfully negotiate a lease - purchase agreement, there must be assurance that the municipality will continue to appropriate funds to make the lease payments. Thus the types of projects that are most suitable are those which are of high priority and which are essential, for example, City Halls, fire stations, major equipment, water towers, and infrastructure. Non - essential projects such as community centers and swimming pools would not be good candidates for this type of arrangement. o This type of lease is complex and may take longer to arrange. o The cost to the municipality may be greater or less than traditional financing, depending on a number of factors. The less secure financing may result in higher interest rates. Also, a debt service reserve fund may be needed as additional security. Option II -B: Installment Purchase Financing Like annually appropriated leases, installment purchase financing involves a third -party vendor which arranges for the financing of the project. At the end of an agreed term, the municipality purchases the project from that vendor. This type of financing, again, avoids the bonded indebtedness provisions of the statutes. Unlike leasing, installment purchase contracts need not be subject to annual appropriation; however, funding raised to make payments on an installment contract is subject to levy limitations. There are advantages to this method of financing. First, by obligating the municipality to make payments over the life of the contract, less essential projects such as swimming pools and community centers, not feasible under lease - purchase arrangements, now become feasible. Virtually all types of projects can be financed in this way. Second, the third party vendor may be the city's HRA or EDA, which issues revenue bonds to finance the project. The 10 taxes then levied to make payments to HRA /EDA are taxes used to make principle and interest payments on governmentally- issued bonds, and the levy is then not subject to levy limitations. Any projects undertaken by an HRA or EDA must have some relationship to promoting adequate housing or encouraging or promoting commercial or industrial development in the community. Since many projects can be shown to be of benefit to the business climate or to enhance the quality of life, many projects may be funded by HRA /EDA. This type of financing might be useful to consider in conjunction with a housing redevelopment plan. If, for example, a district of the city were to be designated as a housing redevelopment area, it might be appropriate to make capital improvements in conjunction with any housing improvements. These would have the overall purpose of rehabilitating existing housing and increasing infrastructure service and safety, while increasing the attractiveness of the district. Option II -C• Tax Increment Financing Tax increment financing may be used to fund infrastructure or other improvements within a tax increment district and in accordance with a tax increment financing plan. Such a district may be established for redevelopment or for housing or economic development. The tax increment financing mechanism is as follows. An assessed value of the property within the district is certified at the time the district is established. As time goes by, and especially as development proceeds, the value of the properties increases; at any time the difference between the district's current value and its initial value is called the increment. At certification time, the increment is excluded from the taxable value of local taxing districts for the calculation of mill rates; then, the extension of the mill rates against the increment in value results in the tax increment. This tax increment is used to finance the improvements. Municipalities may pledge tax increment revenues to finance general obligation bonds. The primary disadvantage of tax increment financing is that the district must meet certain requirements as to composition and redevelopment need, and any improvements must be expressly for redevelopment or housing or economic development. Thus an area which requires infrastructure improvements prior to construction of a housing project may be eligible for tax increment financing, but a general street reconstruction project may not be eligible. Thus, unless a substantial portion of the city meets the TID qualification requirements, and any capital projects to be undertaken are related to development or redevelopment, tax increment financing would not be suitable for comprehensive capital improvement programs. 11 Option II -D: Internal Borrowing Municipalities generally maintain, within their statutory authority, a number of funds. Some may be reserve funds, some capital improvement funds, others specialized funds such as Brooklyn Center's "local" state aid fund. Within certain constraints, some improvement projects may be financed through funds "borrowed" from these reserve funds. As an example, a golf course may be constructed from internally borrowed funds; user fees would then amortize the financing. As another example, an improvement financed by special assessments would borrow financing from an internal source; as special assessments were collected, that debt would be paid. This type of financing is generally only suitable when the improvement can pay back the costs of this internal borrowing. Thus, a program revenue - generating enterprise such as a golf course, community center, municipal pool, or liquor store would be suitable candidates. Also, improvements funded by state aid, special assessments, EDA /HRA, and federal funds internally borrow until costs are reimbursed. Option II -E: Privatization Privatization has been utilized by all levels of government as a means to provide services more efficiently and effectively. "Contracting out" has been used to provide waste management, security, and social services. Northrup operates and manage several military bases, including the Top Gun program. Other services range from waste water treatment, road maintenance, and fleet management to police and fire services and operation of prisons. A survey, conducted by Touche Ross, the International City Management Association, and the Privatization Council and recently reported in American City and County indicated that 99 percent of respondents in cities of 5,000 or more and counties of 25,000 or more had contracted out at least one service. More than 80 percent said that by doing so they saved 10 -40 percent of the cost of doing the service themselves. The most common services privatized were: solid waste disposal (59 percent), vehicle towing (45), and building and grounds maintenance (43). Brooklyn Center contracts out a number of services, including some buildings and grounds maintenance, some vehicle maintenance, large -scale data processing, and recycling. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 eliminated many of the investment deductions which made sale of government assets to the private sector attractive. However, through a variety of mechanisms which spread out liability and financing, many municipalities continue to turn over various functions to private business. Among the advantages of privatization: o It can take advantage of private sector flexibility, innovation, and efficiency. Municipalities may hire firms with specific expertise that they simply cannot afford to develop in house. 12 o It can reduce the need to incur debt, and can provide a mechanism for municipalities which have reached their debt limitations. o The procurement process can often be sped up, and bureaucratic requirements can be reduced or eliminated. o It provides municipalities with a flexible process for meeting short -term needs. It can reduce the need to purchase costly equipment, or to invest in a facility that may no longer be needed long before financing is complete. However, there are disadvantages. • While some private firms may provide service more cheaply and efficiently, other contracts may in the end be more costly and result in a reduced quality of service. A private firm may cut corners to increase profitability. • There is most likely not a private market for all services. It may not be easy to find a private firm willing to manage or operate the precise service that the municipality wishes to contract out. • The Association of Federal, State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) has long opposed privatization, arguing that cost savings are often exaggerated. The union also expresses concern that privatization may be used simply to avoid personnel or bureaucratic problems. o Certain responsibilities have been specifically accorded to government - defense, justice, education. Checks and balances have been developed to assure that these important functions are conducted for the public benefit. Privatization which has not been properly structured can compromise the public trust. III. SUMMARY A number of funding and financing options have been presented in this discussion paper. It is clear that many of these options cannot be adopted without a capital improvement plan, or at the very least a comprehensive plan outlining intended use. Many of the specific public works options must be established by ordinance, necessitating a hearing process. Brooklyn Center has an approved Comprehensive Plan, and both the two watersheds which encompass parts of the city have approved Watershed Management plans. However, the capital projects plans outlined in both Comprehensive Plan and the Watershed Management Plans are limited and generalized. Other plans, some more detailed, exist in different formats and for different reasons. The Metropolitan Surface Water Management statutes require the City to have an approved Local Water Management Plan, which includes a proposed capital projects section. The statutory exemption from 13 real estate levy limitations for taxes levied to finance storm water capital projects applies only to projects conforming to an approved local water plan. As noted at the beginning of this discussion, capital improvement projects will increasingly be funded from several sources. The most useful mechanism in the short run is a storm sewer utility; it can easily be implemented and can quickly begin to generate revenues that can be used to finance maintenance, administration, and capital projects. The council may wish to consider establishing a storm sewer utility to finance maintenance and small projects while it prepares a comprehensive, long -range capital projects plan, a subset of which would be the required Local Water Management Plan. Additionally, the Council may wish to establish Watershed Management Tax Districts to pay the costs of developing a Local Water Management Plan. When a long -range capital projects plan is established, the other funding and financing mechanisms discussed here may be evaluated as to their usefulness in meeting long -term capital improvement needs. The needs of all city services, such as housing redevelopment, parks, and public facilities, and potential funding sources should be integrated within this comprehensive capital projects plan. Respectfully submitted, Diane Spector Public Works Coordinator 14 O�� 2 Minnesota Department of Transportation n Metropolitan District Transportation Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 OF TRAM Oakdale Office, 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota 55128 Golden Valley Office, 2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 Reply to January 30, 1990 Telephone No. 593 -8405 Honorable Dean Nyquist Mayor of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 RE: S.P. 2735 -148 (T.H. 100) 29th Ave. No. to 50th Ave. No. Dear Mayor Nyquist: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN /DOT) has contracted with the consulting engineering firm of Barton - Aschman Associates to prepare preliminary plans and environmental documentation relative to the upgrading of Trunk Highway 100. The primary component of this project is the construction of interchanges at 36th Avenue North and C.S.A.H. 81. As part of the project development process a Citizens Advisory Committee will be formed to provide input and oversight to the project. The Citizens Advisory Committee will consist of representatives from Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Golden Valley, and Robbinsdale, as well as the MN /DOT project manager, and a member of the Barton - Aschman firm. We request that you appoint two members to represent your community to this committee. The committee will hold regular meetings to keep informed of the progress and provide input to the project development. Please direct all inquires relative to this project to MN /DOT's preliminary design project manager, Mr. Steve Hay, at 593 -8535. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, ames T. Povich ssistant District Engineer MINNESOTA 1990. An Equal Opportunity Employer Memorandum To: City Managers/Senior Staff g From: Joseph D. Strauss Subject. Tax Increment Financing/SF 1760 Legislative Hearing Update The Senate Economic Development Committee heard Senator Reichgott's TIF bill on Monday, February 19th, 1990. The following is a brief summary of some of the testimony that was presented. All testimony given was in opposition to the proposed bill as drafted. The chairman, Senator Don Frank - a co- author - stated that Senator Reichgott has been working hard on trying to find ways to accommodate the concerns that have been raised to date. Senator Reichgott commented that it was her intention to continue to accept amendments this week in order to get the bill in shape for a vote next Monday. Senator Frank announced that the bill would have another hearing on Monday, February 26th, 1990, at 12:00 P.M., and that a vote would be taken at that time. Generally, all of the testimony given clearly called the bill unacceptable. In fact must commented that the bill was in fact a "repealer" not a compromise approach to tightening up TIF. There were a number of good points made with respect to the value of TIF as the only tool that cities have to address their responsibilities in redevelopment, housing, job creation, tart base shaping and economic development. The specific sections that most people commented on were (1) the unacceptable creation of the joint review board, (2) the inappropriateness of the zoning language, (3) inability to comply with the new suggested "direct benefit test ", and (4) the unfairness of the 10% cap feature triggering the review board. A good bit of the testimony came from smaller rural cities. Their position was that the bill, as drafted, would close down TIF as a tool for them completely. They referenced a number of very good examples where TIF was used to help revitalize their communities. The committee was generally very supportive of these kinds of projects. One of the biggest sticking paints for various members of the committee seemed to be the prevailing wage issue. The Republicans appear to have focused their concerns on this element of the bill Labor has taken an active stand in opposition to the bill and is lobbying hard to defeat it in committee. (Both the Teamsters and AFL -CIS} organizations.) Senator Reichgott promised to have a final draft with amendments available by late Friday. As soon as the bill is available we will fax same to your attention. ** TOTAL PAGE. 02 ** HOUSE RESEARCH Bill Summar H. F. 1669 Delete Everything Amendment (DW103E) S. F. SUBJECT Housing Loans AUTHORS Nforrison, Paulv, Schreiber, O'Connor, Osthoff COMMITTEE Financial Institutions and Housing ANALYST Doug Wilson, 296 -9253 DATE February 13 ,1990 OVERVIEW This bill limits the use of public single family housing loans made by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and local housing authorities so that loans are restricted to the purchase of existing or previously owned single housing during the first S months in which the financing is available in the metropolitan area. Exemptions to this restriction include the purchase of new housing that is in a redevelopment area, a property that has been conveyed to a local unit of government through tax forfeiture or where there has been assistance through federal, state, or local sources that increases the affordability of the new housing. SECTION BY SECTION Section 1: [DEFINITIONS] Provides definitions for the limitation in section 2. City is defined as a city, county Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), or a HRA or other local development authority authorized to provide housing programs within a jurisdiction. Existing housing is defined as single famfly housing that has been occupied in the previous,'' zmonths as a person's principle place of residence or a single family unit available for occupancy during the previous 12 months (e.g. house for sale). Metropolitan area is the seven county metropolitan area with the addition of Chisago, Isanti, and Wright counties which are also part of the federally defined Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Redevelopment area is a contiguous area where 70% of the parcels are occupied by buildings or other improvements and at least 25' of the buildings are structurally substandard. �5' j J Single family housing is a dwelling of no more than 4 units where the owner lives in the dwelling as the principle nciit nciple place of residence. Research Department Minnesota House of Representatives 600 State Office Building Bill Summary H. F. 1669 February 13, 1990 Page 2 Section 2: [LIMITATIONS ON SINGLE FAMILY FINANCING] Subdivision 1: [LIMITATION: ORIGINATION PERIOD] Restricts the MHFA and local housing authorities from making single family loans for housing in the metropolitan area other than existing housing during the first 8 months that financing is available through that agency or authority except when the new housing is: a. located in a redevelopment area and the new housing is replacing a structurally substandard structure, b. located on a parcel that a local unit of government has acquired through tax forfeiture, c. or where there has been assistance to "substantially" increase the affordability of the housing. After the initial 8 month period financing is available for new housing in the entire metropolitan area. Subdivision 2: [LIMITATION: COMMITMENTS AND LOANS TO BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS] Restricts the use of loans funded or made available by the MHFA or local housing authority to be used by builders or developers except for the exceptions outlined in subdivision 1 during all periods that the financing is available. Subdivision 3. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.] ( QU REMENT.] Requu•es the MHFA and local housing authorities to annually report to the chairs of the housing related standing committees or divisions of their single housing lending. Research Department Minnesota House of Representatives boo State Office Building League of Minnesota Cities ;1 C Bulleti Number 2 February 16, 1990 Aid cuts, mandates discussedt On February 8, members of the Fiscal stead rely on the state's reserve fund to Relations Subcommittee of Governor deal with the revenue shortfall. MVET cut possible Perpich's Advisory Council on State- The Fiscal Relations Subcommittee Local Relations (ACSLR) approved a discussed the high costs of state man- Late last week rumors began circu- resolution asking Governor Perpich not dates and the harsh impact of possible lating that the Perpich Administration to recommend cuts in property tax relief cuts in LGA and HACA. Cities, coun- and opthers are considering possible sus - programs, such as local government aid ties, school districts, townships, and the pension or reduction in the amount of (LGA) and homestead and agricultural Perpich Administration have represen- the motor vehicle excise tax (MVET is is credit aid (HACA). They urged he in- tatives on the ACSLR. Karen Anderson the sales tax on cars) which goes to See Aid cuts, page 3 finance highway and transit projects. The elimination of the MVET trans - fer would reduce highway funding to trunk highways, and county and munici- pal state -aid systems by over $66 mil- ' o lion in fiscal year 1991 and over $200 >. million over three years. Transit would 2.2 and continue ect,th i on MVETfun of being, Next hearing for pay equity bill Feb. and in effect, the only recipient of MVET funds. The Senate Governmental Opera- urged that the Legislature not act to The dedication of MVET to high - tions Committee will probably recom- change the law until after the 1991 way and transit has been a political foot - mend passage of the pay equity bill (S.F. implementation date. Passage of legisla- ball or over 15 years. The Legislature 488) at its next meeting February 22 at 8 tion in some form seems likely, at least has had a long - standing commitment to a.m., Room 15, Capitol. in the Senate. ully dedicate MVET, but the commit - The committee completed the pub- Concerns from unions about the bill's ment is often first on the chopping block lic testimony portion of its hearings on potential to interfere with collective n austere budget years. the bill February 15. bargaining does not appear to have per- The House Transportation Commit - Frank Boyles, assistant manager in suaded senators to vote against the bill. tee did not take any action but heard Plymouth, and Bill Hunt, assistant man- The League has sent a current version of from roups opposed to any reduction in ager in Fridley, testified on behalf of the the bill to all clerks and managers. the transfer of MVET funds to high - League and the Association of Metro- City officials should call their sena- ways. politan Municipalities. Four city offi- for now to voice their views. JJ Please urge your legislators to op- cials and numerous other local officials See bill pages 131 -134. pose cuts in MVET funds for highways and ransmit. JJ News media to receive bulletin ' The media will receive the League's Cities Bulletin during the 1990 Legislative Session. The purpose of sending the Bulletin to the newspapers, radio, and TV stations is to provide information on issues cities face. The League encourages city officials to contact local reporters, editors, and news directors to provide additional information for follow up stories on the issues affecting cities. We also encourage the media to contact officials in their cities. City officials and news reporters and editors may contact the League for more information on any issue at (612) 227 -5600. The 1990 session began Monday, February 12. The League expects the session to last about eight weeks. DN Printed on recycled paper The Cities Bulletin is a publication of the League of Minnesota Cities and includes an Contents update of state legislative, s administrative, and Page congressional actions that affect Articles cities. It also includes reviews of metropolitan area issues by Aid cuts, mandates discussed .......... ..............................1 the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities. Action Alert- -MVET cut possible . ..............................1 Next hearing for pay equity bill Feb. 22 ....................1 League legislative staff members News media to receive Bulletin ....... ..............................1 are available to answer your TIF bill advancing in Senate ........... ..............................3 questions concerning legislation Ethics proposal gets early hearing ..........................' 5 relating to cities. Bill would create city- county highway dispute process ..............................6 The Bulletin lists League and Public employees insurance not AMM authors of articles and bill mandatory, says commissioner .......................6 summaries by their initials. Newspapers seek reversal of Annandale open meeting case ......................6 Jeannette Bach - -JB Action Alert-- Cigarette vending machine Laurie Behrends - -LB regulations under discussion ..........................7 Chuck Bichler -- CB League issues legal opinion on Gayle Brodt -- GB compensation in kind .... ..............................9 Merideth Chelberg -- MC Federal Update Jean Mehle Goad -- JMG Thomas Grundhoefer -- TG Spending plan will force more local Sarah Hackett -- SH Laurie Fiori Hacking -- LFH belt - tightening ............... ..............................8 Carla Heyl - -CH s -- AH in Conferences ............................................... .............................10 Joel Ann Higgins -- JJ -- Municipal Ads ........................................ .............................11 Andrea Lubov AL Debra Nyberg -- DN Stanley Peskar -- SP Bill Summaries ..................................... .............................12 Roger Peterson -- RP Vern Peterson -- VP Barry Ryan -- BR Donald Slater -- DS ` Peter Tritz -- PT Lynda Woulfe -- LW page 2 Printed on recycted paper LMC Cities Bulletin Aid cuts, continued (Councilmember, Minnetonka) and Pete Governor may target 1991 aid of changes in state mandates that would Solinger (Councilmember, Rochester) Tomlinson explained that the ad- reduce costs for local government. The represent cities. ministration is likely to "aim more at recommendations relating to city man - Pete Solinger authored the resolu- pay 1991 aids," in order to avoid dis- dates included: tion. He advised using the state's rainy rnpting local government financing. "But day reserve fund rather than forcing last I can't say that Pay '90 aids would be ab- * Making no further changes in the local minute reductions in local aid. Solinger solutely untouched, because not every- government pay equity law until after explained that local governments have one agrees on this issue," Tomlinson the December 31, 1991 deadline for already set their levies and are well into cautioned. compliance has passed; their budget cycles. The House Research Department * Amending state law relating to the Warren Rodning, President of the has estimated that the automatic fea- workers' compensation cancer and in- Association of Minnesota Counties, ech- tures of the basic LGA program, if left fectious/communicable disease presump- oed that concern and pointed out that touched, would provide $15.3 million in tions for police, fire, and emergency counties' top priority for the upcoming additional LGA to cities in Pay 1991. personnel; the amendments would re- session is to prevent any losses in aid. Underthe formula, LGA would rise from strict presumptions to apply only after David Fricke, Executive Director of the a funding level of $351.8 million in Pay an employee can establish an absence of Association of Minnesota Townships, 1990 to $367.1 million in Pay 1991. On personal risk factors; warned that further aid cuts will force a statewide basis, the Department of * Changing the state veterans' pref- local governments to explain this aid Revenue forecasts that the new HACA erence law to require veterans to select loss during next year's truth in taxation formula will distribute $56 million in only one hearing procedure and to pro - hearings. additional aid in Pay 1991 and an addi- vide specific time lines for holding hear - Responding to these arguments, As- tional $50 million in Pay 1992. ings and rendering decisions; sistant Revenue Commissioner John Tomlinson stated that rather than * Exempting local government units Tomlinson explained that the $161 mil- proposing a separate package of spend- from the Gopher State one -call excava- lion shortfall in fiscal 1991 will be fol- ing reductions at the end of February, the tion system; and lowed by shortfalls of $410 million in Administration is likely to negotiate with * Relaxing state standards on the fiscal years 1992 and 1993. For this the Legislature on a joint strategy. construction and maintenance of mu- reason, the Administration wants base nicipal state aid roads. a reductions in the first year fiscal 1991 to Costly mandates possible These recommendations on state simultaneously achieve reductions in the mandates along with the subcommit- future. The Fiscal Relations Subcommittee also adopted a resolution recommend- tee's resolution on aid reductions will go ing that the governor consider a number to the full ACSLR for action February 23. LFH TIF bill advancing in Senate Senator Ember Reichgott (DFL -New fled against the legislation. A TIF bill The most serious restrictions in the bill Hope) introduced yet another bill that is expected to be even more restric- are: (S.F.1760) to reform tax increment fi- tive will be introduced in the House next nancing. The Senate Economic Devel- week. * Eliminating the ability to do tax incre- opment and Housing Committee will ment financing in city development dis- vote on the bill on February 19 at noon. The bill, if it becomes law, will seriously tricts; Senator Don Frank (DFL -Spring Lake impair cities' abilities to create new tax Park) is coauthor of the bill. increment financing (TIF) districts. The * Creating a joint review board made up bill is aimed at correcting so- called of city, county, school district, public, At a February 14 hearing on the bill, city "abuses," but it may well make it impos- and state representatives with the au- officials representing the League testi- sible to start any new TIF districts. thority to veto new tax increment proj- See 77F, page 4 February 16, 1990 Printed on recycled paper page 3 77F, continued ects or modifications of existing dis- zoning requirements would make rede- City testimony tricts, if the district was created after velopment impossible if the city had to April 30,1990; change to make redeveloped property Don Schneider, HRA director in Colum- conform to the city's comprehensive plan. bia Heights, and Craig Waldron, eco- * Requiring that proposed uses of prop- nomic development director in Rose - erty in a tax increment financing district The bill states that a structure is "sub- ville, testified for the League of Cities. conform to current zoning ordinances; standard" only when it is not "in compli- ance with the building code applicable Schneider said that Columbia Heights is * Adding some findings to satisfy the to new buildings or could be modified to a city that would be subject to using a "but for" test in redevelopment districts; satisfy the building code at a cost of less review board on all of its future tax and than 25 percent of the cost of construct- increment districts since tax increment ing a new structure of the same square financing districts capture 14.4 percent * Restricting pooling and refunding bonds footage and type on the site." This provi- of the city's tax capacity. issued to finance tax increment projects. sion could add substantial costs to rede- velopment. Cities would need to esti- He explained that in creating the city's The joint review board would need to mate the cost of reconstructing and reha- most recent tax increment financing meet when the city proposes a new dis- bilitating buildings that do not conform district, the county's comments were trict or modifies an existing district in a to the city's comprehensive plan before taken into account, and the school dis - city that would capture more than 10 they could tear them down and construct trict chose not to comment. Schneider percent of its tax capacity in tax incre- buildings that do conform to the plan. said he saw no need for a formal review ment financing districts or when any board. He stressed the importance of affected jurisdiction requests that the The bill specifically prohibits spending waiting to see the effects of the major board meet. A petition signed by 50 increments outside the district that gen- changes in TIF that were made in 1988 people residing in the city could also erated those increments, unless it is and 1989. trigger the review board. possible to show (before any spending is done) that the market value of property Schneider's suggestion was to change Senator Reichgott explained that she in the district generating the "surplus" the provision that a city can't amend a hoped the review board would "...stimu- increments will increase by at least the tax increment financing plan more than late discussion among jurisdictions." The amount of the funds spent in another five years after the district is certified to bill does not contain any provisions that district. After some discussion, Sens. no amendments after five years after would allow cities to resubmit vetoed Reichgott and Frank agreed that such collecting the first increment. As stated districts if they overcome objections. transfers might be appropriate when the in the bill, cities would be able to collect But, Sen. Reichgott said that it is her district receiving funds did not generate increment for two years before being intention to allow cities to resubmit dis- enough tax increment to meet its obliga- prohibited from making changes in a tricts to the review board under these tions. Specific language covering that TIF plan. The committee appeared re- conditions. situation is expected at the committee's ceptive to this suggestion. next hearing on February 19. The provision eliminating further use of Waldron spoke to a number of provi- TIF in city development districts would A number of witnesses testified in favor sions in the bill, including the require - cause particular hardships on smaller of the bill, including Peter Vanderpool ments for declaring a building substan- cities. In pay 1989, the last year for of the Citizens League, John Tomlinson dard. Hiring architects and structural which data are available, 154 Minnesota of the Minnesota Department of Reve- engineers to make these findings could citiesreported using TIFin citydevelop- nue, Jack Keefe of Hennepin County, cost $20,000 per building, he said. He ment districts. Of these, 111 had popula- Tom Triplett of the Minnesota Business asked if a building failed to meet the tions of less than 10,000. Partnership, and Dwayne Mathias of the "substandard" test, did the authors in- Association of Metropolitan School tend for cities to allow the building to The requirement that proposed uses of Districts. continue to deteriorate until it did? Sen. property in TIF districts conform to current Frank asked Waldron to propose some - thing better at the next hearing. AL page 4 Panted on recycled paper LMC Cities Bulletin Ethics proposal gets early hearing The Senate Elections and Ethics Com- with a financial interest in matters that ployees should be able to present the mittee began its review of S.F. 1606 come before the city, if the official or views and concerns of their city to (Marty, DFL- Roseville). The bill would employee deals with those matters in the members of the Legislature. expand state regulation of standards of course of his/ her official duties. conduct and economic interest for pub- Those government employees and pri- lic officials and employees at all levels Many city codes of ethics currently contain vate sector lobbyists whose full -time of government. On February 14, Sena- requirements similar to those in S.F. responsibility involves lobbying activi- tor Marty proposed amendments on 1606. The legislation would require city ties would need to account for expenses lobbyist reporting and disclosure require- officials to: including political contributions. Each ments. individual or association that engages * File a statement of economic interest lobbyists' services would need to dis- The League supports the current legisla- within 60 days of accepting employ- close the amount it paid for the services tion. S.F. 1606 is an extensive revision ment or within 14 days of filing for and the amount each lobbyist spent ind- of Marty's original proposal S.F. 5. The elected office with both the State Ethical luding payments for gifts, contributions, League objected to that bill because of Practices Board and the city; entertainment, and other expenses. The extensive state regulation of economic bill would require reporting of any pay - interest reporting. S.F. 1606 requires * Submit a written or oral statement to ment of $500 or more to a lobbyist. less extensive disclosure. The League the presiding officer (mayor) or the im- also supports provisions establishing a mediate supervisor (in the case of an em- On Tuesday, Senator Marty introduced code of ethical conduct for all govern- ployee) disclosing potential conflicts of an amendment to expand the definition ment officials. interest; of lobbyist to include "time spent moni- toring legislative (or administrative) action The bill would require elected and ap- * Abstain, if possible, from influence and related research, analysis, compila- pointed officials and employees who over the action or decision in question; tion and dissemination of information." make final decisions regarding expendi- That change would subject more people ' ture of public funds to file statements of * If unable to abstain, file a statement to regulations. The new language would economic interest with the city and the decribing the potential conflict and ac- also cover meeting or talking with pub - state Ethical Practices Board. tion taken within a week of the incident lic officials or employees, other lobby - with the Ethical Practices Board. ists, interest groups, and clients. The bill would require the disclosure of: The Legislature is currently focusing on The revision of lobbyist reporting re- * Name, address, occupation, and prin- lobbyist regulations. Senator Marty quirements would require reporting of cipal place of business; maintains that there is an important dis- expenses for advertising, mailings, re- tinction between city officials who oc- search, and public relations campaigns. * Name of each associated business and casionally lobby at the Legislature or nature of that association; state government officials and those who Senator Marty also indicated that he are hired or paid to conduct lobbying on wants lobbyists to report spending whether * All real property in the state (other than behalf of others. S.F. 1606 would ex- those costs were on behalf of one client one's homestead) in which an official empt elected public officials as well as or for the benefit of a group of clients. has direct, indirect, or partnership inter- non- elected officials or employees who The amendment would give the Ethical est of more than $2,500 or an option to lobby less than 50 hours in any month Practices Board authority to conduct purchase property with a fair market from lobbyist reporting and disclosure random audits of lobbyists' records. value of $50,000 or more; requirements. The Senate Elections and Ethics Com- * Source, nature, and approximate value The League concurs with this provision mittee will continue to debate the meas- of gifts worth $50 or more from people and asserts that city officials and em- ure next week. AH February 16, 1990 Printed on recycled paper Page 5 B ill w ould create city - h ighway dispute process County officials have expressed con - then ask the commissioneroftrans rta- The bill would change the composition 1� � cem regarding the ability of cities to tion to convene a review committee which of the CSAH screening board to increase suspend or veto county plans to change would have the authority to resolve the the representation of metropolitan coun- or abandon county state aid highways disputes. ties. Under the proposal metropolitan (CSAH) for a one -year period. They counties would have four members out have proposed H.F.1569 (Alice Johnson, The committee would include a city of seven. DFL -Spring Lake Park) which would councilmember or mayor and a city make changes in county state -aid high- engineer (from the municipal state -aid The League of Minnesota Cities and the way procedures. streets rules committee), a county com- Association of Metropolitan Municipali- missioner and engineer from the CSAH ties have accepted the compromise, sub - The legislation would still allow a city to rules committee, and the state -aid engi- ject to board review. JJ disapprove changes but the county could neer, or their designees. Public employees insurance not mandatory, says commissioner Department of Employee Relations life insurance coverage for eligible public According to Rothchild, the committee Commissioner Nina Rothchild in a letter employees. The plan began operation in expected enrollments to begin slowly. to the Minnesota Association of Small November 1989, with coverage begin- Although mandatory participation was Cities said, "I want to assure you on ning January 1, 1990. suggested as one of many options to con - behalf of the PEEP Labor Management sider when evaluating the plan's mar- Committee that mandatory participation Public employees of school districts, ketability, it was never the intent of the is not an option that we ever intended to cities, townships, and counties are eli- committee to pursue this as a solution to pursue." gible to join. The employer for non- the enrollment issues, Rothchild said. represented employees or the union for JMG PEIP is the Public Employees Insurance union employees decides on whether to Plan, which offers medical, dental, and participate. Newspapers seek reversal of Annandale open meeting case The Minnesota Newspaper Association until all appeal rights lapse, which po- theseemployees, all discussions atcoun- is seeking to have the Legislature pass a tentially allows for permanent sealing of cil meetings have to be in public. Meet - law which requires meetings, even those certain personnel records. ings dealing with non -high or special at which an employee is disciplined or category employees would be in private. discharged, to be open to the public (and The bill would address the issue by the media). adopting a rule that information sup- With regard to other meetings, the bill porting a disciplinary or discharge ac- specifies that meetings could not be closed The House Judiciary Subcommittee on tion would become public after the city to discuss data classified as other than Data Privacy heard H.F. 1836 on Wed- makes its final decision, regardless of public, with limited exceptions. The nesday, February 14. The subcommittee any potential or actual grievance, arbi- exceptions list began growing during the substantially amended and passed the tration, or judicial proceedings. subcommittee hearing and promises to bill sending it to the full Judiciary Com- become longer as the bill progresses mittee. The new rule would only apply to cer- through the Legislature. tain employees such as managers, other One of the rulings in Annandale was that executive -level personnel, law enforce - Because of the short session, the bill information supporting a discipline or ment officers, or employees who deal may be heard before the full Judiciary discharge action would remain private with minors or vulnerable adults. For Committee the week of February 19. JJ page 6 Printed on recycled paper LMC Cities Bulletin Cigarette vending machine regulations under discussion The Legislature will hear a proposal to 'n 1VIi nesota community adopt state -wide regulations on ciga- ordinances to restrict rette vending machines. Senator James Metzen (DFL -South St. Paul) will proba- cigarette vending O bly be one of the bill's authors. machines �\ /// o Under the bill, state statutes would su- persede any rule or ordinance of a local Total bans on cigarette vending unit of government relating to regula- machine sales -- Adopted 4 0 tion of the location of vending machine sales of tobacco. White Bear Lake Chanhassen The bill's regulations are similar to the Kenyon partial ban type of ordinances several Northfield ton communities have passed. The bill would Bloomington What in allow vending machine sales of tobacco St. Louis Park products: St. Cloud the Census * In a factory, business, office, or other Partial restrictions on cigarette for Me? place not open to the general public or vending machine sales -- Adopted minors (18 years of age); or Big Lake * In an on -sale or off -sale liquor store or Blaine bar if the machine is under the close New Brighton observation and control of a responsible Preston employee, not in an outer waiting area or Redwood Falls No one gets paid for answering Shoreview other unmonitored area, and if the ma- chine is inaccessible after hours. The bill Minneapolis the census, but it pays off for everyone. would require that in non -facto or bar St. Paul q non-fact The information your answers locations the machine must work only Duluth provide helps your community by an employee activating an electronic leaders decide where to put day care centers, schools, hospitals, Other cities with ordinances SW1tCh Or by using a to ken, and many more services. And, the under consideration census is used to determine how The bill will be up for a hearing shortly. many seats your state has in the It contrasts with a bill by Sen. Marty Brooklyn Center U.S. House of Representatives so (DFL-- Roseville) which would require Milaca your voice is heard where it counts local licensure of cigarette vending West St. Paul the most. machines. JJ North St. Paul Answer the Census. Brooklyn Park It Counts for More Than You Think! Owatonna CENSUS '90 Golden Valley Austin Worthington February 16, 1990 Pr inted on recycled paper page 7 Fecierai e Spending plan will force more local belt - tightening by Ellen Perlman Too many aspects of President Bush's tt , 1991 budget were tiresomely predict- j ��� 'A able, according to state and local gov- ernment analysts and lobbyists, and many of the "oldies but goodies" are likely to fail again."- " The president's $1.25 trillion budget proposes increases in defense spending, foreign aid, and funding for education ,.: and drugs, but it also cuts into many city- oriented programs, including wastewa- ter construction, public transportation, community block grants and highways. Observers say the repeat appearance of the plan to extend the Medicare payroll "'r`9fA` _. _ -- tax to state and local government em- m� ployees also is unlikely to pass this year. "We've tought that in the past and 1990, have been eliminated in the presi- But a new twist is a proposal to extend had limited success," Mr. Zimmerman dent's budget, but the cut "will not hap - coverage of Social Security to employ- said. "We could get back some of it (the pen," Mr. Shafroth predicted. ees not covered by public employee re- money), but (we'll) take some cut." "It's an election year," Mr. Zim- tirement programs. The wastewater grants program merman said. "Congress will read President Bush's would be slashed to $1.6 billion in fiscal lips and say `no new taxes.' I hope Con- 1991 - -$391 million below the 1990 level And the Economic Development president," said Frank Agency is again slated for extinction, ss will honor the pre of $1.99 billion - -if the president's wishes but most predict it will not die. Shafroth, director of federal relations are carried out. "The EDA is somehow impervious with the National League of Cities, An increase in the tax on airline to slashing, > Mr. Shafroth said of the Washington. tickets to 10% from 8 %, raising between agency's ability to survive despite a Extension of the Medicare and Social $500 million and $1 billion a year through number of proposals to eliminate it. Security taxes would yield $3.8 billion 1995, is another program that will face Funding increases foreducation and for the federal government in fiscal 1991, "tough sledding" in Congress, predicted drugs, the two hot - button issues on the which begins Oct. 1. Mr. Shafroth. political circuit this year, likely will The president's desire to let the mort- "There's an enormous surplus in the survive at their proposed funding amounts, gage revenue bond and small -issue in- Aviation Trust Fund (the federal govern- lobbyists said. Anti -drug funding would dustrial development bond programs ment) refuses to provide to the cities. increase by 12% to $10.6 billion in fiscal expire Sept. 30 also won't be acceptable Why do you need a 25% increase when 1991. Department of Education funding to Congress, several observers predicted. you're not spending what you have ?" he The MRB program had "very solid asked. would rise by 2% to $24.6 billion. support," and the IDB program had Again, federal subsidies for Am- Article and cartoon reprinted with per - "Strong support" last year in Congress, trak, funded at $605 million in fiscal mission of City & State. said Cathy Spain, director of the Wash- ington -based Federal Liaison Center Government Finance Officers Associa- Dying federal urban programs -- a 10 -year analysis tion. Six Senate Finance Committee ($ bits.) Fiscal 1981, Fiscal Real members from both political parties have Fiscal adjusted 1991 percentage Program 1981 for Inflation proposed change introduced legislation t0 permanently Community Development Block Grants 4.0 5.7 2.7 -53% extend the expiring tax provision. urban Development Action Grants 0.4 0.6 0.0 - 100 The proposal to cut sewage treat- General Revenue Sharing 5.1 7.3 0.0 -100 ment grants, made by the self - described Mass transit 3.8 5.4 2.5 -54 Employment and training 5.9 8.4 3.5 -59 environmental president, will tk more Economic Development Administration 0.4 0.6 0.0 -100 ditlicult it) fend off, said Chris Iinllller- lusticc assistanec 0.3 0.4 0.6 +40 man, director of the Federal Budget and Clean water construction 3.8 5.4 1.6 -70 Taxation Committee of the National Con- Total 23.7 33.8 10.9 -68% ference of State Leg Washing - NOTE in focal 1981, sequired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) had not been identified, there were no federal programs providing g g assim me specificall to the homeless and drugs were not considered a major urban problem ton. Sauce: The Federal Budget and the Cities, U.S. Ca ftrom r ojMayors, J=uary 1990. Uage 8 Printed on recycled paper LMC Cities Bulletin League issues legal opinion on compensation in kind This memorandum responds to the At- press terms, all provisions necessary to (1988). The Legislature has provided tomey General's opinion (359b, Octo- effectuate its object and purpose. Sulli- that "the salary of a person employed by ber 24, 1989) that a city or other political van v. Credit River Township, 299 Minn. a statutory or home rule charter city ... subdivision can not provide a car to an 170, 174, 217 N.W.2d 502,505 (1974). may not exceed 95 percent of the salary employee as part of the employee's of the governor as set under section compensation package. The attorney According to Webster's 3rd New Inter- 15A.082." Minn. Stat. A.17, subd. 9 general concluded that Minn. Stat. 1.665 national Dictionary, 1965, "compensate" (1988). (1988) does not prevent a home rule means "to be equivalent to," "to make charter or statutory city from providing proper payment to," "remunerate," and Minn. Stat. A.082, subd. 3 specifically automobiles to its officers or employees "recompense." There is no limitation mentions "salary recommendations," for their personal use. However, the that compensation must be in a mone- while subdivision 4 makes a seemingly attorney general then concluded that a form, rather than in kind. Nor i �Y o s broader statement that m making com- city could not provide this benefit unless there any implication in Section 412.111 pensation recommendations, the coun- it was expressly authorized by statute or that compensation is limited to a straight cil shall consider the amount of compen- charter. salary or a wage, at the exclusion of any sation paid in government service and form of compensation in kind. the private sector to persons with similar Relying solely on its prior opinions, the qualifications, the amount of compensa- attorney general states that without express While the attorney general has long tion needed to attract and retain experi- statutory authority a school board can believed that compensation does not enced and competent persons, and the not provide "in kind" benefits to its su- include in kind benefits, there is no Min- ability of the state to pay the recom- perintendent; there is no case law hold- nesota court case supporting this posi- mended compensation." Minn. Stat. ing that a school district or a city can not tion. Additionally, in looking at other A.082, subd. 4 (1988). provide in kind benefits to its employees statutes on wages, salaries, and compen- as a form of compensation. sation. Pe sation it is apparent t c ompensation, tha pp Salary," as used in subdivisions 1 to 8, as used in Minnesota Statutes is broad (not in subdivision 9, where the salary of According to the attorney general, there enough to include more than just wages the governor is compared with the salary is nothing to prevent a home rule charter or salary. of otherpublic officials), means "hourly, city from implementing a provision to monthly, or annual rate of pay including allow for compensation in the form of Under Chapter 43A of the Minnesota any lump -sum payments...... Minn. Stat. money and an automobile, see Minn. Statutes, dealing with the department of A.17, subd. 1 (1988). Use of "compen- Stat. 0.07 (1988); as long as the salary employee relations, "total compensation" sation" and of "salary" throughout this limitation in Minn. Stat. A. 17, subd. 9 is defined as "salaries, cash, payments section and other sections indicates that is not violated. Salary of a public em- and employee benefits including paid the Legislature may have intended "com- ployee may not exceed 95 percent of the time off, ... and other direct and indirect pensation" to mean something broader salary of the governor. items of compensation ..." Minn. Stat. than "salary." See Fairmont Policeman's A.03, subd. 38 (1988). Under the unem- Benefit Association v. City of Fairmont, The attorney general did not analyze ployment act, wages has been defined as 437 N.W.2d 757, 759 (Minn. Ct. App. Minn. Stat. 2.111(1988) which provides "all remuneration for services,... and the 1989) comparing "prevailing wage rate," that the city council may "fix the com- cash value of all remuneration in any "prevailing pay" and "monthly base pay ". pensation of p all officers.' The attorney medium other than cash..." Minn. Stat. general has taken a very narrow inter- 8.04, subd 25 (1988). Additionally, the While the attorney general believes h Y y g that pretation of the word "compensation," use of a car by an employee for personal compensation means only monetary so that it excludes anything other than reasons is income for the purposes of payments; the opinion cites no Minne- straight wages or salary. income tax under Minn. Stat. Chap. 290, sota case or statute to support the narrow and the Internal Revenue Code. interpretation of the meaning. Nor is the In construing statutes, words and phrases common definition and usage of com- must be given their common and ap- In contrast to "compensation" the Legis- pensation discussed or factored into the proved usage. Minn. Stat. 5.08 (1) (1988). lature has also provided for the fixing of attorney general's conclusion. Nor is Additional) » Additionally every statute is understood "salaries for the mayor and the council the interplay of salary, compensation, to contain by implication, if not by ex- members. Minn. Stat. 2.021, subd. 5 and wages throughout the Minnesota See Compensation, page 10 February 16, 1990 Printed on recycled paper page 9 Compensation, continued Statutes considered. Rather, the attor- are to be given their common usage. 196 SW 1106 (Mo.), State v. Bland, 136 ney general has based the decision on There is no rule of statutory construction P. 947 (Kans.). the reasoning that Minn. Stat. 2.111 or that words are to be limited in their Minn. Stat. 3.33 does not expressly pro- meaning, unless expressly expanded by In light of the common meaning and vide for compensation in kind, therefore the Legislature. usage of the term "compensation," we it must mean only compensation in cash. are of the opinion that Minn. Stat. 2.111 Other states have construed their consti- provides ample statutory authority for This reasoning ignores the rules of statu- tutions and statutes so that "compensa- statutory cities to provide cars or other tory construction, that a statute impli- lion" is broad enough to include other "in kind" benefits as part of an em- edly contains all provisions needed to remuneration for official services, and ployee's compensation package. CH effectuate its purposes and that words not just salary. See Emmons v. Farmer, Ctomferences Historic preservation tax incentives meeting set The Minnesota Historical Society and revitalize downtown areas and strengthen and Wisconsin, and a panel discussion the National Trust for Historic Preserva- residential neighborhoods. Incentives featuring Minnesotans who have util- tion are sponsoring a public meeting programs at both state and federal levels ized preservation tax incentives. The called "Tax Incentives and Historic have proven to be powerful tools to meeting is free and open to the public. Preservation" on Friday, March 2, 2:00- safeguard the historical and architec- 4:00 p.m. in Room 300 South, State tural legacy of an area. For more information contact Bill An- Office Building. dersoh, State Historic Preservation Of- The session will include an overview of fice, (612) 726 -1171. Historic preservation tax incentives have incentives programs, presentations by been used across the country in efforts to representatives of programs in Oregon Management of conflict workshop set for April A workshop for state and local govem- those involving both public and private on exercises, and discussion of cases ment is being held on Friday, April 6, parties. suggested by participants. 8:30 -1:30 at the Cowles Auditorium, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute, Univer- Dr. Larry Susskind will be delivering the For more information contact Vicki sity of Minnesota, 301 19th Ave. S., workshop.The state's office of dispute Gilson, Conflict and Change Center, 248 Minneapolis. resolution and the University of Minne- Humphrey Center, 301 19th Ave. So., sota's Conflict and Change Center are Minneapolis, MN 55455 (612) 625 -0362. Conference topics include public agency sponsoring the workshop. The workshop disputes, multiple party conflicts and will include information sessions, hands- . page 10 Printed on recycled paper LMC Cities Bulletin ® 0 Munic For sale BOARDS. The City of Apple Valley is taking sealed bids for complete setof dasher boards City Administrator er r o r Sa k for a 200 -foot by 85 -foot ice rink. The set includes +� , lab O Penttttt i poles, lexi lass c support rails and h ardware. I - -- _� PP po ,P glass, cap t _ It is ready for installation. The rink is currently being used at Apple Valley Sports Arena, 14452 Hayes Road, adjoining Apple Valley High School, � =1 =� =� _ _ - --�•=r -_ ,f I and can be viewed until March 18, 1990. Minimum ENE '�! �_t bid $16,000, as is. Contact the Apple Valley Sports Arena (612) 431 -8866 for information or an ap- I o -- ri Ggoor Store Manager "al, pointment. Bids will be received until 2:00 p.m. on itt ) wan�ad ; i �fI Tuesday, April 3, 1990, at the Apple Valley City Ckrnr =� l Hall, 14200 Cedar Avenue, Apple Valley, MN -- — - - - - _> 55124, at which time they will be publicly opened and read. All bids should be on the proposal forms supplied by the city and in accordance with instruc- ` ° �_ tionson file in the office of the city clerk. Copies are _=emu available on request. The bids shall be accompa- nied by cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City of Apple Valley, sealed and signed. The city reserves the right to reject any and all bids, and to accept any bid deemed to be in the city's best interest. MOTORGRADER. The City of Barnesville has for Municipal ads are printed at no charge to member cities Ads ran in one issue only unless notiee is sale a 1951 Austin Western motorgrader, Master99 .ec lved to ran a second time. The Cities Bufledn Is published weeidy &lying the legislative session 04 model. Power plant is six cylinder diesel. Vehicle is twice a month during the interim, the time between sessions. Municipal Ads will appear in the next in running condition and has been in operative use. available Cit sBulle" Cities have the right to reject any or all bids on equipment or proposals, and Sale is by written bid. All bids must be received by to waive any tniormali ies therein Minnesota cities are equal opportunity empioyenw. 5 p.m. on Friday, March 2,1990. Mail bid offers to City of Barnesville, Attention Motorgrader bid, P.O. Box 550, Barnesville, MN 56514. For infor- mation relative to the grader call Ernie Peasley at (218) 354 -7645. TANKER. The City of Welcome is accepting bids Positions until March 30,1990 for a 1972 GMC 5500 single axle tanker. 350 motor, 47,300 miles, 7,000 FRT, FINANCE DIRECTOR. The City of St. Anthony HOUSING INSPECTIONS SUPERVISOR. The 17,000 rear, 8.25 tires, 50 gal. gas tank, 167' WB, (population 8,300) is seeking a finance director to City of Minneapolis is seeking a housing inspec- 1,500 gal. stainless tank top or rear fill, 10' rear discharge light and siren. Color is yellow. City of plan, manage, and coordinate all fmancial and Lions professional to direct the housing mainte- Welcome has the right to reject any and all bids. For accounting services utilized by the city. This in- nance inspection program with responsibilities for more information call (507) 728 -8865. Welcome cludes responsibility for the general fund, public staff supervision, program development, code and Fire Department, Welcome. utility funds, and liquor fund. BA in accounting, ordinance interpretation, negotiation of conflict business administration, orrelated area preferred as situations and assisting city officials and the public. TANKERS. The City of Hitterdal has for sale a well as three to five years experience in govern- Salary $38,000 - $49,000 DOQ. Requires three 1958 Ford 1200 gallon tanker with 8" dump valve. mental finance. Municipal experience desired. years experience in housing, health, code, hygiene This includes a portable pump, hand suction hose, Computer knowledge and ability to operate a must. inspections administration. Related degree desir- and other equipment. $5,000 or best offer over this Salary $35,000-$38,000 DOQ. Submit resumes to able. Closes March 2. Call (612) 673 -3110 formore price For information contact Chief Charlie Susan VanderHeyden, City of St. Anthony, 3301 information. Johnson, Hitterdal Fire Department, P.O. Box 103, Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony, MN 55418 by 4:30 p.m., February 26,1990. The City of St. Anthony is H (21 MN 56552 work (218) 962 -3215 or h an Equal Opportunity Employer. home (218)- 962 -3260. February 16 1990 Printed on recycled paper page 11 I Bill Summaries Crimes _ C mes The proposal would recommend incar kept healthy. S.F. 1675 (Berg) P Y ( g) Envi- ceration of drug dealers and would re, ronment and Natural Resources) is a bill Incre quire pilot Increased penalties for drug crimes. q P Programs to evaluate the value that would promote fish farming and H.F.1840 (Kelly, Carruthers) (Judiciary) of mandated testing for drugs and alco- other commercial product development would make commission of a drug crime hol as a condition of probation, to con- in waters in the state. while possessing a firearm punishable duct chemical dependency assessments by ten to 20 years imprisonment, and up of all people convicted of certain crimes The bill species that state agencies to $35,000 in fines. The bill makes it a and to provide intensive supervision of may not restrict aquiculture, including separate felony to commit a crime while certain people on probation. The bill fish farming, in waters that are not pub - wearing or possessing soft body armor, would make a appropriations in blank to lic waters and not included on the public and would require forfeiture of weapons the Departments of Corrections, Human waters inventory because of degradation used in controlled substance crimes and Services and Public Safety. CB of the water unless the state agency of soft body armor used in any crime. demonstrates that the aquiculture will CB Petroleum tank release cleanup fee cause conditions that degrade public fund. S.F.1725 (Novak, Vickerman, waters and adversely impact the public Drug crime package. S.F. 1759 (Spear, Bertram, Benson, R. Moe) (Environ- health. Freeman, Marty, Stumpf) (Judiciary) ment and Natural Resources) would im- would change sale and possession crimes pose the statutory fee when the unen- Further, if discharge limitations from to use total weight of cocaine mixtures cumbered fund balance drops below $2 aquiculture activities in private waters sold or possessed rather than the amount million (now $1 million) for a four - are established, the bill requires those of the drug in the mixture, and allows month period (now for a 30 -day period). limitations to be applied to all similar one county to prosecute for all sales in The law would allow eligible respon- activities in the state whether the activ- any county in a 90 -day period. sible people to receive reimbursement ity is state, or other entities. up to the lesser of 90 percent of costs or The proposal would make importation $1 million (now $250,000), with a $1 The language in the bill seems to indi- of controlled substances a separate fel- million cap per single release (now cate a sensitivity to environmental con- on y and sets inferences against car drives $250,000). CB cerns regarding unrestricted use of pri- and airline passengers. The bill would vate waters which, if contaminated, could require delivery notice to the Bureau of Increasing criminal and civil penal- impact on public ground water supplies. Criminal Apprehension of certain drugs ties for littering highways. S.F. 1671 Other provisions of the bill promote and before the drugs were brought into the (Belanger) (Transportation) would in- encourage raising crayfish for food state, including proper identification of crease the existing criminal and civil markets and the commercial fishing of the purchaser. The notice requirement Penalties for littering highways and al- rough fish in Lake of the Woods. JJ would not include pharmacist prescrip- low for a fast- offense penalty of $100 tions, medical practitioners, sales to and a penalty for subsequent offenses Finance and Revenue pharmacists or medical practitioners, and not to exceed $200. JJ certain over - the - counter drugs sold with- Regional library levy authority allo- out a prescription. Establishing an age requirement for cation. H.F.1804 (Bauerly, McEachem) motorcycle passengers. S.F. 1673 (Education) would replace the current The bill would create an advisory coun- (Benson) (Transportation) would pro- limits on regional public library special cil on drug abuse resistance education, hibit any person less than four years old levy increases with provisions giving and would allow courts to order periodic from being a passenger on a motorcycle the library system boards the option to drug testing as a condition of probation. or any person who cannot support them- allocate system levy authority within The bill would require notice of felony selves on the seat without artificial means. their region. The board would establish drug convictions to professional licens- JJ maximum library levy authority for each ing boards as would pilot programs to governmental subdivision with notifrca- provide chemical dependency treatment Environment tion by July 15 of each year. A six through services in local correctional percent limit on annual levy increases is programs. Removing agriculture restrictions in in effect whether or not the board chooses private waters if public waters are this allocating system. SH page 12 Printed on recycled paper LMC Cities Bulletin Changes to class 4c property-- subsi- the public body's authority, is reasona- Pariseau) (Public Utilities and Energy) dized public housing. H.F.1827 (Rest) bly necessary to conduct the business or would require the public utilities com- (Taxes) would extend the 4c classifica- agenda item before the public body and mission, upon petition by exchange tion (class rate of 2.40 percent) to eld- is without malice. customers, to expand the metropolitan erly or low- and moderate- income hous- extended area telephone service. CB ing financed by a local government loan. The proposal specifies that statutes (such This extension would apply, regardless as the Minnesota government data prac- pensions and retirement of when construction of the project began tices act) that classify data as other than or when the ro'ect w r p � as approved. To ublic do not allow close P d meetings. Legislator retirement, r diem not qualify, alify the property must be of a non- The bill would require a public body to g S.F.1679 profit or limited dividend entity and observe certain procedures with respect salary. (Marty, Morse, D. Moe, P Pe Beckman, Vickernian) (Governmental affordability restrictions must be enforced to disciplinary matters, including: clos- Operations) would remove session per by a public or governmental agency. ing a meeting for preliminary considera- diems from the definition of salary. It Effective for 1990 assessments, taxes tion of specific allegations, complaints, would remove payments in lieu of con - payable in 1991, SH charges, etc.; and opening further meet- tributions from the average monthly salary ings if the members conclude that termi- definition, and restore the 20 -year cap Continuation and modification of nation, discharge, or discipline of any for credit accrual for services rendered equalization aid program. S.F.1715 nature is warranted. after the beginning of the 1981 session. (Stumpf, Merriam, Pogemiller, D.J. CB Johnson, Benson) (Taxes & Tax Laws) The bill would require meetings that would extend the equalization aid pro- could be closed to be open if requested Personnel gram. Under current law, the funding by the subject of the meeting. Before formula works only in 1990 and the aid closing a meeting, a public bodywould amounts are then folded into the local need to provide the specific statutory Increase minimum wage. H geme government aid amount for 1991 LGA section or court decision permitting the (Kelly, Bego (Labor-Management distribution. Current law excludes cities meeting to be closed. CB Relations) would require a large em- of the first class from eligibility for this ployer (annual gross volume of sales or program; the bill would eliminate this Licensing retail sale of cigarettes. business not less than and older t $ 4.25 pay , exclusion. The bill would limit equali- S.F.1732 (Marty, Frederick, Spear) an adult employee (18 and older) $ percent (currently 15 an hour ($3.80 for a minor) beginning zation aid to 12 Pe { y (Commerce) would require (now per- January 1, 1991; $4.85 an hour ($4.44 percent) of the total local government mits) local units of government to li- aid the city receives in the prior year. cense the retail sale of cigarettes. The for a minor) beginning January 1, 1992; Companion H.F.1817 (E. Olson, Vellenga, bill would require a 30 -day suspension and $5.45 an hour ($4.90 for a minor) Dempsey, Steensma). SH of a licensee's authority to sell cigarettes ginning January 1, 1993. Beginning at a specific location for a sale to a January 1, 1994, and on every January 1 thereafter, the bill would require every General Government minor, and asix -month suspension fora large employer to pay each h}ult em- second violation within 12 months. (The ployee wages at a rate at least equal to Limits on closing open meetings for proposal would provide an affirmative the "hourly poverty income rate" in ef- ercent the disciplinary matters. S.F.1707 (Co- defense for licensees who prove, upon a feet on that date, and 90 p hen) (Judiciary) would include as public preponderence of the evidence, that they hourly poverty income rate a to minors. data, information on disciplinary actions reasonably and in good faith relied upon The bill would require small employers (specific reasons, bases for actions, and representation of proof of age.) CB settlement terms). A final disposition (annual sales or business under $362,500) Fire marshalt to pay each employee wages at least would occur when a governing body proposal to repeal out- equal to the minimum rate that a large makes its final decision about the disci- dated statutes. S.F. 1692 (Berglin) employer would pay a minor employee. plinary action, regardless of any later (Health & Human Services) is a depart- CB proceedings. Final disposition would ment bill that would remove statutory include resignation by an employee af- Provisions which are duplicated by the Eligibility of charitable hospital em- ter a complaint or charge has been logged current fire code or that in the depart- ployees in PEIP. S.F. 1687 (Vicker- or a disciplinary action begun. ment's view are unnecessary. JJ man, D. Moe) (Governmental Opera- tions) would make hospital employees The bill would provide that data classi- Metropolitan Affairs of charitable hospitals eligible for cov- fied as other than public may be dis- erage in the Public Employees Insur- cussed at an open meeting without lia- Expansion of the metropolitan extended ance Plan (PEIP). Eligibility would be bility or penalty, so long as the closure area telephone service. S.F.1743 effective August 1, 1990. JJ relates to a matter within the scope of (Schmitz, Renneke, Purfeerst, Metzen, February 16, 1990 Pr int ed on recycled paper page 13 Public Safety Amusement ride safety act. S.F.1751 percent (now five percent) of the money (Pehler) (Employment) would require MVET collects as follows: 37.5 percent Fire marshall inspection of school build- operators of amusement rides to obtain (now 75 percent) to the trunk highway ings. H.F.1805 (Kelso, A. Johnson, annual permits from the commissioner fund, 23 percent to the county state aid Wagenius, Omann, McEachem) (Edu- of labor and industry. The bill would highway fund, seven percent to munici- cation) would require the state fire require inspections, allow optional in- pal state aid highway fund, and 32.5 marshall to inspect every public school spections at any time a ride is in opera - percent (now 25 percent) to the transit building once every three years except don, and require filing a notice if there is assistance fund. CB for buildings local units of governments a change to the amusement ride. To run inspected within the last three years, an amusement ride with no permit would Volunteer driver exemption. H.F.1832 which may continue to have local in- be a gross misdemeanor, and the bill (V. Johnson) (Transportation) would spections at least once every three years. Would allow civil penalties of up to exclude special transportation services The bill would appropriate $218,082 to $2,000 per violation. CB volunteers from h)partment of transpor- conduct inspections and add five posi- tation rules on driver qualifications, safe tions. CB Transportation vehicle operation, inspections, service hour limits, etc. CB Cooperation with dog biting investi- Apportioning revenues from the motor gations. H.F.1820 (Valento) (Judiciary) vehicle excise tax. H.F.1802 (Lieder) Use of vehicle lights during inclement would require dog owners and people (Transportation) would require the trans - weather. S.F.1729 (Mehrkens, Freder- keeping dogs to cooperate with health fer of 30 percent of the money MVET ick, Metzen, DeCramer, Lantry) (Trans - and law enforcement officials in investi- collects as follows: 75 percent to the portation) would require every vehicle gating biting incidents, including allow- highway user tax distribution fund and upon a highway within the state to use ing the dog to be taken for testing. 25 percent to the transit assistance fund. headlights any time it is raining, snow - Violation would be a misdemeanor. CB The bill would require the transfer of 10 ing, sleeting, or hailing. CB Do Cities and . D oes the Federal Towns Fatter to Government the Federal matter to Cities Government? and Towns? � y � ou know the answer. That's why you need to be in Washington, D.C., for the Congressional -City Conference. Whether the issue is the budget, the deficit, taxes, housing and community development, surface transportation, solid waste, crime and drugs, cable television, mail order sales taxes, or any of a host of other issues that Congress will deal with in this session of Congress, someone has to speak up for cities and towns. That someone is you. And the Congressional -City Conference is your best chance to make your voice heard in Washington. Congressional -City Conference March 3-6,1990 Washington, D.C. National League of Cities page 14 Printed on recycled paper LMC Cities Bulletin LMC 1990 Legislative Conference Wednesday, March 14,1990 Radisson St. Paul Hotel 11 East Kellogg Blvd. _ St. Paul Minnesota 55101 Registration ' City (Please print or type) Name Title Name Title Name Title Registration fee: $65.00 advance, $75.00 on -site. Advance Registration Check enclosed in the amount of $ Deadline- -March 7, 1990 Fee includes conference registration, luncheon, and evening reception with legislators invited. Mail to League of Minnesota Cities, 183 University Avenue East, St. Paul, MN 55101. Radisson' Hotel St Paul DON'T FORGET — 47FO MAKE CHECK OR MONEY ORDER — PAYABLE TO RADISSON HOTEL ST. PAUL ORGANIZATION Wg ue or Min nesota C ities DO NOT SEND CURRENCY. FUNCTION 1990 legislative Conference DATES Manb 13- 14,1990 ALL REOUESTS FOR THE ABOVE GROUP MUST BE RECEIVED BY March 7. 1990 Please reserve accommodations for Print or T NAME COMPANY ADDRESS LAST Fifty CITY STATE ZIP CODE SHARING ROOM WITH NO.OF PERSONS SIGNATURE _ PHONE NUMBER 3:00 PM M NTN Ar An TN - Ar A CHECK O TIME 12:00 PM. ARRIVAL DATE CHECK OUT TIME DEPARTURE PATE ACCOMMODATIONS WILL NOT BE CONFIRMED WITHOUT A CHECK FOR THE 1st NIGHT'S DEPOSIT OR USE YOUR AMEX OR DINERS CLUB CREDIT CARD ti TO GUARANTEE YOUR RESERVATION. YOU WILL BE CHARGED FOR THE 1st NIGHT IF RESERVATIONS ARE NOT CANCELED 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ARRIVAL CREDIT CARD 0 O AMEX O DINERS CLUB 0 VISA O MASTERCARD EXPIRATION DATE (PLEASE CHECK ONE) PLEASE CHECK PREFERRED ACCOMMODATIONS Special Reduced Rates for Members Only $60 Single $68 Double (2 people) IF RATE REOUESTEO IS NOT AVAILABLE, NEAREST AVAILABLE RATE WILL BE ASSIGNED. THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL $12.00 CHARGE FOR THE THIRD OR FOURTH OCCUPANT IN EACH ROOM. RATES ARE SUBJECT TO APPLICABLE TAxES. NO CHARGE FOR CHILDREN UNDER 18 OCCUPYING THE SAME ROOM AS PARENTS. 4`� League of Minnesota Cities 1990 *, Legislative Conference K. KIM Wednesday, March 14,1990 Radisson Hotel, St. Paul 4 s � Agenda 1 9:30 -9:45 a.m. Challenges for Cities in the 1990 Legislative Session x "b Millie MacLeod, LMC President (Councilmember, Moorhead) 9:45 -10:45 a.m. Property Tax Issues The architects of Minnesota's property tax laws will comment on - what future property tax changes may be in store for cities. fi Senator Doug Johnson, Chair, Senate Committee on Taxes '. Representative Paul Anders Ogren, Chair, House Committee � on Taxes 10:45 -11:00 a.m. Break _ 11:00 -Noon Major Pending Legislation Issues J .. Representative Robert Vanasek, Speaker of the House Representative William Schreiber, House Minority Leader Noon -1:20 p.m. Luncheon k t Senator Roger Moe, Senate Majority Leader Senator Duane Benson, Senate Minority Leader _ 1:30 -2:15 p.m. Concurrent Sessions Pay Equity Nina Rothchild, Commissioner, Department of Employee Relations y . Consolidated Election Day 4" Representative Linda Scheid M y 2:15 -2:30 p.m. Break 2:30 -3:30 p.m. Concurrent Sessions w Solid Waste Mike Robertson, Director, Office of Waste Management Tax increment financing Senator Donald Frank Representative Ann Rest 3:30 -5:30 p.m. City Day on the Hill City officials should contact their legislators to make appointments. I a�' � 5:30 -7:30 p.m. Reception for City Officials and Legislators LMC will invite all legislators. We ask that your city also issue an invitation to attend. I Pay Equity Amendments Current draft 2/15/'90 1 A bill for an act 2 relating to public employment; defining equitable 3 compensation relationships; requiring an 4 implementation report; providing for review of plans; 5 providing for appeals from decisions of the 6 commissioner of employee relations; requiring the 7 commissioner to report to the legislature; amending 8 Minnesota Statutes 1988, sections 471.991, subdivision 9 5; 471.992, subdivision 1; 471.994; 471.998, by adding 10 a subdivision; 471.9981, subdivision 6, and by adding 11 subdivisions; and 471.999; repealing Minnesota 12 Statutes 1988, sections 471.992, subdivision 3; 13 471.995; 471.996; 471.9975; and 471.9981, subdivisions 14 2 to S. 15 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: 16 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1988, section 471.991, 17 subdivision 5, is amended to read: 18 Subd. 5. (EQUITABLE COMPENSATION RELATIONSHIP.) "Equitable 19 compensation relationship" means that n- prin+nrr- eensiderntien -iss 20 negetietiag ; establishing; - recommending;- end- appreding - toted the 21 pattern of compensation for female - dominated classes is 22 equivalent to the pattern of compensation for male - dominated 23 classes of comparable work value in- relationship -te -ether 24 erApioyee- positions as determined under section 471.994, within , 25 the political subdivision. 26 Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 1988, section 471.992, 27 subdivision 1, is amended to read: 28 Subdivision 1. [ESTABLISHMENT.] Subject to sections 29 179A.01 to 179A.25 but notwithstanding any other law to the 30 contrary, every political subdivision of this state shall 1 establish equitable compensation relationships between 2 female - dominated, male- dominated, and balanced classes of 3 employees in order to eliminate sex -based wage disparities in 4 public employment in this state. This subdivision does not 5 require a political subdivision to increase the compensation of 6 a class for which any undercomoensation cannot be attributed to 7 the sex of the members dominating the class 8 Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 1988, section 471.994, is 9 amended to read: 10 471.994 [JOB EVALUATION SYSTEM.) 11 Every political subdivision shall use a job evaluation 12 system in order to determine the comparable.work value of the 13 work performed by each class of its employees._ The system must 14 be maintained and u ddaated to account for new employee classes l+t�{�r»nry 14 1 00(1 16 of existing classes. A political subdivision that substantially 17 modifies its job evaluation system or adopts a new system shall 18 notify the commissioner The political subdivision may use the 19 system of some other public employer in the state. Each Y P 20 political subdivision shall meet and confer with the exclusive 21 representatives of their employees on the development or 22 selection of a job evaluation system. 23 Sec. 4. Minnesota Statutes 1988, section 471.998, is 24 amended by adding a subdivision to read: 25 Subd. 3. [PUBLIC DATA.) The report required by subdivision 26 1 is public data governed by chapter 13. 27 Sec. 5. Minnesota Statutes 1988, section 471.9981, is 28 amended by adding a subdivision to read: 29 Subd. 5a. [IMPLEMENTATION REPORT.) By January 31, 1992, 30 each political subdivision shall submit to the commissioner an 31 implementation report that includes the following information as 32 of December 31, 1991: 33 (1) a list of all job classes in the political subdivision; 34 (2) the number of employees in each class; 35 (3) the number of female employees in each class; 36 14) an identification of each class as male- dominated, 1 female- dominated, or balanced as defined in section 471.991; 2 (5) the comparable work value of each class as determined 3 by the job evaluation used by the subdivision in accordance with 4 section 471.994; 5 (6) the minimum and maximum salary for each class, if 6 salary ranges have been established, and the amount of time in 7 employment required to qualify for the maximum; 8 (7) any additional cash compensation, such as bonuses or 9 lump -sum payments, paid to the members of a class; 10 (8) the average compensation for employees in each class; 11 and 12 (9) any other information requested by the commissioner. 13 If a subdivision fails to submit a report, the commissioner 14 shall find the subdivision not in compliance with subdivision 6 15 and shall impose the penalty prescribed by that subdivision. 16 Sec. 6. Minnesota Statutes 1988, section 471.9981, is 17 amended by adding a subdivision to read: B2 Printed on recycled paper LMC_Cities:Btilletin 18 Subd. 5b. [PUBLIC DATA.) The implementation report 19 required by subdivision 5a is public data governed by chapter 13. 20 Sec. 7. Minnesota Statutes 1988, section 471.9981, 21 subdivision 6, is amended to read: 22 Subd. 6. [PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT PLAN.) if (a) 23 The commissioner of employee relations finch;- after- notiee -and 24 consaitatien- with -a shall review the implementation report 25 submitted by a governmental subdivision;- that -it- has- faiieo -te 26 to determine whether the 27 subdivision has established equitable compensation relationships 28 as required by section 471.992, subdivision 1, by December 31, 29 1991, or the later date approved by the commissioner The 30 commissioner shall notify a subdivision found to have achieved 31 compliance with section 471.952, subdivision 1. 32 (b) The commissioner shall consult with a subdivision found 33 not in compliance with section 471.992, subdivision 1, and shall 34 advise it of the changes needed to achieve compliance. 35 (c) If the subdivision does not make the required changes 36 and achieve compliance within the time set by the commissioner, 1 the commissioner shall notify the subdivision and the 2 commissioner of revenue that the subdivision is subject to a 3 five percent reduction in the aid that would otherwise be 4 payable to that governmental subdivision under sections 477A.011 5 to 477A.014 273 1398, or 124A.31, or to a fine of $100 a d ay, 6 whichever is greatest. The commissioner of revenue shall 7 enforce the penalty beginning in calendar year 1992 8 reelaeed- by -£ive - pereent;- provided -tket- the reduetion - in - aid 9 ahai }- appiy -to or in the first calendar year beginning after the 10 date for implementation of the plan of a governmental 11 subdivision for which the commissioner of employee relations has 12 approved an implementation date later than December 31, 13 1991. The penalty remains in effect until the subdivision 14 achieves compliance._ The commissioner of employee relations may 15 waive suspend the penalty upon making a finding that the failure 16 to implement was attributable to circumstances beyond the ` 17 control of the governmental subdivision or to severe hardship_ February 16, 1990 Printed on recycled paper B3 18 or that noncompliance res,::ts from factors unrelated to the sex 19 of the members dominating the affected classes and that the 20 subdivision is taking substantial steps to achieve compliance to " 21 the extent possible 22 Sec. 8. Minnesota Statutes 1988, section 471.9981, is 23 amended by adding a subdivision to read: 24 Subd. 7. [APPEAL.) A governmental subdivision may �a ppeal 25 the imposition of a penalty under subdivision 6 by filing a 26 notice of appeal with the coiLnissioner of employee relations 27 within 30 days of the ccrrmissioner's notification to the 28 subdivision of the penaltX. An appeal must be heard as a 29 contested case under sections 14.57 to 14.62. No penalty may be 30 imposed while an appeal is pending 31 Sec. 9. Minnesota Statutes 1988, section 471.999, is 32 amended to read: 33 471.999 [REPORT TO LEGISLATURE.) 34 The commissioner of employee relations shall report to the 35 legislature by January 1 ; - 1 985 - on - the - information- gathered -frem 36 of each odd-numbered-year on the status 1 of compliance with section 471.992, subdivision 1, by 2 governmental subdivisions The commissioner's report shaii must 3 include a list of political subdivisions which that did not 4 comply with the reporting requirements of this section. The 5 commissioner may request, and a subdivision shall provide, any 6 additional information needed for the preparation of a report 7 under this subdivision. 8 Sec. 10. [REPEALER.) 9 Minnesota Statutes 1988, sections 471.992, subdivision 3; 10 471.995; 471.996; 471.9975; and 471.9981, subdivisions 2, 3, 4, 11 and 5, are repealed. 7 B4 Printed on recycled paper LMC Cities Bulletin Dir f 0 League of Minnesota Cities o Mi nnes t a City Offic ffs ci as n1 e r Citi � e es Order xx � e o Addre d e ess s an h d phon e 1990 Dire 90 f Mi o n n umbers e City ici I Y ® a S • City h all s a vailable i r ry • Ma ors Pu b li cation nF eb February Y Cou n' ilm m c e bers Price: 5. r 0 ce 00 e c ers/c{erk P PY Manage s Department artme nt h eads The Directo ry contains: 1. Names of me all officials and department heads 'n Minnesota. P ea s I Minna o a. Pl us 2. City hall street addresses. 3. Designation of Plan A and Plan B. EI act i on ear and mon th 4. Coun Y nt nc m eeting ates. XX 9 5. Telephone nu rs of II C mbe clt ha or clerk her le Ouncil meeting w e availab eat n day and time 9 Y e Y , L isd iv 6. Zip codes. at a and congressional P co essiona{ 9 7 Po he 1 districts Po pulation a P s of 980 federal census. 8. Legislative and congressional distri cts. co al 9 9 NOTE: The h it i f i e s ec a r o 15.00 mem bers , ce s a s rvic esa G P P e e to I nl n i - o and n intended ntend for business r professional n l i h ed o u ess o o e i a f rm . Where Lsepus of Mlnnsanks CHI** Y P ss o s e 183 University Avenue East a consulting firm is retained by city engineer, city planner, etc., no Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 more than one copy of the Directory may be purchased and paid "''`° s for by the city for their use in that capacity. Order Form ' • Send order form and payment to: Finance Department League of Minnesota Cities >:: >:::: > <: .. • 1IEQ: <::::«: >:: >:::: >::: >:: • 183 University Avenue East • St. Paul, MN 55101 : • Please send copies of the 1990 DIRECTORY OF MINNESOTA CITY OFFICIALS at $15.00 per copy, PLUS • $1.00 postage and handling to (total $16.00): ' PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE ' • NAME POSITION ADDRESS ' • • City State Zip Cade : Check enclosed ($16.00 per copy - includes $1.00 postage and handling.) FIRST CLASS E� U.S. POSTAGE f , -- PAID St. Paul, MN �— PERMIT NO. 3223 League of Minnesota Cities FEB 2 p 1990 183 University Avenue East St. Paul, MN 55101 -2526 Phone: 612 - 227 -5600 F 612 221 - 0986 - = 1 Sh i n, q 1 N C3 Fl: iw . _ - 55. -: - 'Me League of Minnesota Cities publishes D.. ' - " �'� 1 - ~r` ' ?i iily _{ _ i the Legislative Bulletin weekly during the Legislative session and twice monthly me during the interim, the ti between sessions. Subscriptions: members -$35; non - members -$50. Contact: Laurie Audette, League of Minnesota Cities. i Donald Slater I Executive Director Debra Nyberg Assistant Editor Jean Mehle Goad Editor League of Minnesota Where to get legislative information at the Capitol* Cities Legislative Staff t Joel Jamnik Copies of bills Environment, rsonnel, House Chief Clerk's Office - 296 -2314, Rm. 211, State Capitol Pe P public safety, general govern- Secretary of Senate's Office - 296 -2343, Rm. 231, State Capitol ment Laurie Fiori Hacking Bill status, authors, companion, committee referral (by bill number, LGA, taxes, finance author, or topic) Stanley Peskar House Index - 296 -6646, Rm. 211, State Capitol Pensions, personnel, public Senate Index - 296 -2887, Rm. 231 State Capitol safety Donald Slater Weekly committee schedules, bill introductions, and summaries of i Development tools committee and floor action Ann Higgins House Information Office - 296 -2146, 175 State Office Building Federal legislation, elections, Senate Infonnation Office - 296 -0504, Rm. 231, State Capitol ethics Sarah Hackett Recording of the following day's committee schedule and agenda, Legislative analyst (after 4:30 p.m.) Barry " - a ry Ryan House Call (House committee schedule) - 296 9283 Tax policy analyst Senate Hotline (Senate committee schedule) - 296 -8088 Andrea Lubov Tax increment financing, To reach a member on the House or Senate floor bond allocation, housing House Sergeant at Arms - 296 -4860 Chuck Bichler Senate Page Desk - 296 -4159 Legislative assistant To notify the governor's office of your concerns Au>ciation of Metropolitan Governor Rudy Pcrpich - 296 -3391, Rm. 130, State Capitol Municipalities Legislative Staff I Vern Peterson Executive Director Roger Peterson *All addresses are SL Paul, MN 55155, all area codes 612 Director of Legislative Affairs CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 2 � 6 %E Agenda Item Number (DDDRCI) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: ADEQUATE FUND BALANCE FORMULA CHANGE rttt *ir :sirf *•t,tt *stfrt:f tat; it** ��,t ttttt3st* sr�rs��* s* �sss*f ts* wt,► *wt,ttistss *��s *�st**t *rsii :mss DEPARTMENT APPROVA �--J W. Director of Fina Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: 4�. No comments to supplement this report mments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached On December 22, 1980, the City Council adopted an "Adequate General Fund Balance Policy Formula" as set forth in M &C no. 80 -31. Since state statutes, the City Charter, or City ordinances do not regulate the size of -a City's • General Fund Balance, the purpose of the policy formula is to determine what a reasonable amount should be held by the City's General Fund in reserve and provide a way of measuring that amount on an annual basis. The fund balance is a product of one of two sources: (1) The excess of (or deficiencies of) revenues over expenditures of the fund, accumulated over the years since the inception of the fund; and (2) permanent transfer of monies from another fund. Certain asset items contained within the fund balance are items which cannot be readily converted to cash and therefore must remain in the fund balance. Among these items are taxes receivable, accounts receivable, and inventories of supplies. In addition, monies within the fund balance are needed for, and should be reserved for, other purposes. Among these, is a need for "working capital ". Working capital, simply stated, is funds needed for expenditures which must be made prior to receipt of revenues in forthcoming periods of time. The City has a fairly consistent level of expenditures, particularly payroll (which consists of about 60% of total expenditures), and a rather sporadic pattern of revenue receipts. This combination casuses a cash flow problem. The working capital is the bridge over these gaps between expenditures and the receipt of revenue. The primary sources of revenue for the General Fund are local real estate taxes and intergovernmental revenue. Revenue from these sources are usually received on a semi - annual basis. Major tax settlements are made in July and December, while major expenditures occur in the early part of the budget year. The City must wait approximately six months into the budget year for a large amount of its revenues. If monies are not available during these periods, the City must resort to tax anticipation borrowing. Tax - anticipation borrowing is both costly and would be reflected in the City's bond rating. The absence of such borrowing is a positive factor in bond rating. Therefore, a sufficient . REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION FROM PAUL W. HOLMLUND CONTINUED. amount of working capital is needed to carry the City through these periods. The current formula sets the working capital at a maximum of 25% of the total General Fund Budget. This provides funds for three months of expenditures. Money should also be reserved to provide a "cushion" for the replacement of possible revenue short falls in the budget. The cutback of local government aid due to a projected state surplus deficit is a good example of a need for some sort of cushion. An economic downturn can also cause a reduction in building and other permit fees, recreation revenue, other intergovernmental revenue, charges for services, and of course cause property tax delinquencies. The formula curently reserves an amount equal to 5% of the taxes levied for General Fund purposes to hedge against loss of revenue from tax delinquencies and an amount equal to 10% of all other estimated budget revenues to hedge against overestimation and economic downturn. Funds should also be reserved for unanticipated needs which may develop during the budget year. However, the City Charter does provide for a contingency appropriation within the budget itself, and we do annually appropriate funds for that purpose. Any amount in the General Fund Balance in excess of the amount determined to be adequate by the formula may be used to fund the next year's budget or be transferred to another fund, such as the Capital Project Fund. Funds transferred to the Capital Projects Fund can be used for major capital outlay, including consturction or acquisition of major permanent facilities having a relatively long life or to reduce the debt incurred for capital outlays. ® Since the adoption of the formula in 1980, the collection of both property taxes and local government aid have been pushed back even further, and nothing is received from those sources until after July 1st of each year. We have done an analysis of when actual revenues were received and actual expenditures during budget years 1988 and 1989. Both years show an accumulated cash shortage of approximately 37% prior to July 1. (I have attached a copy of the analysis.) Because revenue collections will be delayed even further in 1990 and future years, I recommend that the formula be changed to increase the amount to be reserved for working capital from 25% of the total General Fund current year budget to 40 %. The Council can do this by approving the attached "Adequate General Fund Balance Policy Formula As Set Forth In M &C No. 80 -31 and Amended At February 26,1990" (QRP3960A) R19 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ADEQUATE GENERAL FUND BALANCE POLICY FORMULA AS ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 22, 1980 (AS SET FORTH IN M &C NO. 80 -31 AND AMENDED FEBRUARY 26, 1990) ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Latest Audited Unappropriated Fund Balance At: December 31, 19 $ 2. Less Items Not Readily Convertible to Cash: a. Uncollected Taxes $ b. Accounts Receivable c. Inventory of Supplies, Prepaid Expense, Encumbr. 0 3. Fund Balance Convertible to Cash $ 0 4. Less Amounts to be Reserved for Specific Purposes: a. Working Capital: (40% of Total General Fund Current Year Budget Year: 19_ 40% of: $ 0 b. Reserve for Delinquent Taxes: (5% of Taxes Levied for General Fund in Current Year Budget) Year: 19_ 5% of: $ 0 c. Reserve for Overestimation of Other Revenues: (10% of General Fund Other Revenues in Current Year Budget) Year: 19_ 10% of: $ 0 0 0 -- - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- 5. Amount Available per Formula $ 0 6. Less Amount Appropriated to the General Fund Current Year Budget: Year: 19 ------- - - - - -- 7. Amount Available for Other Use $ 0 (JADEQGFB) ADEQUATE GENERAL FUND BALANCE POLICY FORMULA AMOUNT TO BE RESERVED FOR WORKING CAPITAL 1988 TOTAL GENERAL FUND BUDGET $9,211,205 ACTUAL % TO ACTUAL % TO CUMMULATIVE REVENUES BUDGET EXPEND BUDGET SHORTAGE -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- --- - - - - -- JANUARY 76,620 0.83% 680,885 7.39% -6.56% FEBRUARY 122,214 1.33% 690,380 7.50% - 12.73% MARCH 203,573 2.21% 568,948 6.18% - 16.69% APRIL 88,698 0.96% 766 8.32% - 24.05% MAY 135 1.470 635,030 6.890 - 29.480 JUNE 144,058 1.56% 863,596 9.38% - 37.29% JULY 3,338,964 36.25% 564,529 6.13% -7.17% AUGUST 428,791 4.66% 992,580 10.78% - 13.29% SEPTEMBER 117,659 1.28% 600,832 6.52% - 18.54% OCTOBER 186,880 2.03% 671,438 7.29% - 23.80% NOVEMBER 1,898,986 20.62% 644,735 7.00% - 10.18% DECEMBER 2,146,648 23.30% 822,838 8.93% 4.19% --- - - - - -- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- 8,888,306 96.49% 8,502,109 92.30% 4.19% 1989 TOTAL GENERAL FUND BUDGET $9,551,067 ACTUAL % TO ACTUAL % TO CUMMULATIVE REVENUES BUDGET EXPEND BUDGET SHORTAGE - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- --- - - - - -- JANUARY 99,683 1.04% 794,517 8.32% -7.270 FEBRUARY 136,313 1.43% 755,881 7.91% - 13.76% MARCH 208,769 2.19% 761,778 7.98% - 19.55% APRIL 186,320 1.95% 575,473 6.03% - 23.63% MAY 183,992 1.93% 730,165 7.64% - 29.34% JUNE 193,478 2.03% 820,753 8.59% - 35.91% JULY 3,338,977 34.96% 929,318 9.73% - 10.68% AUGUST 389,029 4.07% 818,556 8.57% - 15.18% SEPTEMBER 143,871 1.51% 516,185 5.40% - 19.08% OCTOBER 187,029 1.96% 817,801 8.56% - 25.68% NOVEMBER 241,881 2.53% 712,762 7.46% - 30.61% DECEMBER 3 � - 527 075 36.9 30 � , 742,308 7.770 1.460 --- - - - - -- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- 8,836,417 92.52% 8,975,497 93.97% -1.46% Licenses to be approved by the City Council on Februar y 26 1990: � BULK VENDOR K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Driv Sanitarian FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Brooklyn Center Community Center 6301 Shingle Ck. Pkwy Inn on the Farm 6155 Earle Brown Drive Sanitarian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Hoffman Corner Heating & A/C 3595 Hoffman Road �. t.�t• "4,19 t Building Official NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES American Vending Company P. 0. Box 511 Sears Automotive Brookdale Center K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Drive NSI /Griswold Corporation 8300 10th Ave. N. Brookdale Pontiac 6801 Brooklyn Blvd. Lynbrook Bowl 6357 N. Lilac Drive Travelers North 6601 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Norcroftt, Inc. 8841 Jefferson Highway Brooklyn Center High School 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. Don Waletzko 8751 Dallas Lane Humboldt Square Cleaners 6824 Humboldt Ave. N. Woodside Enterprises 11889 65th Ave. N. Brooklyn Center City Hall 6301 Shingle Ck. Pk� -. � Brooklyn Center Police Department 6301 Shingle Ck. Pkwy, e l — i Sanitarian ON -SALE NONINTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR Centerbrook Golf Course 5500 North Lilac Drive C ief of Police L PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES American Vending Company P. 0. Box 511 Sears Automotive Brookdale Center NSI /Griswold Corporation 8300 10th Ave. N. Travelers North 6601 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Norcroftt, Inc. 8841 Jefferson Highway t-1: Brooklyn Center High School 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. Sanitarian RENTAL DWELLINGS INITIAL: Dale Voltin Lyn River Apartments Richard Shurman 4204 Lakebreeze Ave. N. David & Carolyn Wagtskjold 6845 Willow Lane RENEWAL: Egons Podnieks Garden City Court Apts. Curtis Erickson Lake Shore Apts. Invespro V Limited Partnership Unicorn Apts. Howard & Harriet Oien 5801 Brooklyn Blvd. James & June Ullom 6300 France Ave. N. Beisner Limited 1531 Humboldt Place M & J Properties 1537 Humboldt Place M & J Properties 1543 Humboldt Place M & J Properties 1549 Humboldt Place M & J Properties 1555 Humboldt Place Sharon M. Fratzke 4201 Lakeside Ave. N. #208 Daniel & Nadia Graskow 4201 Lakeside Ave. N. #310 Dr. Akbar Sajady 4207 Lakeside Ave. N. #131 Dr. Akbar Sajady 4207 Lakeside Ave. N. #224 Dr. Akbar Sajady 4207 Lakeside Ave. N. #326 E. Alan Knudson 5547 Lyndale Ave. N. David W. Zemke 6813 Noble Ave. N. Reuben & Diane Ristrom, Jr. 6821 Noble Ave. N. Robert Berglund 6835 Noble Ave. N. Wayne K. Pearson 6900 Toledo Ave. N. Dr. John Lescault 3507 62nd Ave. N. Lee Marwede 4700 -02 68th Ave. N. Kim McDonough 4703 68th Ave. N. Director of Planning A and Inspection SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT Best Products Co., Inc. 5925 Earle Brown Drive Children's Palace 5900 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Sanitarian TAXICAB Town Taxi 2812 University Ave. SE C of of Police � � r - GENERAL APPROVAL: D. K. Weeks, City Clerk Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REQUESTING AUTHORITY TO ISSUE AN ON -SALE LIQUOR LICENSE FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA FOR THE EARLE BROWN HERITAGE CONVENTION CENTER WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has renovated the Earle Brown Farm as a Convention /Banquet facility; and WHEREAS, it would be advantageous to have the ability to serve liquor at appropriate functions; and WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center with its municipal off -sale liquor is limited by statute to issuing on -sale liquor licenses to restaurants and hotels only. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the City request from the state legislature special authority to issue one on -sale liquor license for the Earle Brown Heritage Convention Center. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.