Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 08-14 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AUGUST 14, 1989 7 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Invocation 4. Open Forum 5. Approval of Consent Agenda -All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. 6. Presentation: (7 p.m.) a. North Hennepin Mediation Project 7. Approval of Minutes: *a. July 24, 1989 - Regular Session 8. Performance Bond Releases: *a. Earle Brown Bowl, 6440 James Circle *b. Target, 6100 Shingle Creek Parkway 9. Resolutions: *a. Amending 1989 General Fund Budget to Provide for Wage and Salary Adjustments *b. To Transfer Funds from the Government Buildings to the Finance Department and within the Government Buildings c. Receiving Report and Calling for Hearing on Improvement Project 1988 -18, West River Road between 66th Avenue North and 73rd Avenue North and Willow Lane between Interstate Highway 694 and 66th Avenue North - Representatives from Short - Elliott- Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH), the City's Consulting Engineers for this project, will present their feasibility study for this project. It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution calling for a hearing on the proposed improvements on August 28, 1989. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- August 14, 1989 *d Approving Agency Agreement with Minnesota Department of Transportation -The agency agreement provides that the MNDOT Commissioner will act as the City's agent in accepting federal aids and in the administration of any contracts for road or bridge construction financed in whole or in part with federal monies. e. Ordering Installation of Sidewalk on West Side of Humboldt Avenue North between Woodbine Avenue and 73rd Avenue and Accepting Proposal for Construction, Improvement Project No. 1989 -20 *f. Ordering Installation of Sidewalk on East Side of Xerxes Avenue North between 65th and 66th Avenues North and Accepting Proposal for Construction, Improvement Project 1989 -21 g. Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Installation of Traffic Control Signal System on Shingle Creek Parkway at the Entrance to Brookdale Square (Project 1988 -24, Contract 1989 -G) h. Accepting Bid and Awarding Contact for Brookdale Square Turnlane and Entrance Modifications (Project Nos. 1989 - 18 and 1989 -19, Contract 1989 -H) *i. Appointing Alternate Commissioner to the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission -It is recommended that Mark Maloney, the new City Engineer, be appointed to this position. *j. Appointing Alternate Commissioner to the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission -It is recommended that Mark Maloney, the new City Engineer, be appointed to this position. *k. Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Shade Trees (Order No. DST 8/14/89) 10. Planning Commission Items: (8 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 85004 submitted by Cathy Rausch requesting an amendment to a special use permit for a home beauty shop at 3000 63rd Avenue North which was approved under Application No. 85004 -This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its July 27, 1989, meeting. I CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- August 14, 1989 b. Planning Commission Application No. 89020 submitted by Mary Ladd requesting special use permit approval to conduct a counseling business in the residence at 6941 Willow Lane -This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its July 27, 1989, meeting. 11. Discussion Item: a. Water System Study Report - Representatives from Black & Veatch, the City's Engineering Consultants for this study, will present an discuss their report. b. Request for Proposals for Fee - for - Services Insurance Agent c. Selection of a Prosecuting Attorney 1. Resolution Regarding Appointment of City Prosecutor d. Group Home Legislation - Brooklyn Center Involvement *12. Licenses 13. Adjournment t MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JULY 24, 1989 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Todd Paulson, Jerry Pedlar, and Philip Cohen. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone, and Administrative Aide Patti Page. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Jim McCloskey, representing the Brooklyn Center Prayer Breakfast Committee. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had not received any requests to use the open forum session this evening. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. No one requested to speak. Mayor Nyquist noted he had received some complaints from the neighborhood surrounding the Soo Line Railroad. He noted the neighbors stated the railroad has been switching trains quite often during the night. He stated the people who complained felt that the switching of the trains was quite loud and should not be done during the night. The City Manager stated he would have staff investigate this complaint. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any item removed from the consent agenda. Councilmember Pedlar requested item 8a be removed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 10 1989 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the minutes of the July 10, 1989, City g Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - TOYS -R -US There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the final plat for Toys -R -Us. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the subdivision agreement between Toys -R -Us and the City of Brooklyn Center. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS 7/24/89 -1- 1 RESOLUTION NO. 89 -142 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR NORTH LILAC DRIVE TRAIL, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -19, CONTRACT 1989 -E The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -143 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF SHADE TREES (ORDER NO. DST 07/24/89) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -144 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR TREE REMOVAL COSTS, PUBLIC UTILITY HOOKUP CHARGES, DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY ACCOUNTS, AND DELINQUENT WEED REMOVAL ACCOUNTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the following list of licenses: FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Border States Foods, Inc. 221 Broadway, Alexandria Hardee's 1601 Freeway Blvd. GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE Gordon Rendering P. 0. Box 12785 Peterson Brothers Sanitation, Inc. 740 Industry Avenue T & L Sanitation 8201 Logan Ave. N. ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Brooklyn Center Fire Department Youth 6301 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Sons of Norway Brookdale Center MECHANICAL SYSTEMS A. Binder & Son, Inc. 120 E. Butler Ave. Daytons Bluff Sheet Metal, Inc. 1400 E. Highway 36 Modern Heating & A /C, Inc. 2318 First St. NE Preferred Sheet Metal, Inc. 90 West Woodlynn Ave. RENTAL DWELLINGS 7/24/89 -2- Initial: Willard Blakeborough 5235 Great View Ave. N. Harriet J. Berg 620 - 53rd Ave. N. Renewal: Donald Parkin 5624 Camden Ave. N. Lyndon and Carole Carlson 5819 Halifax Ave. N. Michael L. Goodwin 5006 Howe Lane Robert M. Zappa 6637 Humboldt Ave. N. Patricia Zawislak 5543 Judy Lane Amos Levang 4100 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Leray and Keith Mortensen 4110 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Gary and Nancy Clark 4207 Lakesie Ave. N. #239 Henry Ulhorn 5207 E. Twin Lake Blvd. Joseph J. Kennedy 509 - 61st Ave. N. Outreach Group Homes, Inc. 507 - 69th Ave. N. SIGN HANGER Graphic House, Inc. 9204 Highway 29 West SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT Adventures in Video 6914 Brooklyn Blvd. The motion passed unanimously. _RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented a Resolution Authorizing Execution of an Agreement between Metropolitan Clinic of Counseling, Inc. and the City of Brooklyn Center for an Employee Assistance Program. Councilmember Pedlar inquired if new employees are given an orientation on this program. The City Manager stated information on this program is given to employees on their first day of work, posted on the employee bulletin board, and distributed three to four times a year with the employees' paychecks. He noted a letter is also sent to the employees' home once a year regarding this program. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -145 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN METROPOLITAN CLINIC OF COUNSELING, INC. AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR AN EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Authorizing a Proposed Tax Levy for 1990 Budget Appropriations. He explained this resolution certifies a preliminary 1990 levy to Hennepin County as per the existing law. He stated staff is recommending certifying the maximum the City could levy because if the City does not, the Council may not have the flexibility to go up to that amount at a later date. He stated because of the changes which may occur in the next two to three months, this levy may possibly have little or no meaning. He stated the League 7/24/89 -3- a of Cities and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities are recommending communities certify this preliminary levy in this fashion so as to make sure the cities are in compliance with the letter of the law although it's virtually certain that the law will change within the next two to three months. Councilmember Cohen stated he recalled in 1971 the Council had to recertify the budget a few times because of the tax bill vetoes. He stated he would recommend staff keep track of the cost of implementing the Truth -in- Taxation law. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -146 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A PROPOSED TAX LEVY FOR 1990 BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS BROOKLYN CENTER HOUSING MARKET: A STUDY OF TRENDS AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY The City Manager referred the Mayor and City Council to the report compiled by Maxfield Research Group, Inc. He noted this is the final report on the housing study authorized by the City of Brooklyn Center. He explained a joint meeting would be held in August for the Housing and Planning Commissions for a formal presentation of the report. He noted there is a series of specific recommendations made in the report, and it will take an action or implementation plan to make it work. Councilmember Cohen stated the Housing Commission has reviewed the report and it is very supportive of the next procedures. He stated the Council now has a document that calls for action, and he would encourage the Council to support the recommendations. Councilmember Scott suggested the Neighborhood Advisory Groups be included with the joint meeting of the Housing and Planning Commissions. Councilmember Pedlar inquired if the City or the consultant would be addressing the housing maintenance codes. The City Manager stated the consultant has looked at the codes somewhat and has found they could be updated in some instances. He stated if the Council so wished, the consultant could be asked to review the housing maintenance codes more in depth. Councilmember Cohen stated a Truth -in- Housing ordinance is the most effective way to keep the housing stock up, but it will create some conflicts. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott acknowledging receipt of the report entitled Brooklyn Center Housing Market: A Study of Trends and Their Impact on the Community. The motion passed unanimously. PRIVATE KENNEL LICENSE The City Manager stated a public hearing has been scheduled this evening for a private kennel license at 4206 66th Avenue North. He noted the owner has three 7/24/89 -4- I dogs. He explained the Police Department has record of one complaint for this property, and the Health Department found the home to be in satisfactoYy, sanitary condition. He stated an 8' x 15' kennel area has been constructed. He noted the Health Department recommends approval of the private kennel license on the condition that a weather - proof, insulated shelter be placed in the kennel for the animals. He explained if the license is approved it would be in effect until September 30, 1990, at which time the owner would be allowed to apply for renewal of the license through the same process. He stated if the owner wished to renew the license, she would be allowed two renewals with a final expiration date of September 30, 1992. He noted after September 30, 1992, the owner would have to be in compliance with the ordinance requirements. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on a private kennel license for 4206 66th Avenue North. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. He recognized Sonja Huggins, 4201 66th Avenue North. Ms. Huggins inquired if the Council is aware that one of these dogs has bitten a child. She also asked if the Council knew that the applicant has cats too. Mayor Nyquist then recognized Lois Iverson, 4200 66th Avenue North. Ms. Iverson stated one of these dogs has also bitten her grandchild, but she did not report it to the police because it did not break the skin. She added the dogs do bark all day long. Mayor Nyquist then recognized Kyle Huggins, 4201 66th Avenue North. Mr. Huggins stated the dogs do bark quite a bit, and the noise has become a problem. He stated he called the Police Department and complained just this last week. Mayor Nyquist then recognized Debra Stewart, 6518 Indiana Avenue North. Ms. Stewart stated one of the dogs also bit her child while her child was playing at 4201 66th Avenue North. She noted the dog broke the skin, and she called the police to report it. She explained the police informed her the owner stated the dogs had rabies vaccinations but did not have the paper work to prove it. Councilmember Cohen inquired of the applicant if she also had cats. Ms. Wiegand, the applicant, stated she has three cats. Councilmember Pedlar inquired how the dogs escaped to the neighbors yard to bite the children. Ms. Weigand stated she has just recently built the kennel on the garage and before that she did not leash the animals very well. She stated she has learned her lesson, and the animals will be controlled. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else present who wished to address the Council. There being none, he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to close the public hearing on a private kennel license for 4206 66th Avenue North. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Cohen inquired if the ordinance provides for revocation of the license if it is approved. The City Manager stated the license could be revoked, but it is much more difficult to revoke the license once it is approved than to not approve the license at all. Councilmember Pedlar stated he realizes it is not possible to resolve all the problems within the neighborhood pertaining to this application; however, he does not agree with the staff's recommendation. Mayor Nyquist stated he does not agree with the length of time 7/24/89 -5- which this license could be in effect. He noted, however, whether the license is approved or not it would not solve the barking dog problem. Councilmember Cohen suggested this may be a good case for the mediation project. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to approve the private kennel license for 4206 66th Avenue North subject to the one condition noted in the staff report, with the addition of another condition allowing one renewal until 1991. Councilmember Scott inquired if it would be possible to amend the motion to add an additional condition regarding complaints and revocation. The City Attorney stated if the Council were inclined to revoke the license, the revocation should be tied into actual ordinance violations and not complaints. A brief discussion then ensued regarding the possible wording of this amendment. Councilmember Cohen and Councilmember Paulson agreed to the amendment to the original motion. Upon vote being taken on the foregoing motion, the motion passed unanimously. The private kennel license for 4206 66th Avenue North was approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A weather - proof, insulated shelter large enough for the three animals to stand and turn around in shall be installed within 30 days of license approval. 2. The license shall expire on September 30, 1990, at which time the licensee will be allowed to apply for renewal of the license for one year. Final expiration of the license will occur on September 30, 1991, at which time the licensee will be required to remove one animal to meet the ordinance requirements. 3. The license is subject to revocation by the City Council in the event of violations by the licensee of any provision of City code or State law regulating the keeping or harboring of animals. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 89017 SUBMITTED BY ROBERT LARSEN PARTNERS REQUESTING SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL TO ADD APPROXIMATELY 39,000 SO. FT. OF RETAIL SPACE TO BROOKDALE SHOPPING CENTER AT 5900 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AND PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 89018 SUBMITTED BY ROBERT LARSEN PARTNERS REQUESTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO COMBINE INTO A SINGLE PARCEL THE BROOKDALE SQUARE SITE AND THE GENERAL CINEMA SITE TO THE EAST IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 35 -540 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 89019 SUBMITTED BY ROBERT LARSEN PARTNERS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 35-540 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A 7/24/89 -6 I SMALL TRIANGLE OF LAND ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE OLD GENERAL CINEMA SITES The City Manager noted these three items were recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its July 13, 1989, meeting. He noted if the Council intends to approve one application, they should approve all three. The Director of Planning and Inspection referred the Mayor and Councilmembers to pages one through five of the July 13, 1989, Planning Commission minutes and information sheet. He then went on to review each of the three applications and the recommended conditions for each application. He noted in application No. 89019 the applicant requests variance approval to exclude 1,200 sq. ft. of land because the owners do not have a marketable title at this time. He explained one of the conditions states the applicant is required to obtain marketable title to the small triangle of land as soon as possible and to combine it with the larger site. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated he had been contacted by Robert Fodness, the owner of the Brookdale Six properties, who stated he had some concerns regarding how this would affect the future sale of his building. He stated Mr. Fodness said this was the first he had heard of the plans submitted by Robert Larsen Partners. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated during the staff review time, staff did urge the applicant to check with the other property owner regarding the easement agreement. He noted a public hearing is required this evening for application Nos. 89018 and 89019. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:28 p.m. and reconvened at 8 :43 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS (CONTINUED) Councilmember Scott inquired why it would not be possible to move the entrance of the T.J. Max Store to the southeast corner of the building. She inquired if the applicant has ever been in this parking lot in the evening to note the congestion caused by the theaters. Kelly Doran, representing the applicant, stated he has been there in the evening and, in fact, a parking study was completed for this area. He stated there undoubtedly will be congestion at times; however, this congestion will affect the tenants and not the City. He noted the tenants do not feel the congestion will cause a problem. Councilmember Paulson inquired if both the entrance improvements and the building addition would be taking place at the same time and if this would cause a conflict. The Director of Public Works stated while the two projects would be worked on at the same time, it should not create any conflicts. Mr. Doran stated the physical improvements to the entrance should be complete well before the opening of the T.J. Max Store. Councilmember Paulson inquired if any consideration has been given to a four -way stop or signals at the John Martin Drive and Earle Brown Drive intersection. The City Manager stated the Administrative Traffic Committee has discussed this intersection and is recommending a four -way stop. Mr. Doran stated he has spoken with Mr. Fodness of the Brookdale Six property and noted an agreement has been reached between them. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application Nos. 89018 and 89019. 7/24/89 -7- Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Robert Fodness, representing Brookdale Six properties, who stated his concerns have been settled with the applicant. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else who wished to address the Council. There being none, he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application Nos. 89018 and 89019. The City Attorney recommended an additional condition to application Nos. 89017 and 89018 which would state the applicant must provide any agreements deemed necessary, in the opinion of the City Attorney, to grant a right of access over the Brookdale Six office building site for the benefit of the entire platted area. Mr. Doran stated his attorney does not feel it is necessary because there is already an executed easement agreement. The City Attorney stated he is unsure whether the executed easement agreement is an easement for the general cinema site alone or whether the agreement would allow for expansion of the site. He stated he has not been able to research this issue thoroughly, and he is uncomfortable with the idea that the plat may be approved, filed, and then the agreement falls apart leaving no access to John Martin Drive. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to approve Planning Commission Application No. 89017 subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 7/24/89 -8- 9. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the performance guarantee. 10. The property owner shall enter in an Easement and Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems, prior to the issuance of permits. 11. The storm drainage system shall be approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to the issuance of permits. 12. Ponding areas required as a part of the storm drainage plan shall be protected by an approved easement. The easement document shall be executed and filed with Hennepin County prior to the issuance of permits. 13. The replat of the property shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to the issuance of permits. 14. The property owner shall enter into a restrictive covenant to be filed with the title to the property requiring the installation of proof -of- parking stalls upon a determination by the City that such stalls are needed for the proper functioning of the site. Said restrictive covenant shall be executed and filed prior to the issuance of permits. 15. The applicant shall comply with the conditions approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission during its review of this application on July 13, 1989, regarding roof drainage, maintenance of skimmers and final approval by the Watershed Commission's Engineer. 16. The applicant will provide any agreements deemed necessary, in the opinion of Counsel for the City, to grant a right of access over the Brookdale Six office building site for the benefit of the entire platted area. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve Planning Commission Application No. 89018 submitted by Robert Larsen Partners subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. Exclusion of the 1,200 sq. ft. triangle of land adjacent to John Martin Drive from the plat is subject to approval of variance Application No. 89019. 7/24/89 -9- 4. The applicant will provide any agreements deemed necessary, in the opinion of Counsel for the City, to grant a right of access over the Brookdale Six office building site for the benefit of the entire platted area. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to give final plat approval for the Brookdale Square Addition subject to the following conditions: 1. Exclusion of the 1,200 sq. ft. triangle of land adjacent to John Martin Drive from the plat is subject to approval of variance Application No. 89019. 2. The applicant will provide any agreements deemed necessary, in the opinion of Counsel for the City, to grant a right of access over the Brookdale Six office building site for the benefit of the entire platted area. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson approving the subdivision agreement for Brookdale Square. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve Planning Commission Application No. 89019 submitted by Robert Larsen Partners subject to the following conditions: 1. The time delay of the applicant obtaining marketable title to the small triangle of land is deemed to be an unreasonable burden on the developer and a hardship in making use of the property. 2. The circumstances involving a remnant of a parcel taken for right -of- way are somewhat unique. 3. The hardship results from actions originally taken by the highway department and not the property owner. 4. There will be no adverse impact on surrounding land or improvements in the neighborhood. 5. The applicant is required to obtain marketable title to the small triangle of land as soon as possible and to combine it with the larger site. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS (CONTINUED) SETTING DATE FOR SPECIAL MEETING TO CONSIDER BIDS FOR ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS 7/24/89 -10- The City Manager stated the Director of Public Works has requested a special meeting date to consider the bids for the alley improvement projects. He noted a minimum quorum is all that is necessary to approve these bids. He suggested the Council could meet on Monday, July 31, 1989, during the day if three members could be present. He noted this meeting would be specifically for approving the bids for the alley improvement projects, and no other business would be handled. Councilmember Cohen stated he felt the meeting should be held in the evening when the general public could be present. A brief discussion then ensued regarding meeting notices for this special meeting. The City Attorney noted if this evening's meeting was continued to a later date there would not be a need for publishing a notice for the special meeting. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to continue this evening's City Council meeting to August 1 89 g Y g g 19 at 7 p.m. to discuss award of the contract for the alley improvements. The motion passed unanimously. CITY OF ROBBINSDALE PUBLIC HEARING The City Manager explained in 1988 legislation was passed stating that South Twin Lake is wholly situated within the City of Robbinsdale. He noted this means that the City of Robbinsdale may change water surface regulations with the approval of the department of natural resources only. He stated the City of Robbinsdale has notified him of a public hearing to be held to discuss further restrictions for South Twin Lake. The City Manager stated staff would observe the outcome of this meeting and suggested the Council may want to appoint a committee again among the cities of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, and Robbinsdale. ADMINISTRATIVE TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS The City Manager stated the Administrative Traffic Committee has met recently and made recommendations on four areas of the City. The Director of Public Works went on to review each of the recommendations. He noted the first recommendation concerns the intersection of East Twin Lake Boulevard with 53rd Avenue North. He noted this is a four - legged intersection with unusual geometrics and very limited site distance for traffic movements. He briefly reviewed the history of the area and the three alternatives for notifying the neighborhood. He stated it is staff's recommendation to conduct a public information meeting with the neighborhood and Administrative Traffic Committee and then submit a report to the City Council. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott directing the Administrative Traffic Committee to conduct a public informational meeting and then submit its report to the City Council. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager noted the Council may want to consider appointing three people to the appeals committee so it is available if necessary. The Director of Public Works stated recommendation No. 2 concerns the area of 7/24/89 -11- i 73rd Avenue North between Humboldt Avenue North and T.H. 252. He stated the Administrative Traffic Committee is recommending installation of a sidewalk along this area. He noted the current traffic volume on this section of 73rd Avenue North is approximately 3,000 to 3,300 vehicles per day, and there are a number of pedestrians who walk along 73rd Avenue, particularly bus passengers going to /from buses on Humboldt and on T.H. 252. He noted staff feels the sidewalk is justified and because the Brooklyn Center /Brooklyn Park city limits line is located along the centerline of 73rd Avenue North, staff recommends that the City of Brooklyn Park be requested to cooperate with Brooklyn Center on this project. He explained it would be necessary to obtain some citizen input regarding this improvement and suggested either a mailed questionnaire or a public informational meeting. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson directing staff to work with the City of Brooklyn Park on this proposed improvement and to mail a questionnaire to the neighborhoods in Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park regarding the improvement. The motion passed unanimously. The Director of Public Works stated the third recommendation pertains to the west side of Humboldt Avenue North between Woodbine Avenue and 73rd Avenue North. He noted the Administrative Traffic Committee is recommending installation of a sidewalk in this area. He explained this area was reviewed approximately one year ago at which time the City Council requested pedestrian counts be taken in the area. He noted two pedestrian counts have been taken. He noted the traffic volume on Humboldt Avenue North is approximately 8,000 vehicles per day and noted this area is the only missing link in the sidewalk system on the west side of Humboldt Avenue between 65th Avenue North and Brookdale Drive. He stated the Administrative Traffic Committee also believes that more people will use this route if the sidewalk is installed. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott approving installation of sidewalk on Humboldt Avenue North from Woodbine Avenue to 73rd Avenue and directing staff to prepare specifications for its construction. The motion passed unanimously. The Director of Public Works stated the fourth and final recommendation submitted by the Administrative Traffic Committee concerns installation of a sidewalk on the east side of Xerxes Avenue North from 65th Avenue North to Shingle Creek Parkway. He noted the existing sidewalk on Xerxes Avenue North from 59th Avenue North to 65th Avenue North is located in the center median, and between 65th Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway, the sidewalk is located on the west side of Xerxes Avenue North. He explained the new Xerxes bridge which is now under construction will provide sidewalks on both sides of the bridge deck. He stated residents on the 66th Avenue North cul -de -sac have requested the installation of sidewalks on the east side of Xerxes Avenue North between 65th and 66th Avenues North to provide a place for their children to walk to the school crosswalk at Xerxes Avenue North and 66th Avenue North. He noted the Administrative Traffic Committee recommends approval of the request from the residents on 66th Avenue North and also recommends that the sidewalk be extended north to Shingle Creek Parkway, using the new sidewalk available on the Xerxes Avenue North bridge, to create a more complete sidewalk system to serve pedestrian needs in this neighborhood. I s 7/24/89 -12- There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar approving installation of a sidewalk on Xerxes Avenue North between 65th Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway and directing staff to prepare plans and specifications for its construction. The motion passed unanimously. CONSULTANT TO PROVIDE LAND USE STUDY - 66TH AVENUE NORTH AND WEST RIVER ROAD The City Manager stated in response to the request for proposals which the City sent out relating to the planning and land use study in the area of 66th Avenue North and West River Road, the City has received four such proposals. He noted they range from $7,000 to $10,595. He explained staff has narrowed the choices down to two companies, those being Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. at a cost of approximately $7,000 and Short - Elliott- Hendrickson, Inc. at a cost of $10,595. He explained the cost differences are obvious. However, staff recommends strong consideration of Short - Elliott- Hendrickson, Inc. primarily because their proposal is more comprehensive and involves more hours of consulting time which staff believes will give a more thorough approach to the subject matter. A brief discussion then ensued on how staff narrowed the consultants to the two which are being recommended. The Director of Planning and Inspection noted after review of the proposed work plans these two consultants seem to hit on the areas that needed to be elaborated on in the study. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott accepting the proposal of Short - Elliott- Hendrickson, Inc. based on the criteria that they offer a more thorough and complete project for this study. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to continue the meeting to August 1, 1989, at 7 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 10:05 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 7/24/89 -13- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8 -14 -89 Agenda Item Number 5 4- b REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Peformance Bond Releases *. # * *� * * # *� # * * * #* *mot # #� *t# #tom.. # #tt�t * *� #t. ' **.* �t#...*.«*#.*## #. #.,.. * * *#,► : *,►,►� *� * *t :� * *. DEPARTMEN VAL: Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: .No comments to supplement this report _X ommerrts below /attacfied SUMMARY. EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached The following performance guarantees are recommended for release: 1. Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle ` Planning Commission Application No. 87017 Amount of Guarantee - $5,8320.00 Bond Obligor - Kraus- Anderson Construction Company Minor modifications to parking lot and greenstrip have been completed. Recommend total release. 2. Target 6100 Shingle Creek Parkway Planning Commission Application No. 88014 Amount of Guarantee - $10,000 Bond Obligor - Dayton Hudson Corporation Target Store Division Parking lot modifications have been made and cart storage screening area is completed. Recommend total release. Submitted by Gary Shallcross CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8�9 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION • ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR WAGE AND SALARY ADJUSTMENTS *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. P P T ROVAL: u' Director of Finance Signature - title ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: - (supplemental sheets attached EXPLANATION • When the City Council adopts a General Fund Budget in the fall of the year for the next year, the amount of salary and wage settlements are not known. It has been the City's practice to appropriate funds in the Unallocated Departmental Expense Account in an amount equal to the estimate of the following year's salary increases. During the budget year, when all salaries and wages have been determined, then appropriations are transferred from Unallocated Expenses to each individual department or division in the amount needed. This is the annual annual resolution to perform that task. LISTING OF ANY PAST ACTIONS BY THE COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM ----------------------------------- None. ANY FUTURE ACTIONS BY THE COUNCIL THAT WILL BE NECESSARY -------------------------------------------------------- None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To adopt the resolution to transfer unallocated appropriations to the individual departments or divisions to provide for salary and wage increases. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: (HRAJ) RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR WAGE AND SALARY ADJUSTMENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ WHEREAS, Section 7.08 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn Center does provide that the City Council may, by majority vote of its members, transfer unencumbered appropriation balances from one office department, or agency to P � g y another within the same fund; and WHEREAS, on September 19, 1988, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center adopted a budget for the calendar year 1989; and WHEREAS, when said budget was adopted, 1989 salaries and wages for City employees had not been set; and WHEREAS, the City Council did appropriate funds for departmental labor and fringe benefits in the amount of $248,878 to Unallocated Departmental Expenses (Department No. 80) to provide funds for 1989 salary and wage settlements; and WHEREAS, all wages and salaries for the calendar year 1989 have now been set by the Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to transfer $231,033 from the following Unallocated Departmental Expense (Deparatment No. 80) appropriations: 01 -4100 Salaries, Regular Employees $ 194,647 01 -4141 PERA- Regular 747 01 -4142 PERA- Combined 4,711 01 -4143 PERA - Police 7,826 01 -4144 Social Security 9,218 01 -4147 Medicare 108 01 -4151 Hospitalization Insurance 12,504 01 -4152 Life Insurance 165 01 -4153 Dental Insurance 1,107 $ 231,033 ; and Increase the departmental or divisional appropriations in the total amount of $231,033 as indicated on the following page: 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. RESOLUTION NO. (HRAJ1) Salaries Salaries Salaries PERA PERA PERA Medi- Health Life Dental Regular Overtime Temporary Regular Combined Police FICA Care Insurance Insurance Insurance 4100 4112 4130 4141 4142 4143 4144 4147 4151 4152 4153 TOTAL -- --- - -- -- --- - -- - - --- - -- -- - -- - -- -- - - - --- - -- - - - -- -- - -- - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - ---- - - - - - - -- -- -- - - -- -- - -- - -- City Council 0 0 0 0 (176) 0 (1,419) 180 0 0 0 (1,415) City Manager's Office 10,108 0 0 0 429 0 1,153 0 2,465 81 703 14,939 Elections 685 0 0 0 799 0 642 (1,360) 218 7 42 1,033 Assessing Deparatment 3,215 0 500 0 158 0 279 0 1,244 44 240 5,680 Finance Department 19,081 0 0 239 714 0 1,262 0 2,488 88 480 24,352 Government Buildings 3,958 54 (1,728) 0 578 0 1,020 0 1,244 44 240 5,410 Police Protection 69,183 4,032 4,991 0 674 7,480 5,620 1,288 15,238 539 2,940 111,985 Fire Protection 1,772 0 1,200 0 0 213 0 0 311 11 60 3,567 Planning & Inspection 5,886 0 0 0 250 0 299 0 2,177 77 420 9,109 Emergency Preparedness 1,110 0 0 0 0 133 0 0 312 10 60 1,625 Animal Control 0 0 250 0 11 0 19 0 0 0 0 280 Engineering 8,638 0 744 115 352 0 292 0 2,799 99 540 13,579 Streets Maintenance 10,907 500 800 248 419 0 739 0 4,167 148 804 18,732 Vehicle Maintenance 2,852 100 0 0 125 0 221 0 1,306 46 252 4,902 Recreation /Parks Admin 7,483 0 0 0 318 0 836 0 1,866 66 360 10,929 Parks Maintenance 1,494 311 1,000 145 60 0 107 0 2,612 93 504 6,326 - - - - - -- --- - - -- - - - - - -- - --- - -- - --- - -- --- --- - - - - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - - - - -- -- - - - -- - -- - - -- TOTAL 146,372 4,997 7,757 747 4,711 7,826 11,070 108 38,447 1,353 7,645 231,033 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/ Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION • ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution to Transfer Funds from the Government Buildings to the Finance Department and Within the Government Buildings DEPT. APP =.�-- EDA Coordinator Signature - title ************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached In the 1989 budget, $2,500 was approved in the government buildings budget for a room divider • system. Because of the space studies currently being conducted and the possible remodeling, it is inadvisable to purchase the room divider system for the finance department. The finance department is in need of a new typewriter. The current typewriter is 10 years old and has been experiencing continuous problems. I am purposing to use $1,100 for the purchase of a new typewriter for the finance department. I am further recommending adding the balance ($1,400) to the appropriation for new lighting over the receptionist's desk. The original appropriation was far below the cost necessary to install the new light fixtures. RECOMMENDATION I recommend approval of the attached resolution. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM THE GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS TO THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT AND WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS 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 City Council appropriated $2,500.00 in the 1989 Government Buildings budget for a room divider system in the Finance Department; and WHEREAS, space studies of the Civic Center are currently underway which make it inadviseable to invest in room dividers which could be made unnecessary by a remodeling; and WHEREAS, the City Council appropriated $750.00 in the 1989 Government Buildings budget for new light fixtures over the receptionist's area which are now projected to cost $1,750.00; and WHEREAS, the Finance Department has a need for a new typewriter to replace an old I.B.M. Selectric which has been unreliable and difficult to maintain. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to amend the 1989 General Fund budget as follows: 1. Decrease the appropriation for Government Buildings Dept #19, buildings account #4520, by $2,500.00 2. Increase the appropriation for Government Buildings Dept #19, furniture & fixtures account 4550, by $1,400.00 3. Increase the appropriation for Finance Dept #16, office equipment account #4551, by $1,100.00 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 8/14/89 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION RECEIVING REPORT AND CALLING FOR HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1988 -18, WEST RIVER ROAD BETWEEN 66TH AVENUE NORTH AND 73RD AVENUE NORTH AND WILLOW LANE BETWEEN INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 694 AND 66TH AVENUE NORTH DEPT. APPROVAL: * * * * * * *, S KNAPP 4 - IR E CTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS * * Y K * * ** ********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * ** * ** * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Explanation At the time MNDOT constructed new T.H. 252, an agreement was executed between MNDOT and the City which provided that old T.H. 252 (i.e. - West River Road between 66th Avenue and 73rd Avenue) would be returned to the jurisdiction of the City ...following the improvement of that roadway. The agreement also detailed the scope of MNDOT participation in the cost of the improvements. Subsequently, MNDOT budgeted $500,000 for their share of these improvements and an agreement was executed which provided for the City to hire a consulting engineering firm to develop a feasibility study for this project. The firm of Short - Elliott- Hendrickson Inc. (SEH) was selected by the City to conduct this study. In preparing the study, two informational meetings were conducted by City staff members and representatives from SEH. As a result, the feasibility study reflects many of the issues discussed at those informational meetings, as well as detailed engineering analysis and cost estimates. SEH has now completed the feasibility study (copy attached) and representatives from SEH will attend the 8/14/89 Council meeting g to present this report to the Council. It is recommended that the Council adopt the attached resolution receiving the report, and calling for a hearing to be held on August 28, 1989. If that resolution is adopted, an official notice of the hearing will be published twice in the Brooklyn Center Post, and individual notices will be sent to all property owners at least 10 days in advance of the hearing. Council Action Required o receive presentation of the report from SEH; o discuss the report and the project; and o adopt resolution. i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECEIVING REPORT AND CALLING FOR HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1988 -18, WEST RIVER ROAD BETWEEN 66TH AVENUE NORTH AND 73RD AVENUE NORTH AND WILLOW LANE BETWEEN INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 694 AND 66TH AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution #89 -25, a report was prepared by Short - Elliott- Hendrickson Inc., consulting engineers, with reference to the following described project: Improvement Project 1988 -18: Reconstruction of West River Road Between 66th Avenue North and 73rd Avenue North; and Construction of a Pedestrian /Bicycle Trail on Willow Lane Between Interstate Highway 694 and 66th Avenue North And this report was received by the Council on August 14, 1989. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The Council will consider the improvement in accordance with the report and the assessment of benefited property as detailed in the report for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $1,318,848. 2. A public hearing shall be held on the proposed improvement on the 28th day of August, 1989, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 8:OO p.m. local time, and the Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. ' �F B ROO KL Y N "1 C ENTER 1 FEASIBILITY STUDY 1 FOR WEST RIVER ROAD IMPROVEMENT NUMBER 1988 ®18 JULY, 1989 1 `44 w Uu?" Cl�l f" ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS N PLANNERS 1 FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR WEST RIVER ROAD IMPROVEMENT NO. 1988 -18 BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA JULY, 1989 SEH FILE NO: 89160 lie I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under th ws of the Sta of Minnesota. a DATE: /C:/ ( `�f REG. NO. 14691 REVIEWED BY: DATE: -4 % • I N D E X FEASIBILITY STUDY BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA WEST RIVER ROAD IMPROVEMENT NO. 1988 -18 PAGE NO. TITLE PAGE CERTIFICATION LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL INDEX CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION SECTION I - INTRODUCTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT BACKGROUND EXISTING FACILITIES PROJECT SCHEDULE . SECTION II - ROADWAY DESIGN TRAFFIC ANALYSIS DESIGN CRITERIA ROADWAY LAYOUT ALTERNATE GEOMETRIC DESIGN SIGNAGE /PAVEMENT MARKING CONSTRUCTION STAGING SECTION III - SOILS SECTION IV - ROADWAY SECTION ALTERNATIVES DESIGN CRITERIA BITUMINOUS ALTERNATIVE SECTION LIFE CYCLE COSTING SECTION V - UTILITIES WATERMAIN STORM DRAINAGE SANITARY SEWER PRIVATE UTILITIES LIGHTING I SECTION VI - PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS EXISTING LANE USE SIDEWALKS AND BIKE PATH BUS CONSIDERATIONS SECTION VII - LANDSCAPING LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS LANDSCAPE DESIGN PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH ROADWAY PLANTINGS PLANTING MATERIALS GENERAL MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES SECTION VIII - PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROPERTY OWNER COORDINATION AGENCY COORDINATION i ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET SECTION IX - ESTIMATE OF COST SECTION X - SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS SECTION XI - PROJECT FUNDING APPENDIX - PAVEMENT DESIGN • A= ENGINEERS N ARCHITECTS 8 PLANNERS 222 EAST LITTLE CANADA ROAD, ST PAUL, MINNESOTA 55117 612484-0272 July 10, 1989 RE: BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA WEST RIVER ROAD IMPROVEMENT NO. 1988 -18 SEH FILE NO: 89160 City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Attention: Mr. Sylvester Knapp, Director of Public Works We are pleased to present this Feasibility Study for the con- struction of West River Road between 66th Avenue North and 73rd • Avenue North. The Feasibility Study investigated the need for and type of roadway improvements necessary. It was determined from the Feasibility Study that total reconstruction (rather than a bituminous overlay or partial reconstruction with an overlay) of West River Road was the best solution to fit the needs of the City. The study also investigated the public and private utility needs along the corridor. An extensive effort was made to involve property owners in the design activity. The Feasibility Study discusses the project need, the alternatives considered, develops a plan for the project and provides drawings and an estimate of cost. We wish to acknowledge the help and participation by City staff. The feasibility study was accomplished in a short time which was made possible by the involvement of City staff and timely deci- sion making. We look forward to reviewing this study with the City at your convenience. Sin erely, J � Richard E. Moore REM /cih SHORT ELLIOTT ST PAUL, CHIPPEWA FALLS, HENDRICKSON INC MINNESOTA WISCONSIN CONCLUSIONS Based upon the detailed investigation, survey and study which comprise a part of this report, it is concluded that: P P 1. Since the completion of T.H. 252, West River Road is no longer functioning as a major highway. 2. Mn /DOT will turn back West River Road to the City of Brooklyn Center since T.H. 252 is completed and will replace the West River Road function as a major highway. 3. The projected traffic growth is less than when West River Road functioned as a highway. The estimated traffic in the year 2010 is 1950 ADT. 4. It is possible to design a roadway with slight curvature within the existing right -of -way. 5. The proposed roadway design with slight curvature will provide more of a P arkway setting by accommodating additional landscaping. 6. A combined bike /pedestrian path is better than a separate trail and sidewalk because it takes less total room. 7. The bike trail /sidewalk can serve residents on either the east side or west side. 8. Reducing the amount of retaining wall required on the existing highway berm is possible by combining and placing the bike trail /sidewalk on the east side. 9. Soils encountered consist of poorly graded sand with silt and gravel overlying clay. 10. Unsuitable soils must be removed and replaced with select granular borrow to achieve a uniform design based upon a "R" value of 15. C & R - 1 11. Ground water was not encountered in borings south of 73rd Avenue North. 12. Based upon past records of other streets in the area and ground water encountered in past watermain repairs, frost heaving can be expected between 69th Avenue North and 73rd Avenue North. 13. Additional right -of -way is required to realign and reduce the severity of the horizontal curves at 66th Avenue North. 14. Storm sewer inlets constructed by Mn /DOT can be utilized for a portion of the expected storm water runoff. 15. Additional storm sewer will be required. • 16. Additional landscaping can be provided on the T.H. 252 berm. 17. Better manhole access can be provided for City maintenance personnel on the T.H. 252 berm. 18. Soil corrosion has deteriorated the mechanical joint bolts on the existing watermain and should be replaced. 19. 1 n additional cost to the E ectric service can be buried at a add City and property owners. 20. An agreement for cost sharing with Mn /DOT already exists. 21. The MTC does not anticipate bus stops will be required on West River Road south of 73rd Avenue North. In considering the foregoing; it is recommended that: • 1. The project is feasible and can best be constructed as outlined in this report at an estimated cost of $1,172,427 or $1,318,848 depending upon trail location. C & R - 2 2. City staff and financial advisors review this report. 3. The City Council accept this report and order a public hearing. • C & R - 3 SECTION I INTRODUCTION The construction of West River Road from 66th Avenue North to 73rd Avenue North has been initiated by the City of Brooklyn Center in cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Transpor- tation (Mn /DOT). The project is a part of the original contract i between the City of Brooklyn Center and Mn /DOT to provide assistance in funding to the City for a turnback project on the West River Road after the completion of new T.H. 252. The project was originally to consist of a bituminous overlay with concrete curb and gutter. As study began, however, the contractual agreement was developed to provide funding assis- tance from MN /DOT on certain items of construction. The City will be responsible for determining the roadway alignment, section and design. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The segment of West River Road to be constructed is approximate- ly 0.8 miles between 66th Avenue North and 73rd Avenue North. In addition, the study covers approximately 0.3 miles along Willow Lane from T.H. 694 to 66th Avenue North, the location for a proposed bike path. Together with a typical section, alignment and traffic analysis investigation, the study includes an investigation of the existing watermain for corrosion as well as exploratory excavations to determine the type of joint construction and pipe style that was used in the original watermain. The project also includes storm sewer construction together with subgrade drains. Consideration is given to NSP overhead electrical lines as well as television and telephone lines, which may be buried as part of this project. There is a large natural gas main which crosses the West River Road from • west to east. This main has caused some concern to City personnel because of frost heave problems on the West River Road. I - 1 The traffic analysis included a study of the intersections of 73rd Avenue North and 66th Avenue North. PROJECT LOCATION The project is located in the northeast quadrant of the City of Brooklyn Center. The project is a north /south route parallel to T.H. 252, between 66th Avenue North and 73rd Avenue North. West River Road is formerly T.H. 252 which will be turned back to the City of Brooklyn Center by Mn /DOT. The portion of Willow Lane, which was studied for a bike path extension, is located approximately 400 feet east of West River Road between 66th Avenue North and T.H. 694. The trail is proposed to be located on the west side of Willow Lane. The project location is shown on Drawing No. 1. PROJECT BACKGROUND West River Road provides access to adjacent properties on the east side of West River Road as well as properties on Dallas Road and Willow Lane. West River Road is an important link in the Brooklyn Center transportation system for local traffic. The City of Brooklyn Park is also considering improvements to West River Road between 73rd Avenue North and the T.H. 610 bridge. This work can be done at the same time for both communi- ties. EXISTING FACILITIES The existing roadway is a two lane rural roadway with narrow shoulders. Drainage is currently provided by roadway ditches. The existing right -of -way is 66 feet wide. Watermain exists the full length of the project. Storm sewer does not exist on the project except trunk storm sewer pipes that cross at 69th Avenue . North, 70th Avenue North and along the south side of 73rd Avenue North. I - 2 There is existing watermain primarily the full length of the project. The watermain is on the east side of West River Road from 67th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North where it dead ends. Watermain crosses new T.H. 252 at 69th Avenue North and at 70th Avenue North where the watermain is on the west side of the West River Road. The watermain crosses the West River Road at 70th Avenue North and extends to 73rd Avenue North east of the east right -of -way of the West River Road. The existing watermain was excavated in several locations and found to be "push -on" type joints not requiring bolts for mechanical joints except at fittings. The soils were also investigated for resistivity to determine if corrosion may be a concern for the City. Watermain and the results of the soils testing is discussed under Section V - Utilities. Sanitary sewer is inplace on the west side of the West River Road fie between 70th Avenue North and 73rd Avenue North. This sanitary sewer is in the berm area which was constructed as a part of the T.H. 252 project. Access to the manholes is not convenient for City maintenance forces. Existing sanitary sewer along West River Road between 66th Avenue North and 70th Avenue North was abandoned as a part of the T.H. 252 construction. The residences along this segment of West River Road are served by sewers be- tween the Mississippi River and West River Road. The sanitary sewer system seems to be adequate to serve the area and no revi- sions are anticipated as a part of this project except to improve access to the manholes in the berm area. The sanitary sewer was televised as a part of this study. There is existing gas main, overhead electric, telephone and cable television the total length of the project. These private utilities are discussed further under Section V - Utilities. I - 3 PROJECT SCHEDULE The following project schedule is anticipated: DATE PHASE August 14, 1989 Present Feasibility Study August 16, 1989 Publish Notice of Hearing in News- paper (city legal requirement August 16, 1989 Mail Notice of Hearing to Property Owners August 28, 1989 Public Hearing Date, Order Prepar- ation of Plans & Specifications November 13, 1989 City Council Approves Plans and Specifications January, 1990 Mail Notice of Advertisement for Bids to Post and Construction Bulletin (City legal requirement) • February, 1990 Open Bids March, 1990 Award Contract September, 1990 Construction Completed September, 1990 Assessment Hearing January, 1991 First Payment Due with Real Estate Taxes i I - 4 SECTION II ROADWAY DESIGN The West River Road has served as Trunk Highway 169 and later as Trunk Highway 252. With the completion of T.H. 252 on a new alignment, the West River Road should only be required to serve local residents with limited through traffic. Since the area served by West River Road is virtually all developed the roadway can be designed to accommodate existing and some future traffic needs and discourage through traffic. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS At present, West River Road has a volume of 750 vehicles per day south of 73rd Avenue North. The Minnesota Department of • Transportation (Mn /DOT) in 1982 estimated future traffic volumes along the Highway 252 and 610 corridor. The report (TA -M293) estimated a traffic volume on West River Road for the year 2007 at 950 vehicles per day between 66th Avenue North and 73rd Avenue North. A subsequent report (TA -M329) made no change in these volumes. The reports anticipated completion of Highway 610 between Highway 252 and Highway 169 and were for the year 2007. As part of the study of West River Road, an extensive traffic volume analysis was made. The entire residential area which generates traffic which could utilize West River Road was reviewed for total traffic generation. After the number of trips from each area along West River Road was calculated, they were distributed to general trip orientation within the metropolitan area. They were further distributed to West River Road and other connecting streets to gain access to the major arteries such as T.H. 252, 85th Avenue, Highway 610 and I -694. Consideration was given to the volume levels on Highway 252 and the current • diversion of local traffic from that highway. A license plate study was also made which indicated that most traffic on West II - 1 River Road came from the areas immediately adjacent to the roadway in Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park and Champlin. Based on this study, the volume of 1950 vehicles per day was estimated for the year 2010. Current traffic volumes on Highway 252 are higher than anticipated by Mn /DOT. This is primarily due to congestion along I -694 resulting in a number of diverted trips to the 610 bridge crossing. Mn /DOT estimates that traffic volumes on Highway 252 will decrease with the completion of the 3rd Lane and the finishing of construction along I -694. The ultimate construction of Highway 610 from Highway 252 west to Highway 169 and ultimately to I -694 will also significantly affect volumes on Highway 252. There is no program construction date or completion date currently set for Highway 610, but unofficial estimates indicate completion is likely in approximately 1998. Final design and access to Highway 610 has not been started. A number of traffic studies were made in conjunction with the West River Road study. Traffic originating along West River Road in Brooklyn Park and Champlin tends to use West River Road and parallel routes to Highway 252. Traffic ultimately gains access to Highway 252 at Brookdale Drive, 73rd Street and 66th Street. Because of Highway 252 congestion, much traffic seeks to bypass diverters and uses the local street system to gain access at a more southerly location. As a result, traffic volumes on Riverdale Drive and Willow Lane are much higher than they should be. A number of changes in West River Road are anticipated in Brooklyn Park. A connection between West River Road and 85th Avenue could be made utilizing Dupont Avenue. West River Road could then be terminated east of Mattson Brook. The result would be almost total diversion of traffic to 85th Avenue and Highway • 252. It appears that this is a integral part of the design for West River Road and Brooklyn Park. Southbound traffic at II - 2 Brookdale Drive will be diverted westerly along Brookdale Drive to Highway 252. Traffic will be physically prohibited from continuing south along West River Road. Additional islands are proposed as part of the Brooklyn Park plan for West River Road. Southbound left turns at Brookdale Drive will be prohibited from approximately 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. which should eliminate the current practice of using Brookdale Drive to the east and connecting to local streets in Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center. Drawings No. 2 and 3 illustrate the estimated Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for 1988 and 2010. Because of the anticipated diversion of virtually all traffic on West River Road to Brookdale Drive, it may not be necessary to continue with the current restrictions at 73rd. A three step program will be utilized to make local resident access through the intersection more convenient but discourage through traffic. lie The intersection of Highway 252 and 73rd Avenue should receive some modifications as part of Mn /DOT's program to, improve operations on Highway 252 making access at this point more desirable. Access from westbound 66th Street to Highway 252 can also be modified to be made less convenient. These two items coupled with the diversion of Brookdale Drive should significantly reduce potential traffic on West River Road south of 73rd. Drawing 3A shows the proposed island modifications. DESIGN CRITERIA The design speed of the roadway is 30 mph for both horizontal and vertical alignments, with the exception of the two curves at 66th Street. Current speeds are considerably higher than 30 mph due to the straight alignment and the "rural highway" appearance. It is felt that placement of a curb and gutter section, restricting width to 30 feet, providing restrictive appearing pavement markings, providing gentle horizontal curves and adding landscaping will reduce the rural highway appearance and lower • the actual speeds at which motorists to close to 30 mph. The II - 3 I i most northerly curve on West River Road near 66th Street will be modified to provide a slightly larger radius and a higher speed. The second curve will remain the same since it is at a stop condition for 66th Street. The modifications should provide for better operation without increasing overall speeds or volumes. ROADWAY LAYOUT The roadway design for the West River Road will consist of two through traffic lanes. This roadway section will have concrete curb and gutter on both sides. There will be 30' in width between the curbs. Each boulevard will be 6' in width with a 10' wide combination bike trail and sidewalk on either the east side or the west side. With the proposed gentle curvature of the roadway, it is anticipated the roadway will be moved away from the existing homes on the east side as much as possible. This curvature will fi le also provide some additional space for limited landscaping. A retaining wall will be required on the west side along much of the project. This is necessary because as the roadway alignment is curved toward the west in the residential areas, the cut into the berm is more pronounced. The retaining wall provides for a shifting of roadway alignment while maintaining the existing height of the highway berm to reduce traffic noise and lights. This retaining wall will also provide space for adjustment of the sanitary sewer manholes. If the combined biketrail /sidewalk is placed on the west side, some additional retaining wall construction will be required. The vertical alignment was designed to maintain a 30 mph speed. Centerline grades are at a minimum 0.44% with most of the grades at a 0.5 %. Some segments will have over a 1.0% gradient. II - 4 Drawings No. 4, 5 and 6 show the conceptual roadway design with the biketrail /sidewalk on the east side of West River Road. Drawing No. 7 and 8 show the conceptual roadway design with the biketrail /sidewalk on the west side. The biketrail /sidewalk is proposed to be constructed on the west side of Willow Lane from T.H. 694 to 66th Avenue North. A shortage of space for construction and disruption to private property would be greater if the Willow Lane biketrail /sidewalk were constructed on the east side between T.H. 694 and 66th Avenue North. This conceptual design is the result of the two informational meetings conducted with property owners. Consideration was given to the existing and proposed development and evaluation of the operating conditions of both West River Road and the cross streets or driveways. Consideration was also given to the location of the biketrail /sidewalk on either the west side or the east side and the impact on roadway design. Ale ALTERNATE GEOMETRIC DESIGN In an effort to provide greater potential for landscaping and beautification efforts, the curvature design provides "pockets" for landscape efforts adjacent to the roadway as well as along the berm area created by the T.H. 252 construction. This land - scaping will require extra maintenance by City forces on the berm area and in the park. The landscaping in the residential areas should receive maintenance by residents as part of the boulevard. It is necessary to provide adequate sight distance between vehicles on West River Road and the cross streets. The sight distance requirements cut significantly into the area available for beautification and landscaping. With a curved alignment, more landscaping can be accommodated still maintaining sight distance for streets and private drives. Drawings No. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 indicate some typical landscape schemes that can be utilized on both the berm area and the roadside "pockets ". II - 5 Another alignment alternate investigated was a straight roadway following the existing alignment. This alignment did not prove as satisfactory as the curved alignment. The straight roadway is less conducive to landscaping and does not "move" traffic away from residences. It is also felt that this alignment will not help to reduce speed significantly. Alternate typical sections were analyzed as well as alternative geometric designs. One alternate studied was the construction of an overlay with concrete curb and gutter. Because of the existing flat grades on West River Road, much of the surface would have to be removed to provide more satisfactory drainage. Storm sewer costs would be greater because trench drains in the concrete gutter would be required in the overlay segments. These are more labor intensive and therefore more costly. . A rural section was analyzed also. This section does not meet present City standards requiring concrete curb and gutter, and would require additional right -of -way. It would be difficult to construct a ditch section adjacent to the T.H. 252 berm and would require moving the roadway alignment closer to the residences on the east side. A combination bike trail and sidewalk on either side was investigated. By placing the combination trail on the east side, a safer access of the trail is created for the local residents. Again, the impact on the existing berm is reduced. Some local residents expressed concern with having the combined trail in front of their houses which could also be used by other people in Brooklyn Center. By constructing the biketrail /sidewalk on the west side, the concerns of residents for other people using the trail n residences can be alleviated. However, a in front of their this requires additional retaining wall construction on the berm. • It is difficult to estimate the use of the biketrail /sidewalk at this time. Use may be quite extensive or it may receive more use II - 6 by local residents. Again, with the curved roadway alignment, the combined trail and walkway on the east side will be constructed as far from houses as possible. An 8' trail and separate 5' walk were reviewed. The 5'. walk could be placed on the east side and the 8' bike trail on the west side. This would require a straight roadway alignment to fit within the existing right -of -way. This design would require shifting the roadway to the east to limit the impact on the berm. More extensive retaining wall construction would be required with the trail and sidewalk on both sides. This will be more costly. The biketrail and sidewalk can be constructed on either side. It appears that one single combined system will have less impact on the existing property and highway berm. That is, the physical interruption of property would be less. Combined biketrail/ sidewalk construction on the east side would be less costly but may not completely satisfy residents objections. The maximum landscaping that can be provided between the biketrail /sidewalk and homes on the east side is indicated on the drawings. This will assist in screening the biketrail /sidewalk as much as possible from private homes. By placing the combined walkway system on the west side, the use by others will be separated from the private homes. SIGNAGE AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS Signs and pavement markings are proposed to be installed as part of this project. CONSTRUCTION STAGING Construction staging is a very important element for the successful implementation of the West River Road project. Unique construction staging concepts are limited because of the avail- able alternate routes for access to residences along West River Road. Construction can be staged in segments to provide limited access to residents during various construction stages. Local traffic can be maintained most of the time. Cross streets such II - 7 as 70th Avenue North and 72nd Avenue North together with Dallas Road and Willow Lane can be used as alternate access for residents of West River Road. Advance notice of construction and access changes can be a part of the Contractor's responsibilities. II - 8 SECTION III SOILS This feasibility tud utilizes soil borings and laboratory tests Y Y g performed by GME Consultants, Inc. GME Consultants prepared a soils survey report that provides recommendations for the Engineer to design the roadway structural section based upon traffic projections. The soils borings were taken in accordance with Mn /DOT procedures at approximately 200 foot increments, to a depth of eight (8) feet. Some borings were put down to a depth of fifteen (15) feet. The soils encountered along he project below the existing 9 P 3 g bituminous surfacing consisted of poorly graded sand with silt and gravel overlying clay. Isolated areas of clayey sands and • silty sands were also encountered. The soils were quite variable and the individual soil log reports require study to determine expected soil conditions for construction. A two (2) foot subcut and backfill with granular material will be constructed over the length of the project. Any black soils, organics and peat that are not suitable for roadway construction will be subcut and replaced with select granular borrow for uniform compaction. The recommended "R" value based on the existing soils is 15. In some instances, it is anticipated that geotextile fabric may be required to provide additional stability for poor soils. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings. It appears that groundwater will not be encountered during pavement construction except for possible perched water tables which were not encountered through soil borings. However, because of ground- water problems encountered on streets east of West River Road • between 70th Avenue North and 73rd Avenue North, it is anticipated that drain tile will be installed in the subgrade area. III - 1 SECTION IV ROADWAY SECTION ALTERNATIVES Construction of a new street or roadway provides an opportunity Y P PP Y to select the pavement that offers the most cost effective life cycle of service. Several structural sections were analyzed to determine the most cost effective. DESIGN CRITERIA To compare the different structural sections, the following parameters and assumptions are used. 1) 20 ear design life for bituminous pavement. Y 9 2) Year of construction 1990 with first design life ending in 2010. 3) Projected (2010) 2 -way traffic volume (ADT) 3,000. • 4) 2 Vehicle Classification Distribution as follows: Classification Distribution 1 87.9 2 10.0 3 1.0 4 0.5 5 0.3 6 0.1 7 0.1 8 0.0 9 0.1 5) Road strength - 9 ton. 6) Soil R -Value = 15 7) Future Sigma - N18 = 6.51 8) A real interest rate of 4.5% 1 Minimum design standards for Mn /DOT facilities. • 2 See Appendix for vehicle classification definitions. IV - 1 BITUMINOUS ALTERNATIVE SECTION The bituminous structural section is dependent upon subgrade soil bearing capacity. Areas of poor bearing materials such as peat, organics and silts within the top 3.0 feet are anticipated to be removed and replaced with a select granular material. Most cost effective bituminous structural sections in this part of the state generally consists of a combination of aggregate base, bituminous base and bituminous wearing course. The bituminous pavement alternative structural sections proposed for West River Road are: Alternate 1: 2" 2341 Bituminous Wearing Course 3" 2331 Bituminous Base 5 -1/2" CL. 5 Aggregate Base Alternate 2: • 2" 2341 Bituminous Wearing Curse 2" 2331 Bituminous Base Course 7 -1/2" CL. 5 Aggregate Base Each structural section provides 14" of gravel equivalents (G.E.) LIFE CYCLE COSTING The life cycle cost comparison between two bituminous pavement systems used the following parameters and assumptions: 1) Bituminous pavement has a service life of 20 years and can be extended to 35 years with a design overlay applied at 20 years and a plant mix bituminous seal coat of 3/4 inches is recommended at 12 years. 2) Bituminous overlay at 20 years will require milling of surface prior to overlay placement. . 3) Annual "real" interest of 4.5$ is applied to forecast present worth of maintenance costs. Real interest rate equals market interest minus inflation rate. IV - 2 4) Design overlay at 20 years will consist of 2" bituminous. 5) Annual maintenance cost for both structural sections are assumed equal. This includes crack sealing. 6) Salvage value 20 years in the future is too unpredictable and therefore will not be considered in this economic analysis. 7) Considerations such as conservation of aggregate, energy savings, skid resistance, noise, rideability, driver visibility, labor intensity, engineering and overhead costs and price fluctuations are assumed equal. The life cycle cost calculations are given below. I. Bituminous Pavement Costs ($ /SY) Alternate 1. A. Initial Construction Cost Item Unit Price Cost ($ /SY) 2" 2341 Bit. Wear @ 7% Oil $25.00 /Ton $ 2.75 3" 2331 Bit. Base @ 5.3% Oil $23.00 /Ton 3.80 5 -1/2" CL. 5 Agg. Base $ 5.50 /Ton 1.64 Initial Construction $ 8.19 /SY B. Design Overlay (at Year 20) 3.75 „ 2341 Bit. Wear @ 6.5% Oil $25.00 /Ton $ 4.12 Milling $ 2.00 /SY 2.00 $ 6.12 C. Plant Mix Bit. Seal Coat (at 12 Years) 3/4” 2361 Bit. Wear @ 7% Oil $38.00 /Ton $ 1.56 IV - 3 i D. Present Worth Bituminous Pavement PW = $8.19 + $1.56 (PWF) 12 + $6.12 (PWF) 20 PW = $8.19 + ($1.56) (0.59) + ($6.12) (0.41) PW = $11.62 Alternate 2. A. Initial Construction Cost Item Unit Price Cost ($ /SY) 2" 2341 Bit. Wear @ 7% Oil $25.00 /Ton $ 2.75 2" 2331 Bit. Base @ 5.3% Oil $23.00 /Ton 2.53 7 -1/2" CL. 5 Agg. Base $ 5.50 /Ton 2.23 Initial Construction $ 7.51 /SY B. Design Overlay (at Year 20) 3.75" 2341 Bit. Wear @ 6.5% Oil $25.00 /Ton $ 4.12 Milling $ 2.00 /SY 2.00 $ 6.12 C. Plant Mix Bit. Seal Coat (at 12 Years) 3/4" 2361 Bit. Wear @ 7% Oil $38.00 /Ton $ 1.56 D. Present Worth Bituminous Pavement PW = $7.51 + $1.56 (PWF) 12 + $6.12 (PWF) 20 PW = $7.51 + ($1.56) (0.59) + ($6.12) (0.41) PW = $10.94 The Pavement Selection Committee of the Minnesota Department of Transportation has adopted a policy that alternatives within five percent based on the economic model above, are considered equal. Alternate 1 Pavement Costs $11.62 /SY = 1.06 or 6% difference Alternate 2 Pavement Costs $10.94 /SY IV - 4 r Alternate 2 is therefore the most economical to construct. The typical section is shown on Drawings No. 9 and 10. �i 1 N 1 1 1 1 t • 1 1 zv T N SEC IO V UTILITIES WATERMAIN Watermain exists over almost the entire project length. There is watermain on the east side from 67th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North. The watermain is on the west side between 69th Avenue and 70th Avenue and on the east side between 70th Avenue and 73rd Avenue. When this study began, it was unknown if this watermain had all mechanical joint or slip joint pipe. Consequently, the City maintenance personnel, together with a representative from SEH, excavated the existing watermain along West River Road in four locations in the month of April, 1989. The excavation by the City coincided with soil borings taken by a representative from the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association ( DIPRA). This provided the opportunity to have an engineer from DIPRA review the existing pipe and joints for corrosion problems. Because of the rural nature of the West River Road present condition,.with roadside ditches instead of curb and gutter, the DIPRA engineer felt there is a greater risk of causing corrosion of watermain than if curb and gutter and storm sewer were present. The drainage ditches over a parallel watermain provide more opportunity for deicing salts, etc. to get into the soil. It was also discovered that the barrel section of the watermain seemed to be retaining most of the metal thickness. The watermain in the area near a large gas main shows evidence of bolts rusting thin and deteriorating where mechanical joint is present. Further investigation will be needed with the gas company in this area, to provide some type of galvanic protection for the City's watermain. Many times the gas companies provide cathodic protection for their gas mains so corrosion is arrested or reduced to prolong the life of the gas main. This creates stray direct current which leaves the gas main and attacks the V - 1 watermain pipe causing corrosion. Some type of protection for the watermain may have to be provided in the vicinity of the large gas main crossing the West River Road, similar to the ones listed below. Most of the soil samples taken by DIPRA indicate soils corrosive to cast and ductile iron pipe. The recommendations from DIPRA are condensed as follows: Several alternate methods could be applied for corrosion protection such as: A. Only provide corrosion protection for portions of pipe disturbed due to failures at the time of repair. ' B. Retrofit pipe with cathodic protection by attaching galvanic anodes on an impressed electrical current system with a • rectifier. This is costly and requires ongoing maintenance and power costs. C. Uncover pipe, clean and inspect it, place loose polyethylene encasement around pipe. This is also costly. The portions of the P i e excavated were still quite sound and P contained a good cross section of metal on the barrel. Corrosion has not adversely affected the pipe barrel apparently but, rather primarily the mechanical joint bolts. These are found on fittings such as tees, crosses and bends. As a part of the West River Road project, all the mechanical joints should be excavated and replaced. Joint bolts should be selected from materials such as low alloy steels to minimize future bolt corrosion. The mechanical joints and pipe on either side as far back as excavated should be encased with • polyethylene. v - 2 • STORM DRAINAGE When T.H. 252 was constructed by Mn /DOT, storm sewer structures were provided on the west side of West River Road to be converted to storm sewer manholes for drainage on the West River Road. The structures constructed by Mn /DOT between 66th Avenue North and 69th Avenue North can be utilized by adding catch basins and leads on West River Road. New storm sewer will be required between 70th Avenue North and 73rd Avenue North. This system will discharge into an existing 72" storm sewer on 70th Avenue North. The proposed storm drainage system is shown on Drawings No. 11 and 12. An existing 18" V.C.P. the storm sewer which crosses at 69th Avenue North will be abandoned. This storm sewer is no longer • required after the T.H. 252 construction. Perforated subgrade plastic drain pipe will be installed between 70th Avenue North and 73rd Avenue North. The City has experienced ground water and frost heaving problems in this area ' in the past. The problem is the saturation of the subgrade materials which contain silts. In the spring as the ground alternately freezes and thaws, ice lenses build up in silty soils and the soil expands causing frost heaves. By shaping the ' subgrade, so that it is properly crowned and drains to the edges; and providing perforated pipe to collect the water below the gutter, reduces the possibility of water penetrating any silt ' material in the subgrade. With this proposed storm sewer system, drainage in the park can also be improved. There is a swale in the park which drains to the roadway ditch on West River Road. The storm water runoff to . the swale will be included in the design of the proposed storm sewer. V - 3 • I I, The reinforced concrete pipe storm sewer proposed, ranges in size from 12" to 21 ". SANITARY SEWER Some of the original sanitary sewer along West River Road was N abandoned as a part of the T.H. 252 construction. The sanitary sewer alternates back and forth on either side for a portion of the roadway, but is located primarily on the west side under the edge of the berm. The City televised the sanitary sewer and found it to be adequate. No improvements are anticipated at this time, except to provide better access to the manholes in the highway berm. PRIVATE UTILITIES The private utility companies were contacted to determine if any t revisions to their facilities are required. The following is a description of each utility companies existing facilities, and the impact the West River Road will have on the utility company. MINNEGASCO Minnegasco has gas main on the east side of West River Road. Any grade changes proposed in the vertical alignment will have to be coordinated with Minnegasco so they are assured of proper cover over their facility. In some cases, it may be necessary to lower the gas main. The gas mains are 3 and 4" in size. Because of the curvature of the roadway, the gas main will be located outside the road when it swings to the west and on the edge of f the roadway when the road swings to the east. NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY Northern States Power Company facilities are on overhead poles. The power poles are on the east side of the West River Road. • This line is a secondary line primarily for residential service. II � V - 4 . If the City desires NSP to bury the power lines, NSP policy provides that the City must pay the difference in cost between relocating the overhead lines and burying the lines. NSP has estimated the cost to homeowners for the conversion to • underground to be approximately $200, depending upon length of run from main to house. This cost is for a private electrician to make the conversion at the meter. For normal house setbacks, NSP runs service into the meter as a part of the conversion project. Longer runs will cost more. NSP will have to provide estimates on an individual basis for any of these residents. NSP estimates the cost of burying electric main at $200,000 /mile. However, if the City wishes to bury the electric service, NSP will do an estimate for this specific project. TELEPHONE COMPANY Since the telephone facilities are primarily on NSP poles, if the electric service is buried the telephone cable will require • burying. The telephone company has long range plans to bury their facilities over a period of years. This usually does not involve any cost to the City. NORTHWEST CABLE TV ' Northwest Cable TV's existing facilities are all aerial on the NSP poles. Northwest Cable TV does not plan to bury their facilities unless Northern States Power buries their overhead lines. This usually does not involve any cost to the City. LIGHTING The City policy is to have NSP maintain street lighting. The City uses wooden poles with the standard NSP rectangular shaped fixture. If additional lighting units are required, coordination with NSP will be necessary during construction. The typical City light standard is shown on Drawing No. 13. • V - 5 t • SECTION VI PLANNING CONSIDERATION EXISTING LAND USE The property along the east side of the West River Road is zoned R -1 single family residential from 66th Avenue North to just north of 72nd Avenue North. There is a small segment of R -2 two family residential and R -4 multiple family residential adjacent to 73rd Avenue North. No changes in the land use are anticipated ' at this time. The property on the north side of 66th Avenue North at the West River Road is presently used as a field office by Mn /DOT personnel. The City of Brooklyn Center may have an opportunity to purchase this property. If additional right -of -way were . available in this area, it would be possible to reduce the sharp existing curves in the West River Road alignment. This concept is shown on Drawing No. 5. SIDEWALK AND BIKE PATH It is proposed to construct a combined 10' wide sidewalk and bike path. This combined pathway may be on either the east or west side of West River Road. This path will curve with the roadway alignment to enhance landscape areas. If the path is on the east side, it is proposed to construct the path into Riverdale Park, ' to create additional landscape space. A combined sidewalk and bike path was also studied for location ' along Willow Lane; south of 66th Avenue North. This 10' wide combined system can best be constructed on the west side of Willow Lane. The west boulevard of Willow Lane is more open and doesn't have as many trees and other plantings as the east side. The boulevard on the east side is also steeper, making construction difficult. The combined path on the west side of Willow Lane will match the yards which are at an elevation below VI - 1 1 • the street. This system will connect with the Minneapolis trail system extended along the river under the T.H. 694 bridge by Mn /DOT. There is also a segment on the T.H. 694 bridge connecting at the end of Willow Lane. An extension of the trail system is proposed on the south side of 1 66th Avenue North extending the trail system across T.H. 252. This is shown on Drawing No. 5 ' The ro osed trail sidewalk system is shown on Drawings No. 4 to 8. p p / g BUS CONSIDERATIONS ' Contact has been made with the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) regarding bus use on the West River Road. The MTC does not ' provide service on this section of the West River Road. The MTC does not have any plans for changes in their service at this ' • time. • vi - 2 SECTION VII i LANDSCAPING The City f k h r o a dway p roject an y Brooklyn Center considers the oa y p � ideal opportunity to upgrade the image of the West River Road and the T.H. 252 berm. This can be provided by properly designed ' landscaping. This landscaping will provide more of a parkway setting and hopefully tend to reduce speeds. The landscaping theme can also provide screening from the traffic for the residences along the West River Road. A distinctive and positive image is desirable. LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS In our increasingly man -made world, the landscape aesthetics of plants are becoming more highly valued. Plants provide a basic • contact with nature and an increased pleasure in our surroundings. Plants can also be used to direct pedestrian and vehicular traffic as well as to improve the appearance of ' roadways. Plants can screen offensive headlight glare, reduce noise levels to adjacent property owners, as well as have the following additional advantages. Relieve the monotony of pavement and masonry Soften architectural lines and structural details Form vistas, frame views, provide focus and defines space ' Provide a variety of form, color and texture Emphasize the seasons ' Unify, giving coherence to visually chaotic scenes Create impression of a well established place Increase in value as they grow LANDSCAPE DESIGN The following objectives and procedures will be used in designing . the landscaping. VII - 1 1 Create a design which will improve in quality as it ' matures. Meet with individual property owners as necessary to . obtain concurrence. Utilize existing planting materials whenever possible. Incorporate relocated trees into the design concept. ' Use ornamental and shade trees at key points of interest. Encourage mass planting designs over the use of single specimens. Maintain plant materials at least 6 feet from face of curb. Keep plant materials at least 1 foot from sidewalks. Use rock mulch and weed barriers where needed. Use hardy /tolerant plant materials. ' Strive to improve the appearance of project area and individual properties. ' • Strive to unify the project area with an aesthetically pleasing planting design. Utilize designs which require minimum plant maintenance. ' Drawing No. 14 illustrates the proposed conceptual design. ' PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH ROADWAY PLANTINGS Plant materials are one of the most cost effective methods for ' beautifying a roadway project. Once planted they increase in value as they grow through the years, if properly maintained. ' To grow properly, plants just as any other living organism, need a certain environment. The better the environment, the better ' the growth. The roadway environment subjects the plants to several factors which tend to be stressful. ' Roadway deicing salts Exhaust gases and oils Reduced water infiltration '' VII - 2 • Heat from pavement 1 Out of control vehicle ' PLANTING MATERIALS Hardy, tolerant species must be selected for landscaping in a roadway environment. In addition, it is desirable that the 1 species require minimum maintenance and have long lives. The following plants are proposed for use on the project and have 1 been selected based upon this criteria. Deciduous shade trees and evergreen trees are anticipated to have lives which will ' exceed 100 years, ornamental trees a life exceeding 40 years and shrubs a life expectancy of 15 -30 years depending upon the ' locations. 1 li i 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 ' VII - 3 PLANTING MATERIALS t PLANTING MATERIALS MATURE PLANT SIZE Evergreen Trees 6 -7' Height Species Black Hills Spruce 40 - 50 Ft. Colorado Spruce 50 - 60 Ft. Austrian Pine 50 - 60 Ft. Shade Trees 2 -1/2" - 3" Caliper Species Marshalls Green Ash 40 - 50 Ft. Thornless Honey Locust 40 - 50 Ft. Green Spire Linden 50 - 60 Ft. Norway Maple 60 - 70 Ft. Ornamental Trees 1 -1/2" - 2" Caliper Species Amur Maple (Clump) 12 - 15 Ft. Japanese Tree Lilac (Clump) 12 - 15 Ft. Evergreen Shrubs #2 - #5 Pots Species • Maney Juniper 2 - 3 Ft. Pfitzer Juniper 2 - 3 Ft. Deciduous Shrubs 15" - 18" Height Species C. Dwarf Honeysuckle 4 - 6 Ft. Japanese Gr. Barberry 4 - 6 Ft. Alpine Currant 4 6 Ft. Common Purple Lilac 8 - 12 Ft. Potentilla 2 3 Ft. Staghorn Sumac 6 - 8 Ft. Smooth Sumac 6 - 8 Ft. A. W. Spirea 2 - 3 Ft. Rugosa Red Rose 4 - 6 Ft. VII - 4 GENERAL MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES All trees and shrubs should be deep soaked a minimum of once a week during the initial growing season, twice per week during hot dry spells. Just prior to the ground freezing, a last soaking is recommended to help protect plant roots during the cold winter months. This will be accomplished by the Contractor installing the material. During the spring, fertilize all trees and shrubs. Pruning should be provided to encourage a healthy, natural growth pattern for each specific variety. All pruning should be towards developing the eventual future branching structure. Broken, damaged or unsightly plant parts should be removed promptly. Mulch material shall be replaced as needed. The City can encourage property owners to assist in the �• maintenance of the plants. Landscaping is proposed to improve the aesthetic quality of the roadway, to enhance adjacent properties, to reduce noise levels and to screen adjacent land uses. Requirements for safety clear zones adjacent to the roadway, an underground utility corridor and sidewalk minimize the space available for landscaping on the permanent highway right -of -way. For this reason, the curvature in the roadway will provide additional "pockets" of landscape areas. Drawings No. 5 to 8 illustrate these enhanced areas. The residents also expressed concern for headlights shining through the pedestrian opening in the berm at 70th Avenue North. This area can be screened with landscape materials to reduce the headlight glare. Plantings will also be provided where the berm • is nonexistent near 66th Avenue North as much as possible to reduce headlight glare from T.H. 252. VII - 5 SECTION VIII PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Public involvement for a project of this magnitude is essential. At the same time, the existing development will require adequate local access. The design requirements for safety and efficiency of traffic movement and adequate access requires cooperation between the City and the property owners. PROPERTY OWNER COORDINATION Two informational meetings with property owners were held on March 8 and May 17, 1989. Letters were sent to all property L owners with direct access to the West River Road as well as those in adjacent neighborhoods. The first meeting was to develop ideas for design and obtain input from local residents for their specific needs and concerns. Many questions were also asked by residents at this first meeting. The second meeting held to resent design alternates and i e g was p g ideas and to attempt to answer resident questions as much as possible. These meetings were well attended and the City received some written comments as well as verbal comments. About 24 residents (which signed in) attended the first meeting and 26 residents signed in for the second meeting. If the Council orders this project, a public hearing will be required to explain the project and any estimated assessments that may be levied. This public hearing provides an opportunity for the public to express their opinions and concerns to the Council. Preliminary design review meetings will be held with property • owners if the Council orders the project. These meetings will be held individually at set times to review citizen concerns for VIII - 1 r— driveway entrances, landscaping and other design items directly affecting individual properties. AGENCY COORDINATION Several meetings have been held between SEH and City staff. Meetings have also been held with Mn /DOT. Mn /DOT will also have a final review of the plans and specifications if they are ordered. SEH would continue to hold design coordination meetings with City staff during the design period. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) In accordance with the rules adopted by the Minnesota Environ- mental Quality Board for the 1982 Environmental Review Program, Number 6MCAR, Paragraph 3.021- 3.056, an EAW was submitted and reviewed by the appropriate agencies. The City of Brooklyn Center acted as the responsible governmental unit (RGU) for the project. The EAW was published in the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) monitor on May 1, 1989. The comment period for the City to receive public and agency comments was from May l to May 31, 1989. The EAW was a discretionary EAW and was not mandated by Minnesota Statutes. The City desired an EAW be filed to make sure there would not be any adverse environmental affects because of the project. Comments were received from four agencies; the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota Historical Society and the Metropolitan Council. All comments were answered satis- factorily and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not considered necessary. VIII - 2 SECTION IX ESTIMATE OF COST The cost estimates for the project were developed using recent average bid prices for similar work. The estimates are based upon the proposed project schedule providing for bidding during the winter of 1990 with construction occurring during spring 1990. The following is a summary of the estimated project cost. We have included a cost estimate for each biketrail /sidewalk location option. TRAIL ON EAST SIDE PARTICIPATING NON - PARTICIPATING TOTAL Roadway, Drainage, Landscaping, Bike Trail, Water - main, Joint Replacement, Electrical Distri- bution & Lighting $399,836 $517,527 $917,363 10% Contingencies 39,984 51,753 91,736 Construction Eng. 35,186 45,542 80,728 I I, Design Eng. 25,000 57,600 82,600 TOTAL $500,005 $672,421 $1,172,427 • j IX - 1 TRAIL ON WEST SIDE PARTICIPATING NON - PARTICIPATING TOTAL Roadway, Drainage, Landscaping, Bike Trail, Water- main, Joint Replacement, Electrical Distri- bution & Lighting $399,836 $640,777 $1,040,613 10% Contingencies 39,984 64,078 104,061 Construction Eng. 35,186 56,388 91,574 Design Eng. 25,000 57,600 82,600 T 818 842 $1,318,848 OTAL $500,005 $ An itemized listing of estimated construction items and costs for each biketrail /sidewalk option is included in this section. lie • IX - 2 BROOKLYN CENTER,MN. FILE #89160 7/.10/89 WEST RIVER ROAD SEH FILE NO. 89160 30' RECONSTRUCT TRAIL ON THE EAST SIDE PARTICIPATING NON-PARTICIPATING TOTAL EST. NO. ITEM UNIT UNIT PRICE EST. QTY. EST. PRICE EST. QTY. EST. PRICE EST. QTY. EST. PRICE 1 MOBILIZATION L.S. $32,500.00 $15,500.00 $17,000.00 $32,500.00 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL L.S. 52,500.00 $1,200.00 $1,300.00 $2,500.00 3 FIELD OFFICE L.S. $3,200.00 $1,550.00 $1,650.00 $3,200.00 4 COMMON EXCAVATION C.Y. $3.00 25000 $75,000.00 25000.00 $75,000.00 5 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW C.Y. $3.50 10500 $36,750.00 2675 $9,362.50 13175.00 $46,112.50 6 2341 WEAR COURSE TON $12.50 1420 $17,750.00 250 $3,125.00 1 $20,875.00 1 7 2341 BITUMINOUS MAT'L FOR MIX TON $165.00 86 $14,190.00 15 52,475.00 101.00 $16,665.00 8 2331 BASE COURSE TON $11.50 1420 $16,330.00 250 $2,875.00 1670.00 $19,205.00 9 2331 BITUMINOUS MAT'L FOR MIX TON $165.00 64 510,560.00 11 $1,815.00 75.00 $12,375.00 10 TACK COAT GAL. 51.10 635 $698.50 115 $126.50 750.00 $825.00 11 AGGREGATE BASE CL 5 TON $7.00 5260 $36,820.00 930 $6,510.00 6190.00 $43,330.00 12 10 BIKE TRAIL S.Y. $5.25 7700 $40,425.00 7700.00 $40,425.00 13 8618 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER L.F. $6.50 8900 $57,850.00 8900.00 $57,850.00 14 STORM SEWER SYSTEM $106,700.00 $62,100.00 $44,600.00 $106,700.00 15 LANDSCAPING L.S. $100,000.00 1 $100,000.00 1.00 $100,000.00 16 SEED ACRE $2,000.00 2 $4,000.00 2.00 $4,000.00 17 S00 S.Y. $2.50 3515 $8,787.50 6585 $16,462.50 10100.00 $25,250.00 $7 700.00 770.00 $7,700. 0 18 INSULATE WATERMAIN S.F. $10.00 770 , 19 ADJUST HYDRANT EACH $200.00 7 $1,400.00 7.00 $1,400.00 20 ADJUST GATE VALVE EACH $200.00 2 $400.00 2.00 $400.00 21 RETAINING WALL S.F. $12.50 2500 $31,250.00 00 $ , 000.00 $37 5500:00 $160,000.00 22 ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM L.S. $160,000.00 1 $23,100.00 1 $23,100.00 23 STREET LIGHTS EACH $1,650.00 600,00 $1,500.00 600.00 $1,500.00 24 RELOCATE FENCE L.F. 2.50 25 W.M. MECH. JOINT REPLACEMENT L.S. $47,700.00 1.00 77__77.._ 477__7 ... ..47.70-. $47,700.00 0 1.00 .. - - 0 •- -.700.0 $47,700.00 SUBTOTAL 5399,836 $517,527 $917,363 + 10% CONTINGENCIES $39,984 $51,753 $91,736 + CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING $35,186 $45,542 $80,728 + DESIGN ENGINEERING $25,000 $57,600 $82,600 ............... ............... S500,005 $672,421 $1,172,427 TOTAL 4 r BROOKLYN CENTER,MN. FILE # 89160 WEST RIVER ROAD 7/10/89 SEH FILE NO. 89160 30' RECONSTRUCT TRAIL ON WEST SIDE PARTICIPATING NONPARTICIPATING TOTAL EST. NO. ITEM UNIT UNIT PRICE EST. QTY. EST. PRICE EST. QTY. EST. PRICE EST. OTY. EST. PRICE 1 MOBILIZATION L.S. 532,500.00 515,500.00 517,000.00 $32,500.00 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL L.S. 52,500.00 $1,200.00 51,300.00 52,500.00 3 FIELD OFFICE L.S. $3,200.00 $1,550.00 $1,650.00 $3,200.00 4 COMMON EXCAVATION C.Y. $3.00 25000 $75,000.00 1500 $4,500.00 26500.00 $79,500.00 5 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW C.Y. $3.50 10500 536,750.00 2675 $9,362.50 13175.00 $46,112.50 6 2341 WEAR COURSE TON $12.50 1420 $17,750.00 250 $3,125.00 1670.00 $20,875.00 7 2341 BITLMINOUS MAT'L FOR MIX TON $165._00 86 $14,190.00 15 $2,475.00 101.00 $16,665.00 8 2331 BASE COURSE TON $11.50 1420 $16,330.00 250 $2,875.00 1670.00 $19,205.00 9 2331 BITUMINOUS MAT 'L FOR MIX TON $165.00 64 $10,560.00 11 $1,815.00 75.00 $12,375.00 10 TACK COAT GAL. $1.10 635 $698.50 115 $126.50 750.00 $825.00 11 AGGREGATE BASE CL 5 TON $7.00 5260 $36,820.00 930 $6,510.00 6190.00 $43,330.00 12 10 BIKE TRAIL S.Y. $5.25 7700 $40,425.00 7700.00 $40,425.00 13 8618 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER L.F. $6.50 8900 $57,850.00 8900.00 $57,850.00 14 STORM SEWER SYSTEM $106,700.00 $62,100.00 $44,600.00 $106,700.00 15 LANDSCAPING L.S. $100,000.00 1 $100,000.00 1.00 $100,000.00 16 SEED ACRE $2,000.00 2 $4,000.00 2.00 $4,000.00 17 SOO S.Y. $2.50 3515 $8,787.50 6585 516,462.50 10100.00 $25,250.00 18 INSULATE WATERMAIN S.F. 510.00 770 $7,700.00 770.00 57,700.00 19= ADJUST HYDRANT EACH $200.00 7 $1,400.00 7.00 $1,400.00 20 ADJUST GATE VALVE EACH $200.00 2 $400.00 2.00 $400.00 21 RETAINING WALL S.F. $12.50 2500 $31,250.00 12300 $153,750.00 14800.00 $185,000.00 22 ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM L.S. $160,000.00 1.00 $160,000.00 1.00 $160,000.00 23 STREET LIGHTS EACH $1,650.00 14.00 $23,100.00 14.00 $23,100.00 24 RELOCATE FENCE L.F. 2.50 1600.00 $4,000.00 1600.00 $4,000.00 25 W.M. MECH. JOINT REPLACEMENT L.S. $47,700.00 1.00 $47,700.00 1.00 547,700.00 ............... ............... ............... SUBTOTAL $399,836 $640,777 $1,040,613 t 10% CONTINGENCIES $39,984 $64,078 $104,061 * CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING $35,186 556,388 $91,574 + DESIGN ENGINEERING 525,000 557,600 $82,600 -------- ----- -- ............... ............... TOTAL $500,005 $818,842 $1,318,848 a..a.ex.assxxax xxcoaaxxazxaxax z =xxaazxaazaxaa SECTION X SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS A preliminary assessment roll has been prepared in accordance with present City policy by the City of Brooklyn Center Engineering Department. The majority of the assessable property along West River Road is zoned R -1. The R -1 assessment rate for street reconstruction for 1989 is $1351 per single family site which cannot be subdivided. There are four parcels of R -1 zoned property which can be subdivided and are assessed at double the rate. There are two parcels zoned R -2. These are assessed at a rate of $17.95 per front foot with a minimum of $1351 per lot. Riverdale Park is assessed at the same rate as R -2 property. Three parcels are zoned R -4, multiple family residence. The rate for R -4 zoned property is $0.3562 per square foot. Assessments were not calculated for bike trail /sidewalk construction on Willow Lane south of 66th Avenue North. The preliminary assessment roll is included in this section. X - 1 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FILE # 89160 WEST RIVER ROAD 7/10/89 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLL --------------------------------------------------------------- I ( PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NO. I NOTES I PRINCIPAL I --------------------------------------------------------------- 1 25- 119 -21 -42 -0013 R1 x 2 $2,702.00 2 25- 119 -21 -42 -0018 Rl $1,351.00 3 25- 119 -21 -42 -0019 Rl $1,351.00 4 25- 119 -21 -42 -0040 $17.95 x 103.3 $1,854.24 5 25- 119 -21 -42 -0041 $17.95 x 103.3 $1,854.24 6 25- 119 -21 -42 -0042 $0.3562 x 15049 $5,360.45 7 25- 119 -21 -42 -0043 $0.3562 x 26671 $9,500.21 8 25- 119-21 -42 -0044 $0.3562 x 14155 $5,042.00 9 25- 119 -21 -43 -0009 R1 $1,351.00 10 25- 119 -21 -43 -0010 R1 $1,351.00 11 25- 119 -21 -43 -0021 R1 $1,351.00 12 25- 119 -21 -43 -0036 R1 $1,351.00 13 25- 119 -21 -43 -0037 Rl $1,351.00 14 25- 119 -21 -43 -0038 R1 $1,351.00 15 25- 119 -21 -43 -0039 R1 $1,351.00 16 25- 119 -21 -43 -0040 Rl $1,351.00 lie 17 36- 119 -21 -43 -0041 17.95 x549.12 $9,856.70 18 25- 119 -21 -43 -0044 R1 $1,351.00 19 25- 119 -21 -43 -0045 R1 $1,351.00 20 36- 119 -21 -12 -0002 R1 $1,351.00 21 36- 119 -21 -12 -0007 R1 $1,351.00 22 36- 119 -21 -12 -0009 Rl $1,351.00 23 36- 119 -21 -12 -0011 R1 x 2 $2,702.00 24 36- 119 -21 -12 -0017 R1 x 2 $2,302.00 25 36- 119 -21 -12 -0018 Rl $1,351.00 26 36- 119 -21 -12 -0019 R1 $1,351.00 27 36- 119 -21 -12 -0049 Rl x 2 $2,702.00 28 36- 119 -21 -12 -0061 R1 $1,351.00 29 36- 119 -21 -12 -0064 R1 $1,351.00 30 36- 119 -21 -12 -0065 R1 $1,351.00 31 36- 119 -21 -12 -0068 R1 $1,351.00 32 36- 119 -21 -12 -0070 R1 $1,351.00 33 36- 119 -21 -13 -0001 R1 $1,351.00 34 36- 119 -21 -13 -0002 Rl $1,351.00 35 36- 119 -21 -13 -0003 Rl $1,351.00 36 36-119-21-13-0004 1 R1 351.00 $ , TOTAL $79,401.83 SECTION XI PROJECT FUNDING The cost of the West River Road is proposed to be shared between the City of Brooklyn Center and Mn /DOT. The table below outlines the sources of the funding and cost sharing. BROOKLYN CENTER FUNDING AMOUNT Biketrail /Sidewalk Biketrail /Sidewalk TYPE on East Side on West Side Special Assessments $ 79,402 $ 79,402 Public Utility Fund 47,700 47,700 Minnesota Department of Transportation 500,005 500,005 l City Funds (Capital Projects Fund or Local MSA Fund 2611) 545,320 691,741 Totals $1,172,427 $1,318,848 The funding analysis is based in part upon an agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center and Mn /DOT. This agreement, for the reconstruction of the West River Road, was a part of the agree- ment between Brooklyn Center and' for the construction of T.H. 252. Mn /DOT has estimated the amount of participating funds to be $500,000 for the City of Brooklyn Center portion of the West River Road. XI - 1 • CH L 93RD AVE. N 85TH AV L. NO. D Q 81 ST AVE. NO. m w 5 0c BROOKDALE w Lu n w > a z a cn 0 CID w 73RD AVE. z w 69TH AVE. 3 = 66TH AVE. Q 694 z 0 00 n ' 1 . PROJECT LIMITS 0 FILE N0. Z WEST RIVER ROAD 89160 JAWASEN DRG. N0. ENGINEERS /ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 1 j 1233 93RD AVE. N CH L 2200 2650 85TH AVE. NO. 2900 2500 3100 0 Q 81ST AVE. NO. o cr , 4430 c > 2000 5 2700 B ROQKDALE DRIVE _ cr a > ) ci 1000 u.i c ° a U) us 73RD AVE. — 2200 z U) 750 -1988 ADT (TYR) Lu 69TH AVE. PROJECT AREA = 66TH AVE. -- t 9 Q 694 z a 100 � Aw 0 slw W , d I FILE N0. Adow WEST RIVER ROAD sstso ESTIMATED CURRENT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC DRc. N0, ENGINEERS I ARCHITECTS 9 PLANNERS 2. C L 85TH AVE. NO. 3500 0 a 81ST AVE. NO. m 115.0 m w 5 � 2700 • BROOKIDALE nRIVP > > zz Q m 2600 w 73RD AVE. w z w 69TH AVE. 1950 PROJECT AREA m D = 66 TH AVE. 94_ Q 694 ESTIMATED z ADT— YEAR 2010 100 °" 0 L WEST RIVER ROAD FILE N0. s ESTIMATED FUTURE AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 89160 PEAK DR ^ v. N0 FNCINEEPS 6 4RCH17ECT5 NPLANNERS P M. f EAK HOUR ESTIMATED VOLUMES W Q cr M t ti T , _WEST RIVER ROAD T. H. 252 ! f I � PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS FILE NO. Admw INTERSECTION REVISIONS AT 89160 AiEASEN DRG N0 L vcuvE:E seaacN.rccrsevianNeas 73RD AVE. & WEST RIVER ROAD 3A Mir m co TH• 252 a I < I m WILLOW ILA. N UP • • • • • DURNAM ISLAND LEGEND M /SS/ SS /PP/ R! V E R •lununumu TRAIL SITE ONLY •••+••••••• TRAIL CONSTRUCTED BY MN /DOT EXHIBIT 4.b.3,1 LE N0. ��� BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA 89150 ,� • �„ w „ f ,� WEST RIVER ROAD DR4 NQ I m � > > 5th ST. m < m G m m 2 Z Q T_H.252 ERM� � • �.. � . un ro�nu W ST RIVER ROAD I ` I I S I I AVE N. W I I X O P N I I I 1 t RIVER LEGEND PROPOSED ROADWAY MIS SISSIPPI 10 TRAIL ..-..... RETAINING WALL DURNAM ISLAND LANDSCAPE AREAS BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA �A WEST RIVER ROAD nA5 „a i b rn rn v co ar � s c D 5th ST. m m , m Z z Z - - - -- T.H.252 Q T.H. 252 � nnnn nr nunrrnnu rr wr r� W ST RIVER ROAD DAL S I I I AVE N. WI L OW LA. N I W ►�-�'OW �A N � i I i I i i I RIVER LEGEND MISS' S SI PPI PROPOSED ROADWAY Zz. 10' TRAIL - ----- RETAINING WALL DURNAM ISLAND ''�" LANDSCAPE AREAS FILE NO ��� BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA 891 NO WEST RIVER ROAD oac N o. n.uiears � ucwrrrcn � nwMrr<s 7 i • o, ? 9� m z _ _ Q --� T.H. 252 T.H. 252 is — +� + +��ii� BERM �� �r�� sires �►��'� J WE RIV R RO D L PPRK w DALLAS RD. n DALLAS RD. z _ N S a D < < m m z z LEGEND PROPOSED ROADWAY eonnun�a� 10 TRAIL —. —• RETAINING WALL ��►.�� LANDSCAPE AREAS -�� FILE N0. BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA 119160 WEST RIVER ROAD Dr N0. •..ci+.rffws..wc.«ncrs.nwMn..s 8 m w i� m m r A m m r m m m m m 0 0) { D 5th ST. m m - Z _ - - - -- T.H.252 T.H. 252 R ,loin" 8 nnu,nnnn n W ST RIVER ROAD DAL IS _ I � I AVE N. m ? Q WI L W LA. N I 1 1 1 1 RIVER LEGEND NII S SI S SI PPI PROPOSED ROADWAY u,nmuuur 10' TRAIL -• —• —• RETAINING WALL DURNAM ISLAND LANDSCAPE AREAS FlLE No. d1w BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA 89160 oac No. WEST RIVER ROAD LMLR�RLRy I LRCN/RCTS.IIANN[RS 4 o, s m ti z T.H. 252 T.H. 252 BERM m om= — �iii� J 1 _ nn WE RIV R R D PPRK w DALLAS RD. n DALLAS RD. V v z O N 7 � c D D m m z z LEGEND PROPOSED ROADWAY numnu..n 10' TRAIL - -• RETAINING WALL ►���.. LANDSCAPE AREAS E EINI BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA WEST RIVER - ROAD m mmmm mm m m ROADWAY 6' 15 15' 6' 10' TRAIL B 618 CONCRETE CURB 8 GUTTER RETAING WALL i 2 2341 WEARING COURSE 2" 2331 BASE COURSE — 75'!2211 CL.5 AGGREGATE BASE BIKE TRAIL / SIDEWALK ON EAST SIDE FtLE N0. BROOKLYN CENTNER MINNESOTA 89160 DR N a WEST RIVER ROAD 9 rwcwrr+s � +xwncn"n +w "t"s 9 � rr �► r r r r �r �r �r rr rr rr r +r rr err rr rr ROADWAY 2' 10' 6' 15' 15' 6' TRAIL 8 618 CONCRETE CURB a GUTTER RETAING WALL 2"2341 WEARING COURSE 2" 2331 BASE COURSE 7.'5" 2211 CL.5 AGGREGATE BASE BIKE TRAIL / SIDEWALK ON WEST SIDE FILE N0. BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA 89160 WEST RIVER ROAD ORO NO. rn rn rn _� co V ? D 5th ST. m m < < z z m m Z z - - - -- 1 - T.N.252 Q p ^ T.N. 252 R _ £RM� _ W ST RIVER R O A D I DAL S cn rn 1 i AVE N. .< O I W LA I N Z n 1 v��LLDW t. •I I 1 1 LEGEND RIVER - -a- - <<— EXISTING STORM SEWER M' S S' S sl p pl -- - -.•- -- PROPOSED STORM SEWER DURNAM ISLAND ' dlr flL N0. BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA a °tao STORM DRAINAGE �� WEST RIVER ROAD ��,ry.Rf IAlK1MM1.II/AMM4Rt e r r rir �r � r r r I• r �■r r r r �w +�Il�t = ,fir �r i 0 D � to < y In X T.H. 252 I _ T.H. 252 r WE RIV R R D PARK DALLAS a O N CL a < m < LEGEND m —a- «— EXISTING STORM SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER F LE . BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA 9180 STORM DRAINAGE aa Ha WEST RIVER ROAD 12 PROPOSED ROADWAY LIGHTING L-- LUMINAIRE WITH H.P.S. LAMP & CLEAR TEMPERED GLASS LENS i 1� i i 1 1 1 1 1 , • FILE NO. BROOKLYN CENTER 89160 MINNESOTA DRG. NO ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS ■ PLANNERS 1 3 - 3u . y �C H A z W a a a a ■ PROJECT NAME:WEST RIVER ROAD, BROOKLYN CENTER SEH FILE: 89160 - I DST /FACT LEGEND - INITIAL 1990 1 RURAL CONDITIONS YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION 7 50 2 = METROPOLITAN 2 -WAY TRAFFIC VOLUME (ADT) 4 3 = MUNICIPAL VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION DISTRIBUTION 3 4 = USER SUPPLIED VEHICLE SIGMA -N18 FACTORS - DAILY SIGMA -N18 - a PROJECTED 2010 INITIAL: 8.41 YEAR OF PROJECTION PROJECTED: 6.51 OPTIONAL: - YRLY TRAFFIC GROWTH RATE 3000 - 2 -WAY VOLUME (ADT) 4 PROJ FACT: 0.775 VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION DISTRIBUTION -0.013 3 GROWTH FACT: 17.765 VEHICLE SIGMA -N18 FACTORS TIMEGR FACT' 15 ACCUM S -N18: 55,000 SOIL R -VALUE g MIN BST: 7.0 ROAD STRENGTH (7, 9 OR 10 TON) MIN BASE: 10.0 S < - -- GE: 14.0 > TYPE � PE ALT -M FOR MENU OF ACTION - INITAL SIGMA -N18 CALCULATIONS VEHICLE DIST FACT DAILY S -18 ADT /2 83.5 0.000 0.13 AUTOS 375 9.0 0.007 0.24 PICKUPS 375 1.0 0.01 0.04 SU- 2AX /4T 375 1.0 0.21 0.79 SU- 2AX /6T 375 0.5 0.45 0.84 SU- 3AX /4T ' 375 0.0 0.15 0.00 SEMI -3AXLE 375 0.0 0.30 0.00 SEMI -4AXLE 375 0.0 0.59 0.00 SEMI -5AXLE ' 375 5.0 0.34 6.38 COMBO /BUS 375 8.41 FUTURE SIGMA -NIS CALCULATIONS ADT/2 VEHICLE DIST FACT DAILY 0.5 1500 87.9 0.000 1.05 1500 10.0 0.007 0.15 1500 1.0 0.01 1.58 1500 0.5 0.21 2.03 1500 0.3 0.45 0.23 1500 0.1 0.15 0,45 1500 0.1 0.30 0.00 1500 0.0 0.59 0.51 1500 0.1 0.34 6.51 i II i r ROAD DESIGN MANUAL z JANUARY 31,1982 DESIGN POLICY AND CRITERIA 7- 5.013! Table 7 -5.03A Table 7 -5.03A VEHICLE TYPES ' Venicie Number Illustrated Example Vehicle Description 1 Passenger Cars 2 Panel and Pickups (Under 1 ton) 3 Single Unit — ' 2 axle, 4 -tire 4 Single Unit — 2 axle, 6 -tire 5 Single Unit — 3 axle and 4 axle 6 Tractor semitrailer Combination — 3 axle 7 Tractor Semitrailer ' Combination — 4 axle 8 Tractor Semitrailer Combination — 5 axle 9 Tractor Semitrailer Combination — 6 axle 10 Trucks with Trailers and buses CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/14/89 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING AGENCY AGREEMENT WITH MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPT. APPROVAL: MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Explanation • If and when the City is eligible to receive federal aid funds for roadway or bridge improvements, existing policies require that the Minnesota Commissioner of Transportation act as the agent for the City to the extent that all federal funds are channeled through MNDOT, and MNDOT is the official contracting agency for those improvement projects. MNDOT has recently updated the "agency agreement" which must be executed between each City and MNDOT in order for the City to be eligible for these federal funds. A copy of that agreement is attached. While at this time the City of Brooklyn Center has no projects which are eligible for federal aid funding, it is probable that some projects (including the replacement of the 69th Avenue bridge over Shingle Creek) may become eligible within the next few years. Accordingly, I recommend adoption of the resolution which approves the "Agency Agreement." Council Action Required Adoption of the resolution. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING AGENCY AGREEMENT WITH MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Be it resolved that pursuant to section 161.36, Subdivision 1 through 6, Minnesota Statutes, the Commissioner of Transportation be appointed as agent of the City of Brooklyn Center to let as its agent, contracts for the construction of local roads and bridge, and the Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed for on behalf of the City to execute and enter into a contract with the Commissioner of Transportation prescribing the terms and conditions of such contracts in the form as set forth and contained in "Minnesota Department of Transportation Agency Agreement" a copy of which said agreement was before the City Council, assuming on behalf of the City all of the obligations therein contained. 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. 1 t Revised 12/1988 Office of State Aid MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AGENCY AGREEMENT This Agreement made and entered into by and between the City of Brooklyn Center herein after referred to as the "City" and the Commissioner of Transportation of the State of Minnesota hereinafter referred to as the "Commissioner ", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, pursuant to M.S. 161.36 the City desires the Commissioner to act as its agent in accepting federal aid on the City's behalf, for road and bridge construction and in contracting for the construction, improvement or maintenance of roads or bridges financed either in whole or part with federal moneys; and WHEREAS, M.S. 161.36, Subdivision 2, requires that the terms and conditions of the agency be set forth in an agreement; NOW, THEN, IT IS AGREED: -I- That pursuant to M.S. 161.36, the City does hereby appoint the Commissioner its agent with respect to all federally funded projects, to accept and receive all federal funds made available for said projects and to let contracts pursuant to law for the construction and improvement of local roads and bridges. -1- J Each contract will be in accordance with plans and special provisions for said projects on file in the Department of Transportation, State Transportation Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, and the latest edition of "Standard Specifications for Construction" and all amendments thereof, which said plans, special provisions and specifications are made a part of this agreement by reference as though fully set forth herein. In the letting of said contract, it is hereby agreed that the following procedures shall be followed, to -wit: A. The Commissioner shall cause the advertisements calling for bids on said work to be published in the "Construction Bulletin ". He shall also cause advertisements for bids to be published in the officially designated newspaper of the City. Said advertisement or call for bids shall specify that sealed proposals or bids will be received by the City Purchasing Agent of Brooklyn Center on behalf of the Commissioner as agent of said City. Proposals, plans and specifications shall be available for the inspection of prospective bidders at the office of the Department of Transportation, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, and at the office of said City Purchasing Agent and the advertisement shall so state. The bids received in response to said advertisement for bids shall be opened for and on behalf of the Commissioner by a District Engineer of the Department of Transportation or such other engineer of the Department of Transportation as may be from time to time selected by the Commissioner. After said bids shall have been opened, the City council shall first consider the same and thereupon -2- r transmit to the Commissioner all bids received together with its recommendation that the lowest bid submitted by a responsible bidder be accepted or that all bids be rejected. Upon receipt of all said bids, the Commissioner shall duly cause all of said bids to be tabulated and shall thereupon determine who is the lowest responsible bidder and shall award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder or shall reject all bids. B. The Commissioner shall supervise and have charge of the construction of said projects after the same has been let. The City agrees to furnish its City Engineer or other registered engineer and assign him to the active supervision and direction of the work to be performed under any contract let for the aforesaid projects. Said engineer so assigned shall act under the supervision and direction of the Commissioner. The City further agrees to furnish such other personnel, services, supplies and equipment as shall be necessary in order to properly supervise and carry on said work. C. The Commissioner may make changes in the plans or the character of the work as shall be recommended by the engineer in charge of the work. If he concurs in such recommendations, the Commissioner may enter into, for and on behalf of the City, supplemental agreements with the contractor for the performance of any extra work or work occasioned by any necessary, advantageous, or desirable change in plans or construction. It is understood by the City that the Commissioner cannot personally investigate and pass judgement on the various items of extra work and lan changes necessary and desirable during the construction of P 9 Y —3— the projects but that he must delegate such duties to engineers under his supervision and control that are employed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The City does hereby authorize these engineers, so delegated by the Commissioner, to enter into, for and on behalf of the City, the supplemental agreements specified in the preceding paragraph hereof. D. The City hereby authorizes its City Engineer, for and on behalf of the City, from time to time, during the progress of the work on said projects, to request the Commissioner to furnish for use on said projects specific engineering services to be performed by skilled employees of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The Commissioner may but is not obligated to furnish the services so requested. If the Commissioner in compliance with such request shall furnish for the use of the City on said projects the services of any Minnesota Department of Transportation employee, then and in that event, the City agrees to reimburse the Trunk Highway Fund for the full cost and expense of the furnishing of such services including all costs and expenses of any kind or nature whatsoever arising out of, connected with, or incidental to the furnishing of such services. E. The Commissioner shall receive the funds to be paid by the City and the funds to be paid by the United States as federal aid funds for said projects and to pay therefrom when due any and all sums that may become due the contractor to whom the contract is awarded, and upon final completion and acceptance of the work, to pay from said funds the final estimate to said contractor for said s work. —4— F. The Commissioner shall perform on behalf of the City all other acts and things necessary to cause said projects to be completed in a satisfactory manner. G. The Commissioner may enter into any agreement for and on behalf of the City with the United States or any officer or agent thereof that may be required or necessary for the purpose of procuring and actually causing to be paid the federal aid funds available for said projects and to that end to bind and commit the City in such agreement to the performance of any and all things required by any law of the United States or of any rule and regulation issued by federal authority pertaining thereto necessary for the purpose of procuring and having paid the federal aid available for said projects. H. It is the policy of the United States Department of Transportation and the Minnesota Department of Transportation that Disadvantaged Business Enterprises as defined in 49 CFR, Part 23, and the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act for 1987, shall have the maximum opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts financed in whole or in part with federal funds. Consequently, the requirements of 49 CFR, Part 23, apply to this agreement. In this regard, the Commissioner and the City shall take all necessary and reasonable steps in accordance with 49 CFR, Part 23, to insure that Disadvantaged Business Enterprises have the maximum opportunity to compete for and perform on contracts and subcontracts. The Commissioner and the City shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin,or sex in the award and performance of federally funded contracts. —5— Failure to carry out the above requirements shall constitute a breach of this agreement and may result in termination of the agreement or other such remedy that the Commissioner deems appropriate. I. The Commissioner may perform on behalf of the City any other and further acts as may be necessary or required under any law of the United States or of any rule or regulation issued by proper federal authority in order to cause said projects to be completed and to obtain and receive the federal aid made available therefor. -II- The City agrees that it will from time to time, after the execution of this agreement, make such reports, keep such records and perform such work in such manner and time as the Commissioner shall from time to time request and direct so as to enable the Commissioner as its agent to collect for it the federal aid sought. Said records and reports shall be retained by the City in accordance with the Commissioner's record retention schedule for federal aid projects. It is is anticipated that the United States will pay to the Commissioner as the agent of the City, the federal aid funds available to said City toward the construction of said projects. It is further anticipated that the contracts to be let by the Commissioner as the agent of the City, for the construction of said projects shall provide that the contractor, as the work progresses, shall, from time to time, be paid partial payments designated in said contract as partial estimates and on the completion and -6- f acceptance of said work to be paid a final payment designated in said contra f all work performed. s contract as a final estimate or a p ed. The City further agrees that any City funds and /or Municipal State Aid Funds to be applied to any contract covered by this agreement shall be deposited with the Commissioner in accordance with Minnesota Rules Chapter 8820.1500 Subp. 3. At regular monthly intervals after contractors shall have started work under contracts let by the Commissioner as agent for the City for the construction of said projects, the engineer assigned to and in charge of said work shall prepare partial estimates in accordance with the terms of said contracts let for said projects and the procedures established by the Office of Construction and Contract Administration Minnesota Department of Transportation. The said engineer in charge of said work shall immediately after preparing each partial estimate, transmit the same to the Commissioner in duplicate. Each partial estimate shall, be certified by the engineer in charge and by the contractor performing such work. The said engineer assigned to and in charge of said work shall also prepare and submit to the Commissioner the final estimate data, together with the required project records in accordance with the terms of said contracts let for said projects. Quantities listed on said partial and final estimates shall be documented in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the applicable documentation manual. After the approved final estimate has been submitted to the Commissioner, the City will pay to the —7— Commissioner any additional amount which together with the federal funds received for that project will be sufficient to pay all the contract costs of the project. -IV- When the contractor shall have completed the work on said projects, the City agrees to inspect the same and forthwith upon the completion of said inspection advise the Commissioner whether or not the work performed should be, by the Commissioner as its agent, accepted as being performed in a satisfactory manner. In the event the City should, after said inspection, recommend to the Commissioner that he should not accept said work, then the City shall at the time such recommendation is made specify in particularity the defects in said work and the reasons why the work should not be accepted. It is further agreed that any recommendations made by the City are not binding on the Commissioner but that he shall have the right to determine whether or not the work has been acceptably performed and to accept or reject the work performed under any said contract. _V_ It is further agreed that the decision of the Commissioner on the several matters herein set forth shall be final, binding and conclusive on the parties hereto. -VI- It is anticipated that the entire cost of said projects is to be paid from funds made available by the United States, by way of federal aid, and by the City. If for any reason the United States fails to pay any part of the cost or expense of said projects, then -8- and in that event the City agrees to pay the same. The City further agrees to pay any and all claims or demands of any kind or nature whatsoever arising out of or incidental to the performance of the work under any contract let for said projects in the event that the United States does not pay the same, and in all events, agrees to save the State of Minnesota and the Commissioner from said claims and from any claims arising out of this agreement and to pay any and all expenses and costs connected with said projects or the construction thereof which the United States does not pay. -VII - The City further agrees that: A. All right -of -way acquisition and relocation will be conducted in accordance with 49 CFR Part 25. Procedures implementing this regulation are contained in Mn /DOT State Aid Manual Chapter 5- 892.310. (Additional guidance may be obtained by referring to the FHWA's Real Estate Acquisition Guide for Local Public Agencies B. If the City receives total direct and indirect federal assistance of: 1. $100,000 or more per year, the City agrees to obtain a financial and compliance audit made in accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1984 (P.L. 98 -502) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A -128. The law and circular provide that the audit shall cover the entire operations of the City government or, at the option of the City government, it may cover departments, agencies or establishments that received, expended, or otherwise administered federal financial assistance during the year. However, -9- if the City government receives $25,000 or more in General Revenue Sharing Funds in a fiscal year, it shall have an audit of its entire operations. 2. Between $25,000 and $100,000 per year, the City agrees to obtain either - a. a financial and compliance audit made in accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1984 and OMB Circular A- 128, -or b. a financial and compliance audit of all federal funds. The audit must determine whether the subrecipient spent federal assistance funds in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and the audit must be made in accordance with any federal laws and regulations governing the federal programs the subrecipient participates in. Audits shall be made annually unless the state or local government has, by January 1, 1987 a constitutional or statutory requirement for less frequent audits. For those governments, the cognizant agency shall permit biennial audits, covering both years, if the government so requests. It shall also honor requests for biennial audits by governments that have an administrative policy calling for audits less frequent than annual, but only for fiscal years beginning before January 1, 1987. The audit shall be made by an independent auditor. An independent auditor is a state or local government auditor or a public accountant who meets the independent standards specified in the General Accounting Office's Standards for Audit of Governmental Organizations, Programs, Activities, and Functions. -10- The audit report shall state that the audit was performed in accordance with the provisions of OMB Circular A -128 (or A -110 as applicable). The audit report shall include: 1) The auditor's report on financial statements and on a schedule of federal assistance; the financial statements; and a schedule of federal assistance, showing the total expenditures for each federal assistance program as identified in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. Federal programs or grants that have not been assigned a catalog number shall be identified under the caption "other federal assistance ". 2) The auditor's report on the study and evaluation of internal control systems must identify the organization's significant internal accounting controls, and those controls designed to provide reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with laws and regulations. It must also identify the controls that were evaluated, the controls that were not evaluated, and the material weaknesses identified as a result of the evaluation. 3) The auditor's report on compliance containing: a) A statement of positive assurance with respect to those items tested for compliance, including compliance with law and regulations pertaining to financial reports and claims for advances and reimbursements; b) Negative assurance on those items not tested; c) A summary of all instances of noncompliance; -11- d) An identification of total amounts questioned, if any, for each federal assistance awarded, as a result of noncompliance; e) A statement on the status of corrective action taken on rior findings; gs; and f) Refer to the use of the standards required by the Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Local Governments prepared by the Office of the State Auditor. The purpose of this guide is to establish compliance guidelines for verification by auditors auditing political subdivisions of the state. In addition to the audit report, the recipient shall provide comments on the findings and recommendations in the report, including a plan for corrective action taken or planned and comments on the status of corrective action taken on prior findings. If corrective action is not necessary, a statement describing the reason it is not should accompany the audit report. The City agrees that the grantor, the Legislative Auditor, and any independent auditor designated by the grantor shall have such access to grantee's records and financial statements as may be necessary for the grantor to comply with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A -128. Required audit reports must be filed with the Office of the State Auditor, Single Audit Division and state agencies providing federal assistance, within six months of the City's fiscal year end. If a federal cognizant audit agency has been assigned for the City, copies of required audit reports will be filed with that agency also. -12- Recipients of more than $100,000 in federal assistance must also submit one copy of the audit report within 30 days after issuance to the central clearinghouse. Audit reports should be sent to: Bureau of Census Data Preparation Division 1201 East 10th Street Jeffersonville, Indiana 47132 Attn: Single Audit Clearinghouse C. The City will treat all public, private or cooperatively owned utility facilities which directly or indirectly serve the public and which occupy highway rights of way in conformance with the attached "A Policy for the Accommodation of Utilities on Highway Rights of Way" as approved on April 5, 1988 by the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Minnesota Division. -VIII- All references to statutes and rules shall be construed to refer to the statutes and rules as they may be amended from year to year. -IX- The Commissioner accepts this said appointment as agent of the City and agrees to act in accordance herewith. -13- City of Brooklyn Center Recommended for Approval By Mayor Director, Office of State Aid Date Date Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution City Clerk Special Assistant Attorney General Date Date State of Minnesota Commissioner of Transportation Date (Seal) I —14— MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AID FORM NO. III Be it resolved that pursuant to section 161.36, Subdivision 1 through 6, Minnesota Statutes, the Commissioner of Transportation be appointed as agent of the City of Brooklyn Center to let as its agent, contracts for the construction of local roads and bridge, and the Mayor and the City ckerk are hereby authorized and directed for and on behalf of the City to execute and enter into a contract with the Commissioner of Transportation prescribing the terms and conditions of such contracts in the form as set forth and contained in "Minnesota Department of Transportation Agency Agreement" a copy of which said agreement was before the City Council, assuming on behalf of the City all of the obligations therein contained. (SEAL) (Submit in duplicate) Note; Attach certification by City Clerk with each copy of resolution. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/ Agenda Item Number !.0 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION • ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ORDERING INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALK ON WEST SIDE OF HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN WOODBINE AVENUE AND 73RD AVENUE AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -20 DEPT. APPROVAL: * * * * * * * * * * * * *4 * * * *** O R * * PUBLIC WORK * * ** * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report _ . Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached On July 24, 1989, the City Council received a report from the Administrative • Traffic Committee for this segment of sidewalk construction. The City Council approved the concept. Attached hereto is a copy of the letter which has been sent to the adjoining property owners relating to this proposed improvement. Two proposals for construction were received on August 10, 1989. Schmidt Curb Co., Inc. $12,143.00 Thomas & Sons Construction Inc. $15,303.00 Schmidt Curb Co., Inc. has successfully performed work within the City on previous projects. Accordingly, we recommend that the low bid of Schmidt Curb Co. Inc. be accepted and a contract awarded to that firm. Council Action Required 1. Open for comments from property owners (if present). 2. Adopt the attached resolution. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ORDERING INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALK ON WEST SIDE OF HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN WOODBINE AVENUE AND 73RD AVENUE AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -20 WHEREAS, pursuant to a request for proposals for Improvement Project No. 1989 -20, proposals were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Engineer, on the 10th day of August, 1989. Said proposals were as follows: Bidder Bid Amount Schmidt Curb Co., Inc. $12,143.00 Thomas & Sons Construction Inc. $15,303.00 WHEREAS, it appears that Schmidt Curb Co., Inc. of Rogers, Minnesota, has submitted the lowest proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract, in the amount of $12,143.00, with Schmidt Curb Co., Inc. of Rogers, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1989 -20 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. All project costs shall be financed by the Municipal State Aid Street Fund, Account No. 2611. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 13ROOKLYN TELEPHONE 561 -5440 EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE C ENTER 911 August 9, 1989 TO: Property Owners on West Side of Humboldt Avenue North Between Woodbine Avenue and 73rd Avenue North Re: Proposal to Install Sidewalk On July 24, 1989, the City Council gave preliminary approval to the installation of a public sidewalk on the west side of Humboldt Avenue North between Woodbine Avenue and 73rd Avenue North. That action was taken by the City Council after reviewing and discussing the enclosed recommendation from the Administrative Traffic Committee (members of that committee are City Manager Jerry Splinter, Chief of Police Jim Lindsay and I). On Monday, August 14, the City Council will consider a resolution formally ordering the improvement and awarding a contract for construction of this sidewalk. If the Council adopts that resolution, work on the project would be started as soon as possible and be completed by approximately September 1, 1989. Other information which you will wish to know includes the following: • This sidewalk would be constructed entirely within the existing right -of -way of Humboldt Avenue. • The alignment of the sidewalk would be a direct extension of the alignment of the in place sidewalk between 72nd Avenue and Woodbine Avenue, i.e. - one foot east of the Humboldt Avenue right -of -way line (i.e. - one foot east of your easterly property line). • The project would include the placement of topsoil and sod on all disturbed portions of the boulevard, and restoration of landscape features in the area behind the sidewalk. • All project costs would be charged to the City's Municipal State Aid Street Fund. No special assessments would be levied against your property. • The City of Brooklyn Center assumes full responsibility for maintenance of its public sidewalk system - including snow removal costs and future repair or replacement costs. 19R AU-&WRKA(" =� Page Two August 9, 1989 Should you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please contact me or feel welcome to attend the City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, August 14. Yours ver truly, Sy xnaPP Director of Public Works CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF :BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: City Council FROM: Administrative Traffic Committee DATE: July 19, 1989 Recommendation No. 3 Install a sidewalk on the west side of Humboldt Avenue between Woodbine Avenue and 73rd Avenue North. Explanation A petition requesting the installation of this sidewalk was submitted approximately a year ago. Subsequently, other property owners objected to the proposal and the City Council requested that pedestrian counts be taken. Two pedestrian counts were taken (see attachment). The Administrative Traffic Committee's recommendation to install this sidewalk is based on the following factors: • the traffic volume on Humboldt Avenue is approximately 8000 vehicles per day; • this is the only "missing link" in the sidewalk system on the west side of Humboldt Avenue between 65th Avenue and Brookdale Drive; • the existing pedestrian counts; and • our belief that more people will use this route, if the sidewalk is installed, i.e, - pedestrians are now crossing to the east side of Humboldt, then back again; and using other alternate routes because of existing conditions. � "'-' roe�uiuueu.�att V i { � i (n1 N o a ;cq ;� I D IN IN _ I II I� 1 �I � ►c.Y. I 'b Q i Elm MIN m NONE 110 molt �� MIN 1111111111. ■ �� ��� � CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/14/89 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ORDERING INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALK ON EAST SIDE OF XERXES AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN 65TH AND 66TH AVENUES NORTH AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1989 -21 *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *�4* * * * ** OR * * * * * * *B * * ** * WORK * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report _. Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes On July 24, 1989, the City Council received a report from the Administrative Traffic Committee for the segment of sidewalk on the east side of Xerxes Avenue from 65th Avenue to Shingle Creek Parkway. The City Council approved the concept from this report. However, due to the Xerxes Avenue bridge being under construction at this time, only that portion of the sidewalk between 65th Avenue and 66th Avenue can be constructed this fall. The remainder from 66th Avenue to Shingle Creek Parkway cannot be constructed until next summer because the new Xerxes Avenue bridge and its approaches will not be completed until late this fall. Attached hereto is a copy of the letter which has been sent to the adjoining property owners relating to this proposed improvement. Two proposals for construction of the 65th Avenue to 66th avenue segment were received on August 10, 1989. Schmidt Curb Co., Inc. $6,426.00 Thomas & Sons Construction Inc. $8,820.50 Schmidt Curb Co., Inc. has successfully performed work within the City on previous projects. Accordingly, we recommend that the low bid of Schmidt Curb Co., Inc. be accepted and a contract awarded to that firm. Council Action Required 1. Open for comments from property owners (if present). • 2. Adopt the attached resolution. Member introduced the following resolution and moved / its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ORDERING INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALK ON EAST SIDE OF XERXES AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN 65TH AND 66TH AVENUES NORTH AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -21 WHEREAS, pursuant to a request for proposals for Improvement Project No. 1989 -21, proposals were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Engineer, on the 10th day of August, 1989. Said proposals were as follows: Bidder Bid Amount Schmidt Curb Co., Inc. $6,426.00 Thomas & Sons Construction Inc. $8,820.50 WHEREAS, it appears that Schmidt Curb Co., Inc. of Rogers, Minnesota, has submitted the lowest proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract, in the amount of $6,426.00, with Schmidt Curb Co., Inc. of Rogers, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1989 -21 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. All project costs shall be financed by the Municipal State Aid Street Fund, Account No. 2611. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 E r TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C NTR EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 August 9, 1989 TO: Property Owners on East Side of Xerxes Avenue North Between 65th Avenue and 66th Avenue North Re: Proposal to Install Sidewalk On July 24, 1989, the City Council gave preliminary approval to the installation of a public sidewalk on the east side of Xerxes Avenue North between 65th Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway. That action was taken by the City Council after receiving and discussing the enclosed recommendation from the Administrative Traffic Committee (members of that committee are City Manager Jerry Splinter, Chief of Police Jim Lindsay and I). On Monday, August 14, the City Council will consider a resolution formally ordering the improvement and awarding a contract for the construction of the sidewalk from 65th Avenue to 66th Avenue North. If the Council adopts that resolution, work on the project would be started as soon as possible and be completed by approximately September 1, 1989. It is anticipated that construction of the sidewalk between 66th Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway will be completed in 1990 following completion of the new Xerxes Avenue bridge. Other information which you will wish to know includes the following: • This sidewalk would be constructed entirely within the existing right -of -way of „mb -i Avenue and a sidewalk easement which we recently acquired. X e✓ x-s,.._ o The proposed sidewalk would be constructed immediately behind the existing curb on Xerxes Avenue, and would be approximately six feet wide. • The project would include the placement of top soil and sod on all disturbed portions of the area behind the sidewalk. • All project costs would be charged to the City's Municipal State Aid Street Fund. No special assessments would be levied against your property. • The City of Brooklyn Center assumes full responsibility for maintenance of its public sidewalk system - including snow removal costs and future repair or replacement costs. rose ui- u�teua an nZJ Page Two August 9, 1989 Should you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please contact me or feel welcome to attend the City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, August 14. Yours very truly, Sy napp Director of Public Works CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF I:BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: City Council FROM: Administrative Traffic Committee DATE: July 19, 1989 Recommendation No. 4 Install sidewalk on the east side of Xerxes Avenue No. from 65th Avenue to Shingle Creek Parkway. Explanation The existing sidewalk on Xerxes Avenue from 59th Avenue to 65th Avenue is located in the center median. Between 65th Avenue and Shingle Creek Parkway the sidewalk is located on the west side of Xerxes Avenue. The new Xerxes Avenue bridge now under construction by MNDOT (to be completed by October 1, 1989) will provide sidewalks on both sides of the bridge deck. Residents on the 66th Avenue cul -de -sac (east of Xerxes Avenue) have requested the installation of sidewalks on the east side of Xerxes Avenue between 65th and 66th Avenues, to provide a place for their children to walk to the school crosswalk at Xerxes and 65th Avenue enroute to /from Garden City School. The Administrative Traffic Committee recommends approval of the request from the residents on 66th Avenue and also recommends that the sidewalk be extended north to Shingle Creek Parkway, using the new sidewalk now available on the Xerxes Avenue bridge, to create a more complete sidewalk system to serve pedestrian needs in this neighborhood. It is noted that between 65th and 66th Avenues the existing right -of -way is very limited. To allow construction of a 5 -foot wide sidewalk immediately behind the curb it will be necessary to obtain a small triangular easement (approximately 3' x 40') from one adjacent property owner. Adequate right -of -way exists between 66th Avenue and Shingle Creek Parkway. C 0 x�V�.z V M LL i � a > A < LA. Q� - C �t f EXISTING SIDEWALK 0 `R- PROPOSED SIDEWALK 4 AV N. 65TH. A N, Li( / x K / % ol w i , PARK yam t8�1TRAt ♦ / � iC i `� X �' `.� `� �c J . / % �� 6380 A VF ,;cam p ' ; � `�� 'c`,, Xy �:.� ` ; %c PROPOSED SIDEWALK XERXES AVE. NO. 65TH AVE. TO SHINGLE CREEK PKWY CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/14/89 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM ON SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AT THE ENTRANCE TO BROOKDALE SQUARE (PROJECT 1988 -24, CONTRACT 1989 -G) DEPT. APPROVAL: ** � * NAIIP DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS ** �**** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report X Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Explanation On July 10, 1989, the City Council, by Resolution No. 89 -137 established the above project and ordered the advertisement for bids. Bids for construction of this improvement were received and opened on August 10. Following is a tabulation of the five bids received: Bidder Amount Collins Electric* $79,900* CSI Electric 63,315 Egan McKay 66,746 Polyphase Enterprises 75,300 Ridgedale Electric* 84 *On their proposals, these two bidders did not acknowledge receipt of Addendum No. 1 which was sent to them via UPS, return receipt requested, on Monday, August Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Short Elliott Hendr" ickson co ti g y consulting engineers for this project. Staff Notes and Recommendations The low bid received is dramatically lower than the Engineer's estimate of $115,625 and must be regarded as a very favorable bid. It is also noted that CSI Electric (the low bidder) while not having completed any projects for Brooklyn Center, is regarded as a responsible contractor. Although two bidders showed in their proposal that they had not received Addendum No. 1, the changes included in that addendum had the probable effect of increasing the bids. We will attempt to obtain all relevant information, review it with the City Attorney, and report our findings and recommendations to the City Council at the August 14, 1989 meeting. It is also noted that at the time this report is being written, the agreement between the owners of Brookdale Square and the City has not been fully executed by the owners. Council Action Required At the City Council meeting, staff will report on the status of the two issues in question, and recommend one of the following courses of action: • Adopt the attached resolution (if all matters relating to Addendum No. 1 are satisfactorily resolved, and if the needed documents from the owners of Brookdale Square are received); • Adopt a resolution rejecting all bids and directing that new bids be taken (if it becomes apparent that we are unable to conclusively resolve the questions relating to issuance and receipt of Addendum No. 1); • Adopt an amended resolution to award the contract subject to receipt of the needed documents from the owners of Brookdale Square - (if all matters relating to Addendum No. 1 are satisfactorily resolved, but the documents have not been received); or • Adopt a motion to table consideration of the bids - (if that appears to be appropriate in order to provide the time needed to resolve all issues). • Member introduced the following resolution and moved qj its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM ON SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AT THE ENTRANCE TO BROOKDALE SQUARE (PROJECT 1988 -24, CONTRACT 1989 -G) WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1988 -24, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Engineer, on the 10th day of August, 1989. Said bids were as follows: Bidder Bid Amount CSI Electric $63,315.00 Egan McKay $66,746.00 Polyphase Enterprises $75,300.00 Collins Electric $79,790.00 Ridgedale Electric $84,300.00 WHEREAS, it appears CSI Electric of Minneapolis, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract, in the amount of $63,315.00, with CSI Electric of Minneapolis, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1988 -24 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that: 1. The estimated total cost of Improvement Project No. 1988 -24 is hereby amended from $142,220 to $77,877.45. The estimated cost is comprised of the following: As Ordered As Amended Contract $115,625.00 $63,315.00 Engineering (9 %) 10,407.00 5,698.35 RESOLUTION NO. As Ordered As Amended Administration (1%) 1,156.00 633.15 Legal and Bonding (1 %) 1,156.00 633.15 Interest (12 %) 13.876.00 7.597.80 Total Estimated Cost $142,220.00 $77,877.45 2. The estimated costs to be financed will be: As Ordered As Amended Special Assessments 142,220.00 77,877.45 MSA Fund (Fund Balance #2611) (94,860.00) (51,944.25) MSA Fund (Fund Balance #2613) 94.860.00 51.944.25 Total $142,220.00 $77,877.45 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 BROOKLY 14 /89 N CENTER Council Meeting Date / 9 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR BROOKDALE SQUARE TURNLANE AND ENTRANCE MODIFICATIONS (PROJECT NOS. 1989 -18 AND 1989 -19, CONTRACT 1989 -H) *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPR VAL: )v"� MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: J No comments to supplement this report X Comments below /attached ************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _) On July 10, 1989, the City Council, by Resolution No. 89 -138 and 89 -139, established the above project and ordered the advertisement for bids. • Bids for construction of these improvements were opened on August 10, 1989. Of the four bids received, the lowest bid was by Thomas and Sons Construction Inc. in the total amount of $150,882.10. At the time this report is being written, the agreement between the owners of Brookdale Square and the City has not been fully executed by the owners. Accordingly, we recommend that the low bid of Thomas and Sons Construction Inc. be accepted and a contract awarded to that firm, provided the agreement is signed. Council Action Required Adopt the attached resolution. However, if the agreement is not executed by the time of the Council meeting staff will either: • recommend that the resolution be amended to make the award of contract subject to the receipt of the needed documents; or • recommend that consideration of the resolution be tabled until the next Council meeting. 9� Member introduced the 1 w" fo to ing resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR BROOKDALE SQUARE TURNLANE AND ENTRANCE MODIFICTAIONS PROJECT NOS. 1989 -18 AND 1989 -19, CONTRACT 1989 -H) WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project Nos. 1989 -18 and 1989 -19, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Engineer, on the 10th day of August, 1989. Said bids were as follows: Bidder Bid Amount Thomas and Sons Construction Inc. $150,882.10 Hardrives Inc. $157,417.00 Alber Construction $162,633.25 Bury & Carlson $166,495.50 WHEREAS, it appears the Thomas and Sons Construction Inc. of Rogers, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract, in the amount of $150,882.10, with Thomas and Sons Construction Inc, of Rogers, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project Nos. y � P J 1989 -18 and 1989 -19 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that: 1. The estimated total cost of Improvement Project Nos. 1989 -18 and 1989 -19 are hereby amended from $208,239.00 to $179,142.01. The estimated cost is comprised of the following: Project No. 1989 -18 Project No. 1989 -19 As Ordered As Amended As Ordered As Amended Contract $53,336.00 $53,691.60 $121,168.00 $97,190.50 Engineering (9%) 4,802.00 4,832.24 10,903.00 8,747.15 I RESOLUTION NO. Project No. 1989 -18 Project No. 1989 -19 As Ordered As Amended As Ordered As Amended Administration (1%) 533.00 536.92 1,212.00 971.91 Legal and Bonding (1 %) 533.00 536.92 1,212.00 971.91 Interest (12 %) -0- -0- 14.540.00 11.662.86 Total Estimated Cost $59,204.00 $59,597.68 $149,035.00 $119,544.33 2. The estimated costs to be financed will be: Project No. 1989 -18 Project No. 1989 -19 As Ordered As Amended As Ordered As Amended Special Assessments -0- -0- 149,035.00 119,544.33 MSA Fund (Fund Balance #2611) -0- -0- -0- -0- MSA Fund (Fund Balance #2613) 59,204.00 59.597.68 -0- -0- Total $59,204.00 $59,597.68 $149,035.00 $119,544.33 Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8 /14/89 Agenda Item Number -L't REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPOINTING ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER TO THE SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION, AND RESOLUTION APPOINTING ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER TO THE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION DEPT. APPROVAL: * * * * * * * ** Y KN AP *, *R *R** *RR OF PUBLIC WORKS * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: ksupplemental sheets attached ) Explanation Each member of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission and of the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission is eligible to appoint one "Commissioner" and one "Alternate Commissioner" to each of these Commissions. Traditionally, I have served as the Commissioner, with the City Engineer serving as the Alternate Commissioner. Accordingly, I recommend that Mark J. Maloney, our new City Engineer, be appointed to serve as the Alternate Commissioner on both Commissions. Council Action Required Adoption of the two resolutions attached. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPOINTING ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER TO THE SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that Mark J. Maloney, City Engineer, is hereby appointed as Alternate Commissioner to the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission to complete the unexpired term of Henry R. Spurrier. 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 N0. RESOLUTION APPOINTING ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER TO THE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that Mark J. Maloney, City Engineer, is hereby appointed as Alternate Commissioner to the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission to complete the unexpired term of Henry R. Spurrier. 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_ //14/89 Agenda Item Number-1/ 4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF SHADE TREES *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL; * * * * * * * * * * * ** N A P ** * DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WOR / ** * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report _. Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached NO • The attached resolution represents the official council action required to expedite removal of the trees most recently marked by the city tree inspector in accordance with the procedures outlined therein. It is anticipated that this resolution will be submitted for council consideration each meeting during the summer and fall as new trees are marked. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the council adopt the attached resolution. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF SHADE TREES (ORDER NO. DST 08/14/89) WHEREAS, a Notice to Abate Nuisance and Shade Tree Removal Agreement has been issued to the owners of certain properties in the City of Brooklyn Center givin g Y the owners twenty 20 days to remove shade trees on the owners' property; and WHEREAS, the City can expedite the removal of these shade trees by declaring them a public nuisance: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The shade trees at the following addresses are hereby declared to be a public nuisance. PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY ADDRESS TREE NUMBER RONALD /LEONE BALFANY 5500 FRANCE AVE N 355 TARSIA KALWAY 3306 53RD AVE N 356 KEVIN RADENBAUGH 5301 4TH ST N 357 VENTURE 4, INC 520 56TH AVE N 358 VENTURE 4, INC 520 56TH AVE N 359 CITY OF BC SCP AT CR 10 360 GREGORY LUTGEN 7216 BROOKLYN BLVD 361 FRED /VALERIE BAUER 5255 E TWIN LAKE BLV 362 HULDA ANDERSON 5143 DREW AVE N 363 HULDA ANDERSON 5143 DREW AVE N 364 STANLEY TRUCHINSKI 5633 HUMBOLDT AVE N 365 STANLEY TRUCHINSKI 5633 HUMBOLDT AVE N 366 EDWIN BECK 5507 CAMDEN AVE N 367 OPAL BURNETT 5404 GIRARD AVE N 368 DAVID FRANCIS 6106 COLFAX AVE N 369 DONALD KRAMER 7215 FREMONT AVE N 370 ROGERT /NANCY THEILER 7025 REGENT AVE N 371 GREG /META PRINGLE 1107 73RD AVE N 372 TRI STATE /S00 LINE 51ST E TWIN LAKE BLV 373 LEROY JOHNSON 5706 FREMONT AVE N 374 JAMES GREGOR 7225 KYLE AVE N 375 CENTER DEV /N CHAZIN 2802 NORTHWAY DR 376 CENTER DEV /N CHAZIN 2802 NORTHWAY DR 377 CENTER DEV /N CHAZIN 2802 NORTHWAY DR 378 DENNIS /BEVERLY BATTY 3319 MUMFORD RD 379 DENNIS /BEVERLY BATTY 3319 MUMFORD RD 380 JOHN /MARIAN TRAUTMAN 2919 64TH AVE N 381 JAMES HIXON 3106 64TH AVE N 382 PAT /KRIS MITCHELL 6113 DUPONT AVE N 383 DONALD PETERSON 3715 58TH AVE N 384 R & R SANDOVAL 6330 HUMBOLDT AVE N 385 PAUL FAGERHAUGH 5445 CAMDEN AVE N 386 PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY ADDRESS TREE NUMBER JEFFREY ALLEN 5160 DREW AVE N 387 THOMAS SLUPSKE 5918 ABBOTT AVE N 388 LLOYD BACH 3219 QUARLES RD 389 DAVID /KAREN HIMMERIC 4800 HOWE LA 390 RICHARD KNIGHT 4901 WINCHESTER LA 391 HELEN PANAYOTOFF 4701 63RD AVE N 392 WILLIAM SWANSON 5737 JUNE AVE N 393 GEORGE CROSBY 5621 INDIANA AVE N 394 DWIGHT JOHNSON 5338 E TWIN LAKE BLV 395 GERALD KENNEDY 5328 E TWIN LAKE BLV 396 2. After twenty (20) days from the date of the notice, the property owners will receive a second written notice that will give them (5) business days in which to contest the determination of City Council by requesting a hearing in writing. Said request shall be filed with the City Clerk. 3. After five (5) days, if the property owner fails to request a hearing, the tree(s) shall be removed by the City. 4. All removal costs, including legal, financing and administrative charges, shall be specially assessed against the property. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 1 „ MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION JULY 27, 1989 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER T — hePl — anning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann and James McCloskey. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairperson Malecki noted that Commissioners Wallace Bernards and Bertil Johnson had stated that they were unable to attend and were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 13, 1989 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the July 13, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Ainas, Mann and McCloskey. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Sander. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 85004 (Cathy Rausch) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for an amendment to the special use permit for a home beauty shop at 3000 63rd Avenue North to allow extension of time for a nonresident employee. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85004 attached). Commissioner Sander asked for clarification that the total hours for the home occupation would not be increasing. The Secretary responded that they would not be. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 85004) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mrs. Joseph Wykrent of 3006 63rd Avenue North stated that she had no problem with the home occupation, but did not want any on- street parking allowed on 63rd. Mrs. Ronda Shepersky, of 3001 63rd Avenue North,also stated that she did not want any on- street parking on 63rd Avenue North. Chairperson Malecki asked whether there were any other people present who wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Sander to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner McCloskey asked whether the wooden deck would be enclosed if the special use permit is approved. Mr. Duane Rausch, the husband of the applicant, stated that the deck would remain open. 7 -27 -89 -1- ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85004 (Cathy Rausch) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend approval of Application No. 85004, subject to the following amended conditions: j 4. The hours of operation shall be: 9:00 a.m, to 5:00 p.m. Wednesday and Friday, 9 :00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Tuesday and Thursday, and 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Saturday. 11. Special use permit approval acknowledges the presence of a nonresident employee until August 15, 1992 for the purpose of the applicant working toward attaining a shop manager's license from the State Board of Cosmetology. However, if the applicant receives her shop license prior to that date, she shall submit a copy of it to the Planning and Inspection Department and the presence of a nonresident employee shall cease. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Ainas, Mann and McCloskey. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89020 (Mary Ladd) Commissioner Sander stated that she would have to excuse herself from consideration of this application because of a conflict of interest. The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for special use permit approval to conduct a counseling business in the residence at 6941 Willow Lane. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89020 attached). Commissioner McCloskey asked what was meant in the conditions by "improved space provided by the applicant." The Secretary answered that this refers to the existing driveway. He noted that there is a double wide driveway on the property which will allow the possibility of two clients to be at the property simultaneously so that there should not be any parking on- street. He noted that the conditions also prohibit on- street parking. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether she had anything to add. Ms. Ladd stated that she had nothing to add, but would answer questions. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89020) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Ms. Lucille Forcelle,of 6924 Willow Lane, noted that she had lived in the neighborhood for over 20 years and asked what kind of counseling would be going on at the property and whether it would involve any drug or alcohol counseling. Ms. Ladd responded that she would not want people that she did not feel safe with herself. She stated that since 1984, she has had no problems with clients. Chairperson Malecki asked whether the present office is in her home. Ms. Ladd responded in the negative, stating that it is located in an office building with an attorney and other office tenants. Ms. Ladd stated that the majority of her clients are married professional people. 7 -27 -89 -2- I r Mr. Harley Aldrich, of 207 70th Avenue North, asked if there would be any signery associated with the home occupation. The Secretary pointed out that the City Sign Ordinance limits home occupation signs to 2.5 square feet which is a fairly small sign. Ms. Ladd stated that she would have no advertising signs as such, but might have a small sign on the garage to direct people to the front door. Mr. Charles Stutz, of 7001 Willow Lane, asked a number of questions. He asked whether there would be only one counselor. Ms. Ladd stated that there would be only herself with no assistants. Mr. Stutz asked whether some other home occupation could be allowed if this special use permit is approved. Chairperson Malecki answered that any other home occupation would have to be approved separately by the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Stutz asked whether a State license is required at this time. Ms. Ladd explained that the requirement for licensing has only recently been enacted by the legislature and that she is among the first seeking licensure. She stated that her application is presently pending and that there is a large number of applications to be reviewed and approved. Mr. Stutz asked whether the granting of the license by the State would expand the practice. Ms. Ladd responded in the negative. Mr. Stutz read the proposed Condition No. 1 regarding amendment of the special use permit. He asked about the possibility if he wanted to amend the special use permit. Chairperson Malecki answered that he would have to contact the City about problems with the home occupation and that the Planning Commission would then reevaluate the question. The Secretary reviewed some examples of changes in the home occupation that would require an amendment to the special use permit, such as adding a nonresident employee. As to the type of counseling being done, he stated that the City does not have expertise in that issue and that it is not really a zoning matter. He stated that if the conditions were not abided by, that persons in the neighborhood could contact the City and that the home occupation would be reviewed. Commissioner Mann asked whether the State allowed Ms. Ladd to continue counseling while her license was pending. Ms. Ladd responded in the affirmative. The Secretary asked whether Ms. Ladd did counseling elsewhere. Ms. Ladd responded that she will also be seeing clients occasionally in her husband's office in Minneapolis. The Secretary concluded, therefore, that not all of her business would be undertaken in her home. Ms. Ladd agreed and noted that some clients did not want to drive all the way to Brooklyn Center. The Secretary also concluded that she would not have clients at her home every hour allowed for under the conditions of the special use permit. Ms. Ladd responded in the affirmative. Chairperson Malecki then asked whether anyone else had any comments. Hearing no one, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Malecki stated that parking on -site would basically preclude group sessions. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 89020 (Mary Ladd) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend approval of Application No. 89020 subject to the following conditions: 7 -27 -89 -3- 1. The special use permit is granted only for the specific use proposed by the applicant. The use may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes ordinances and regulations. Any violation, thereof, may be grounds for revocation. 3. Special use permit approval acknowledges use of an 18' x 24' room and adjoining half bath as being used for the home occupation. This is deemed to be an incidental and secondary use of the premises. No greater area within the home is acknowledged by this permit. 4. Clients shall be served on an appointment only basis between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. 5. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be off - street on improved space provided by the applicant. 6. The premises shall be inspected by the Building Official and any necessary safety modifications required by him shall be completed prior to the issuance of the special use permit. 7. A copy of the applicant's state license as an Independent Clinical Social Worker shall be filed with the City Planning and Inspection Department. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Ainas, Mann and McCloskey. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS a) Group Home Study The Planner then distributed to the Commissioners the last chapter of the group home study and the Secretary stated that it had just been received today and that he had not read it himself. He stated that it is for the Planning Commission to review and would be discussed in the near future. The Secretary also pointed out that on August 17, the Planning Commission will review the Housing Study that was distributed at the previous meeting and that the Housing would also be resent at Commission and the Neighborhood Advisor Groups P Y that meeting. He added that the City Council had accepted Short- Elliott- Hendrickson as the consultant to do the study of Land Use in the neighborhood of 66th and Highway 252. He stated that although their proposal had been more expensive, it went into meetin s. greater depth and provided for more g P P g ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. Planning The Pla ni g Commission adjourned at 8:14 p.m. Chairperson 7 -27 -89 -4- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85004 Applicant: Cathy Rausch Location: 3000 63rd Avenue North Request: Special Use Permit Amendment /Home Occupation The applicant requests an amendment to the special use permit for a home beauty shop at 3000 63rd Avenue North granted under Application No. 85004. The property in question is zoned Rl and is bounded on the east by Xerxes Avenue North, on the south by 63rd Avenue North, and on the west and north by single- family homes. The amendment is to allow for a nonresident employee for up to three more years. The existing special use permit approval terminated the right to a nonresident employee after July 11, 1989. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which she explains that, because of the birth of a second child, she has been unable to complete the 2,700 hours of work required to get her own license. The permit arrangement with the nonresident employee allows Mrs. Rausch to work under the supervision of a licensed beautician until she attains enough hours to obtain her own shop license. The City Council approved the nonresident employee only for this purpose and was unwilling to approve it on a permanent basis. Mrs. Rausch will likely be working toward her goal of 2,700 hours on a part -time basis. Therefore, she seeks an extension for three years to avoid the need for another amendment. She presently has worked approximately 1,500 of the required 2,700 hours. Mrs. Rausch points out that the nonresident employee will be at her shop two days per week. Mrs. Rausch also seeks an adjustment to the approved hours of operation. Presently the Thursday hours are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and the Friday hours are 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. She requests a revision reversing these hours to 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Thursday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Friday. Given the limited hours for the nonresident employee and the temporary period for which she will come to the home, we see no adverse impact on the neighborhood. A concern has been raised by one neighbor about the possibility of on- street parking. However, on-street parking is not allowed under the present conditions of approval; the applicant has not sought a change in this condition; and, staff certainly recommend no change. The existing conditions of approval are attached for the Commission's review. We recommend approval of revised conditions #4 and #11 as follows: 4. The hours of operation shall be: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Wednesday and Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Tuesday and Thursday, and 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Saturday. 11. Special use permit approval acknowledges the presence of a nonresident employee until August 15, 1992 for the purpose of the applicant working toward attaining a shop manager's license from the State Board of Cosmetology. However, if the applicant receives her shop license prior to that date, she shall submit a copy of it to the Planning and Inspection Department and the presence of a nonresident employee shall cease. 7 -27 -89 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89020 Applicant: Mary Ladd Location: 6941 Willow Lane Request: Special Use Permit /Home Occupation The applicant requests special use permit approval to conduct a counseling business in the residence at 6941 Willow Lane. The property in question is zoned R1 and is bounded on the east by Willow Lane, and on the south, west, and north by single - family homes. Ms. Ladd does not yet occupy the home, but has a purchase agreement to buy it, subject to receiving special use permit approval. The City has considered home occupations involving customer traffic, such as a chiropractor's office or psychological counseling business to be a special use in the R1 zone. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which she describes the nature of the business, her professional background, a description of the home office space, and ability to comply with City ordinances. She states that she has maintained a private counseling practice at 2445 Park Avenue South in Minneapolis since 1984. Her clientele consists of persons seeking services for personal, relational, and family concerns (72% individual counseling, 6% family counseling, and 20% marital counseling). She states that she conducts her practice on an appointment only basis and that her business hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. She states that she schedules an average of 4.5 meetings per day. She notes that her clientele are, for the most part, professional persons addressing normal living issues. Regarding her professional background, Ms. Ladd states that she received her B.A. in Social Work from the College of St. Catherine in 1974 and her Master of Social Work from the University of Minnesota in 1983. She notes that she does some teaching in addition to her counseling practice. She also points out that she is seeking a license from the State of Minnesota as an Independent Clinical Social Worker and as a Marriage and Family Counselor. Such licensing is a new requirement resulting from legislation passed in 1988. Ms. Ladd goes on to indicate that the space to be used for the home occupation is presently an 18' x 24' family room with an adjoining 1/2 bath. Entrance to the room is directly from the front door of the house. She expects no need for structural alterations. Ms. Ladd also points out that there is a two car driveway and an extra cobblestone parking area adjacent to the driveway. She adds that there will be no equipment used other than normally found in the home; there will be no retail sales; and no employment of other persons. Staff see no problems with the proposed home occupation. A similar type of home occupation was approved last year on O'Henry Road in the Central Neighborhood (Dean Arnott, Application No. 88012, 3313 O'Henry Road, psychological counseling). We believe the special use permit standards from Section 35 -220 of the Zoning Ordinance can be met in this case. The home occupation will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort. It will not be injurious to other property or substantially diminish property values in the neighborhood. The home occupation will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property. Finally, adequate means exist for ingress, egress, and parking so that there should be no traffic congestion in the public streets. 7 -27 -89 -1- Application No. 89020 continued In general, the application appears to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is granted only for the specific use proposed by the applicant. The use may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes ordinances and regulations. Any violation, thereof, may be grounds for revocation. 3. Special use permit approval acknowledges use of an 18' x 24' room and adjoining half bath as being used for the home occupation. This is deemed to be an incidental and secondary use of the premises. No greater area within the home is acknowledged by this permit. 4. Clients shall be served on an appointment only basis between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. 5. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be off - street on improved space provided by the applicant. 6. The premises shall be inspected by the Building Official and any necessary safety modifications required by him shall be completed prior to the issuance of the special use permit. 7. A copy of the applicant's state license as an Independent Clinical Social Worker shall be filed with the City Planning and Inspection Department. 7 -27 -89 -2- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8 -14 -89 i Agenda Item Number X! 7 a, REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION 40 ***** ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 85004 - Cathy Rausch DEPARTMENT ROVAL: Signature - title Director 9 of Planning and Inspection MANAGERS REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached x Cathy Rausch requests an amendment to the special use permit for a home beauty shop at 3000 63rd Avenue North granted under Application No. 85004. The amendment is to allow for a nonresident employee for up to three more years. The existing special use permit approval terminated the right to a nonresident employee after July 11, 1989. Planning Commission and City Council minutes and information sheet from the original approval in 1985, Planning Commission and City Council minutes granting an amendment in 1986 and Planning Commission minutes and information sheet from the July 27, 1989 meeting are attached for your review. Recommendation Approval of the special use permit amendment was recommended by the Planning Commission at its July 27, 1989 study meeting subject to the amended conditions listed on page 2 of the minutes from that meeting. i `1 r AA, � r a)Ll '1 . too 0 CIA �l U J U V a rtbu-) cii & )Vvi-C G w V l,A ?- ovl 1 )CC -/� L't:C )q-,o t r ITZA lo C ct ch' Section 35 -220. SPECIAL USE PERMITS 1 2. Standards for Special Use Permits A special use permit may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met: (a) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. (b) The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. (c) The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. (d) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. (e) The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may impose such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location, construction, maintenance and operation of the special use as deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest and to secure compliance with requirements specified in this ord- inance. In all cases in which special use permits are granted, the City Council may require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary as part of the conditions stipulated in connec- tion therewith. 4. Resubmission No application for a special use permit which has been denied by the City Council shall be resubmitted for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of the final determination by the City Council; except that the applicant may set forth in writing newly _ discovered evidence of change of condition upon which he relies to gain the consent of the City Council for resubmission at an earlier time. 5. Revocation and Extension of Special Use Permits When a special use permit has been issued pursuant to the pro- visions of this ordinance, such permit shall expire without further action by the Planning Commission or the City Council unless the applicant or his assignee or successor commences work upon the sub- ject property within one year of the date the special use permit is granted, or unless before the expiration of the one year period the applicant shall apply for an extension thereof by filling out and submitting to the Secretary of the Planning Commission a "Special Use Permit" application requesting such extension and paying an additional fee of $15.00. Special use permits granted pursuant to the provisions of a prior ordinance of Brooklyn Center shall expire within one year of the effective date of this ordinance if construction upon the sub - ject property pursuant to such special use permit has not commenced within that time. In any instance where an existing and established special use is abandoned for a period of one year, the special use permit re- lated thereto shall expire one year following the date of abandon- ment. MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION JULY 27, 1989 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann and James McCloskey. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairperson Malecki noted that Commissioners Wallace Bernards and Bertil Johnson had stated that they were unable to attend and were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 13, 1989 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the July 13, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Ainas, Mann and McCloskey. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Sander. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 85004 (Cathy Rausch) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for an amendment to the special use permit for a home beauty shop at 3000 63rd Avenue North to allow extension of time for a nonresident employee. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85004 attached). Commissioner Sander asked for clarification that the total hours for the home occupation would not be increasing. The Secretary responded that they would not be. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 85004) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mrs. Joseph Wykrent of 3006 63rd Avenue North stated that she had no problem with the home occupation, but did not want any on- street parking allowed on 63rd. Mrs. Ronda Shepersky, of 3001 63rd Avenue North,also stated that she did not want any on- street parking on 63rd Avenue North. Chairperson Malecki asked whether there were any other people present who wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Sander to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner McCloskey asked whether the wooden deck would be enclosed if the special use permit is approved. Mr. Duane Rausch, the husband of the applicant, stated that the deck would remain open. 7 -27 -89 _1_ ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85004 (Cathy Rausch) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend approval of Application No. 85004, subject to the following amended conditions: 4. The hours of operation shall be: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Wednesday and Friday, 9 :00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Tuesday and Thursday, and 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Saturday. 11. Special use permit approval acknowledges the presence of a nonresident employee until August 15, 1992 for the purpose of the applicant working toward attaining a shop manager's license from the State Board of Cosmetology. However, if the applicant receives her shop license prior to that date, she shall submit a copy of it to the Planning and Inspection Department and the presence of a nonresident employee shall cease. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Ainas, Mann and McCloskey. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 7 -27 -89 -2- i Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85004 Applicant: Cathy Rausch Location: 3000 63rd Avenue North Request: Special Use Permit Amendment /Home Occupation The applicant requests an amendment to the special use permit for a home beauty shop at 3000 63rd Avenue North granted under Application No. 85004. The property in question is zoned RI and is bounded on the east by Xerxes Avenue North, on the south by 63rd Avenue North, and on the west and north by single - family homes. The amendment is to allow for a nonresident employee for up to three more years. The existing special use permit approval terminated the right to a nonresident employee after July 11, 1989. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which she explains that, because of the birth of a second child, she has been unable to complete the 2,700 hours of work required to get her own license. The permit arrangement with the nonresident employee allows Mrs. Rausch to work under the supervision of a licensed beautician until she attains enough hours to obtain her own shop license. The City Council approved the nonresident employee only for this purpose and was unwilling to approve it on a permanent basis. Mrs. Rausch will likely be working toward her goal of 2,700 hours on a part -time basis. Therefore, she seeks an extension for three years to avoid the need for another amendment. She presently has worked approximately 1,500 of the required 2,700 hours. Mrs. Rausch points out that the nonresident employee will be at her shop two days per week. Mrs. Rausch also seeks an adjustment to the approved hours of operation. Presently the Thursday hours are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and the Friday hours are 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. She requests a revision reversing these hours to 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Thursday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Friday. Given the limited hours for the nonresident employee and the temporary period for which she will come to the home, we see no adverse impact - on the neighborhood. A concern has been raised by one neighbor about the possibility of on- street parking. However, on-street parking -is not allowed under the present conditions of approval; the applicant has not sought a change in this condition; and, staff certainly recommend no change. The existing conditions of approval are attached for the Commission's review. We recommend approval of revised conditions #4 and 111 as follows: 4. The hours of operation shall be: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Wednesday and Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Tuesday and Thursday, and 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Saturday. 11. Special use permit approval acknowledges the presence of a nonresident employee until August 15, 1992 for the purpose of the applicant working toward attaining a shop manager's license from the State Board of Cosmetology. However, if the applicant receives her shop license prior to that date, she shall submit a COPY of it to the Planning and Inspection Department and the presence of a nonresident employee shall cease. 7 -27 -89 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist recognized Phil Cohen, Chairman of the 75th Anniversary Committee. Mr. Cohen stated that a final committee report had been submitted for the Council's review and if they had any questions he would be more than happy to answer them. He added that he would like to thank the Mayor, Councilmembers and all City staff who worked on the year long celebration. He stated he felt that the success of the celebration came from the total community involvement which included not only the City government taking part, but also the area businesses, school districts and citizens. He added that he felt the City's financial involvement made it easier for the committee to ask area businesses and residents for funding. The City Manager presented a Resolution Accepting Work Performed Under Contract 1986 -F (Diseased Shade Tree Removal Project No. 1986 -04). RESOLUTION NO. 86 -191 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1986 -F (DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT NO. 1986 -04) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 85004 SUBMITTED BY KATHY RAUSCH REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL FOR A HOME BEAUTY SHOP AT 3000 63RD AVENUE NORTH TO ALLOW A NONRESIDENT EMPLOYEE TO WORK FOR TWO AND ONE YEARS TO ALLOW MRS. RAUSCH TIME TO OBTAIN A SHOP MANAGER'S LICENSE HALF The City Manager noted this item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its November 13, 1986 meeting. The Director of Planning & Inspection referred the Council to pages one and two of the November 13, 1986 minutes and the information sheet attached with those minutes. He added that the Council would be amending condition No. 11 from the original approval. He stated that the applicant is requesting an additional 30 months for a nonresident employee, to allow Mrs. Rausch time to obtain a shop manager's license. He noted that at the Planning Commission meeting there were two residents present and their main concern was the on- street parkin g . The Inspection Director of Planning & Inspection stated that no on- street parking is allowed for this application and that no other changes in the original conditions are being sought or recommended. He noted that a public hearing has been scheduled for this evening. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 85004 submitted by Kathy Rausch. He inquired if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. 11 -24 -86 -2- r There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 85004 submitted by Kathy Rausch. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Lhotka asked Mrs. Rausch approximately how many hours she had earned towards her shop manager's license. Mrs. Rausch stated that she had earned between n 370 and 400 hours. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve the amendment to condition No. 11 for Planning Commission Application No. 85004 in the following form: 11. Special use permit approval acknowledges the presence of one nonresident employee until July 11, 1989 for the purpose of the applicant working n toward attaining g a ning a shop manager's license from the State Board of Cosmetology. At that time, the application shall be brought back to the City Council for review of the number of hours authorized in condition No. 4. Councilmember Lhotka inquired if it would be possible to amend this motion so that the staff could report back in one year on the applicant's progress. Councilmember Hawes asked why Councilmember Lhotka would like a report. Councilmember Lhotka stated that he feels it would be best if the Council and staff watched the applicant's progress instead of having to amend the time period again in two and one half years. Councilmember Hawes and Councilmember Theis stated that they would be in favor of the amended motion. It was noted that the status report would become part of condition No. 11. The condition would read as follows: 11. Special use permit approval acknowledges the presence of one nonresident employee until July 11, 1989 for the purpose of the applicant -working toward attaining a shop manager's license from the State Board of Cosmetology. At that time, the application shall be brought back to the City Council for review of the number of hours authorized in condition No. 4. Within one year, the applicant shall provide the City Council with a status report regarding the number of hours she has completed and the progress she has made toward attaining her shop manager's license. 11 -24 -86 -3- CONTINGENCY FUND TO FIRE DEPARTMENT AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT REPAIR ACCOUNT AND AUTHORIZING THE REPAIR OF FIRE DEPARTMENT AERIAL LADDER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, 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. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 85004 SUBMITTED BY CATHY RAUSCH FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO CONDUCT A HOME BEAUTY SHOP WITH ONE NON- RESIDENT EMPLOYEE IN THE EXISTING FAMILY ROOM OF THE RESIDENCE AT 3000 63RD AVENUE NORTH ^ The City Manager introduced Planning Commission Application No. 85004, and pointed out that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 85004 at its February 14, 1985 meeting and that the application was tabled at the February 25, 1985 City Council meeting to allow time for the applicant to consider the conditions of approval discussed by the Council. The Director of Planning & Inspection reviewed 11 conditions recommended in conjunction with approval of Application No. 85004. He also explained that notices had been sent to neighboring property owners regarding this evening's meeting and that the applicant is present this evening. Councilmember Lhotka inquired whether a condition prohibiting on- street parking could be added and the Director of Planning replied that the condition could be added.. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve Application No. 85004, subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be , grounds for revocation. 2. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 3. A current copy of the applicant's state operator's license shall be kept on file with the City. 4. The hours of operation shall be: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Wednesday and Thursday; 9:00 a.m, to 8:00 p.m., Tuesday and Friday; and 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., Saturday. The home occupation shall be conducted on an appointment only basis. 5. Special Use Permit approval acknowledges one, part -time, non- resident employee working in the beauty shop. 6. Special Use Permit approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 3 -11 -85 -3- 7. The existing driveway off Xerxes Avenue North shall be widened to 26' with a throat on Xerxes Avenue North of approximately 22 No removal of curb or improvement within the Xerxes Avenue North boulevard shall be commenced prior to approval by the City Engineer. 8. Special Use Permit approval acknowledges the use for the home beauty shop of an existing 11' x 28' family room. No greater area within the home for the home occupation is comprehended by this approval. 9• The premises shall be inspected by the Building Official and any structural alterations recommended by him shall be completed prior to the issuance of the Special Use Permit. 10. A 10 lb. fire extinguisher shall be placed within the home beauty shop area. 11. This application shall be brought back before the City Council within 18 months after its issuance for the purpose of eliminating the provision for a nonresident employee and to reduce the number of hours authorized in Condition No. 4 above. 12. No on- street parking shall be permitted in conjunction with the operation of the home beauty shop. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF BROOKWOOD CONDOMINIUM BUILDING RENTAL LICENSE Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Jay Cook, Attorney with Dorsey and Whitney, representing Brutger Companies. Mr. Cook stated that Brutger Companies has entered into five agreements for the repurchase of condominium units with a provision to lease back the units. He explained Brutger Companies is confident that they will be able to come to agreement with the remaining owners within a week's time. Councilmember Thei expressed a concern about approving a rental license without final settlement of all owners. Mr. Cook replied that the same offer made to the first five will be made to the remaining three owners. Councilmember Lhotka inquired what the marketing approach would be on the rental units. Mayor Nyquist recognized Ms. Sharon Witt, representing Brutger Companies, who introduced Ms. Jan Huebner whom she explained was Brutger Companies marketing manager for the Brookwood rental units and that Ms. Huebner lives in one of the Brookwood Town Homes. She explained that what she is hearing in the market is that people in the 55 and over group want to rent rather than buy. She stated that the marketing approach would be to advertise in local newspapers from Fridley to Maple Grove to Golden Valley. Referrals by current residents will also be considered along with the waiting list for Brookwood Manor. Finally, she pointed out that a brochure and direct mail approach will also be used. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve the rental license for the Brookwood Condominium Building. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF WINE AND BEER LICENSE APPLICATION FOR DENNY'S RESTAURANT The City Manager noted that the wine and beer license for Denny's Restaurant was approved at the February 11 , 1985 City Council meeting for 30 days contingent upon 3 -11 -85 -4- RES M W • ��� 1111 /�jl ao■�: 1 _ I r am TV et jr Bill oil � � :Sri �6s' - `• .�■ ■■ tt/ ��� t�tt �3Y �t , �r, =a a ; o � •� Imma WE INS • ��� �,�' "�'� ms's � w. �� wlw ww i "s �' �� _ • [Big; s' 1 • m _me==� !� INIUmm Sam mw mw wm ww t wow iwwl wow I ww v ww tw�F mm M r1' � a IL MINE O .w �� �� ■ �4 jai ONE ♦iii'♦'. � �i ..'. � 1� ,� III IBM I�IANl�� UNION i i i i r i i i f !) t a �oa►r aaG � h `1 j L r 7 y , s cr i, rear corch to enclosed, old :;ara =;e to be re .modeled, ' and old 12 driveway to be r e.--oved a na sodded.. See r Z -'. 2 for arawln- of cro: osed remodelir.z plans. q 8 5.57' i 35 �. 1VEW STRUC77RE PROPOSE 25'. {E ----- 24 ' 261 624 sq. ft. — -- — — 16 driveway GLi 0 - OD 10 fee± X. -ac 1 , o56 sq. ft, ' 131 06 12 44 24.31 * 211 101 • blvd, 1 wat er sewer i 1 38' • 1 1 1 1 t � 94.48 1 1 1 5 b lv d. 6 3RD AVE. 'NORTH SCALE yi eg s 5 feet f f l 41 r ( ( \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 Y r i I L. C1 V 5 I I � ti ( -p , I-j i i i I ( S , � - xcs CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8 -14 -89 1' Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application 89020 - Mary Ladd DEPARTMENT VAL: Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report C ments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X The applicant, Mary Ladd, requests special use permit approval to conduct a counseling business in the residence at 6941 Willow Lane. Planning Commission minutes and information sheet from the July 27, 1989 meeting are attached for your ® review. Recommendation Approval of the special use permit was recommended by the Planning Commission at its July 27, 1989 study meeting subject to the seven conditions listed on page 4 of the minutes from that meeting. 0 APPLICATION NO. 89020 (Mary Ladd) Commissioner Sander stated that she would have to excuse herself from consideration of this application because of a conflict of interest. The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for special use permit approval to conduct a counseling business in the residence at 6941 Willow Lane. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application pp No. 89020 attached). Commissioner McCloskey asked what was meant in the conditions by "improved space provided by the applicant." The Secretary answered that this refers to the existing driveway. He noted that there is a double wide driveway on the property which will allow the possibility of two clients to be at the property simultaneously so that there should not be any parking on- street. He noted that the conditions also prohibit on- street parking. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether she had anything to add. Ms. Ladd stated that she had nothing to add, but would answer questions. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89020) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Ms. Lucille Forcelle,of 6924 Willow Lane, noted that she had lived in the neighborhood for over 20 years and asked what kind of counseling would be going on at the property and whether it would involve any drug or alcohol counseling. Ms. Ladd responded that she would not want people that she did not feel safe with herself. She stated that since 1984, she has had no problems with clients. Chairperson Malecki asked whether the present office is in her home. Ms. Ladd responded in the negative, stating that it is located in an office building with an attorney and other office tenants. Ms. Ladd stated that the majority of her clients are married professional people. 7 -27 -89 -2- Mr. Harley Aldrich, of 207 70th Avenue North, asked if there would be any signery associated with the home occupation. The Secretary pointed out that the City Sign Ordinance limits home occupation signs to 2.5 square feet which is a fairly small sign. Ms. Ladd stated that she would have no advertising signs as such, but might have a small sign on the garage to direct people to the front door. Mr. Charles Stutz, of 7001 Willow Lane, asked a number of questions. He asked whether there would be only one counselor. Ms. Ladd stated that there would be only herself with no assistants. Mr. Stutz asked whether some other home occupation could be allowed if this special use permit is approved. Chairperson Malecki answered that any other home occupation would have to be approved separately by the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Stutz asked whether a State license is required at this time. Ms. Ladd explained that the requirement for licensing has only recently been enacted by the legislature and that she is among the first seeking licensure. She stated that her application is presently pending and that there is a large number of applications to be reviewed and approved. Mr. Stutz asked whether the granting of the license by the State would expand the practice. Ms. Ladd responded in the negative. Mr. Stutz read the proposed Condition No. 1 regarding amendment of the special use permit. He asked about the possibility if he wanted to amend the special use permit. Chairperson Malecki answered that he would have to contact the City about problems with the home occupation and that the Planning Commission would then reevaluate the question. The Secretary reviewed some examples of changes in the home occupation that would require an amendment to the special use permit, such as adding a nonresident employee. As to the type of counseling being done, he stated that the City does not have expertise in that issue and that it is not really a zoning matter. He stated that if the conditions were not abided by, that persons in the neighborhood could contact the City and that the home occupation would be reviewed. Commissioner Mann asked whether the State allowed Ms. Ladd to continue counseling while her license was pending. Ms. Ladd responded in the affirmative. The Secretary asked whether Ms. Ladd did counseling elsewhere. Ms. Ladd responded that she will also be seeing clients occasionally in her husband's office in Minneapolis. The Secretary concluded, therefore, that not all of her business would be undertaken in her home. Ms. Ladd agreed and noted that some clients did not want to drive all the way to Brooklyn Center. The Secretary also concluded that she would not have clients at her home every hour allowed for under the conditions of the special use permit. Ms. Ladd responded in the affirmative. Chairperson Malecki then asked whether anyone else had any comments. Hearing no one, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Malecki stated that parking on -site would basically preclude group sessions. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 89020 (Mary Ladd) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend approval of Application No. 89020 subject to the following conditions: 7 -27 -89 -3- 1 1. The special use permit is granted only for the specific use proposed by the applicant. The use may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes ordinances and regulations. Any violation, thereof, may be grounds for revocation. 3• Special use permit approval acknowledges use of an 18' x 24' room and adjoining half bath as being used for the home occupation. This is deemed to be an incidental and secondary use of the premises. No greater area within the home is acknowledged by this permit. 4. Clients shall be served on an appointment only basis between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. 5. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be off - street on improved space provided by the applicant. 6. The premises shall be inspected by the Building Official and any necessary safety modifications required by him shall be completed prior to the issuance of the special use permit. 7. A copy of the applicant's state license as an Independent Clinical Social Worker shall be filed with the City Planning and Inspection Department. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Ainas, Mann and McCloskey. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS a) Group Home Study The Planner then distributed to the Commissioners the last chapter of the group home study and the Secretary stated that it had just been received today and that he had not read it himself. He stated that it is for the Planning Commission to review and would be discussed in the near future. The Secretary also pointed out that on August 17, the Planning Commission will review the Housing Study that was distributed at the previous meeting and that the Housing Commission and the Neighborhood Advisory Groups would also be present at that meeting. He added that the City Council had accepted Short- Elliott- Hendrickson as the consultant to do the study of Land Use in the neighborhood of 66th and Highway 252. He stated that although their proposal had been more expensive, it went into greater depth and provided for more meetings. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:14 p.m. Chairperson 7 -27 -89 -4- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89020 Applicant: Mary Ladd Location: 6941 Willow Lane Request: Special Use Permit /Home Occupation The applicant requests special use permit approval to conduct a counseling business in the residence at 6941 Willow Lane. The property in question is zoned Rl and is bounded on the east by Willow Lane, and on the south, west, and north by single- family homes. Ms. Ladd does not yet occupy the home, but has a purchase agreement to buy it, subject to receiving special use permit approval. The City has considered home occupations involving customer traffic, such as a chiropractor's office or psychological counseling business to be a special use in the Rl zone. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which she describes the nature of the business, her professional background, a description of the home office space, and ability to comply with City ordinances. She states that she has maintained a private counseling practice at 24 Park Avenue South in Minneapolis since 1984. Her clientele consists of persons seeking services for personal, relational, and family concerns (72% individual counseling, 6% family counseling, and 20% marital counseling). She states that she conducts her practice on an appointment only basis and that her business hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. She states that she schedules an average of 4.5 meetings per day. She notes that her clientele are, for the most part, professional persons addressing normal living issues. Regarding her professional background, Ms. Ladd states that she received her B.A. in Social Work from the College of St. Catherine in 1974 and her Master of Social Work from the University of Minnesota in 1983. She notes that she does some teaching in addition to her counseling practice. She also points out that she is seeking a license from the State of Minnesota as an Independent Clinical Social Worker and as a Marriage and Family Counselor. Such licensing is a new requirement resulting from legislation passed in 1988. Ms. Ladd goes on to indicate that the space to be used for the home occupation is presently an 18' x 24' family room with an adjoining 112 bath. Entrance to the room is directly from the front door of the house. She expects no need for structural alterations. Ms. Ladd also points out that there is a two car driveway and an extra cobblestone parking area adjacent to the driveway. She adds that there will be no equipment used other than normally found in the home; there will be no retail sales; and no employment of other persons. Staff see no problems with the proposed home occupation. A similar type of home occupation was approved last year on 0 Henry Road in the Central Neighborhood (Dean Arnott, Application No. 88012, 3313 O'Henry Road, psychological counseling). We believe the special use permit standards from Section 35 -220 of the Zoning Ordinance can be met in this case. The home occupation will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort. It will not be injurious to other property or substantially diminish property values in the neighborhood. The home occupation will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property. Finally, adequate means exist for ingress, egress, and parking so that there should be no traffic congestion in the public streets. 7 -27 -89 -1- sz Application No. 89020 continued In general, the application appears to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is granted only for the specific use proposed by the applicant. The use may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes ordinances and regulations. Any violation, thereof, may be grounds for revocation. 3• Special use permit approval acknowledges use of an 18' x 24' room and adjoining half bath as being used for the home occupation. This is deemed to be an incidental and secondary use of the premises. No greater area within the home is acknowledged by this permit. 4. Clients shall be served on an appointment only basis between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. 5. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be off - street on improved space provided by the applicant. 6. The premises shall be inspected by the Building Official and any necessary safety modifications required by him shall be completed prior to the issuance of the special use permit. 7. A copy of the applicant's state license as an Independent Clinical Social Worker shall be filed with the City Planning and Inspection Department. 7 -27 -89 -2- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/14/89 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: DISCUSSION ITEM - WATER SYSTEM STUDY REPORT DEPT. APPROVAL: * * * * * * * ** Y K NA P P * DIRECTOR OF P *BLIC WORKS * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Explanation ® In February, 1989 the City Council authorized the preparation of a new study to reevaluate and update the City's 1984 plans for improvements to the Municipal Water Supply System and approved a contract with Black and Veatch, consulting engineers, to conduct that study. The major reasons for updating the 1984 plan were: • To reevaluate the plan with reference to the high demands experienced during the drought of 1988. • To reevaluate the feasibility of providing treatment to the water supply system. In particular, it is proposed to evaluate the feasibility of installing an iron- and - manganese removal system. • To evaluate the system's ability to achieve compliance with new water supply standards as promulgated by the U.S.E.P.A., in accordance with the amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) as adopted by Congress in 1986. Black and Veatch has now completed their study. A copy is attached. Following is a brief summary of their findings and recommendations regarding those specific issues: o Water demands during a drought period similar to the 1988 drought can be as much as 25 percent higher than water demands during "normal" weather conditions. However, if water restrictions are implemented during a drought, maximum day demands will be only about 10 percent higher than the normal demands. Accordingly, the report recommends and assumes that the City will continue to impose water use restrictions during severe drought conditions. • o The estimated costs for construction of an iron - and - manganese removal treatment plant is $8.05 million. Because manganese does not present a health threat, it is not recommended that a treatment plant be constructed solely for the purpose of correcting the aesthetic problems (i.e. - black specks in the water) caused by the current level of manganese in the water. However, Brooklyn Center's need to build a treatment plant will probably be determined by the requirements of state and federal regulatory agencies, i.e.. - the City is currently using chloramines as the primary disinfectant for the water supply. his method is very effective Y y cove and is almost universally used in systems such as ours; - however, if the State of Minnesota (in compliance with possible new standards adopted by the U.S.E.P.A.) requires the use of an alternate disinfectant, those disinfectants could cause the manganese to precipitate, thereby dramatically reducing the aesthetic acceptability P Y of the water. This would, in effect, make it necessary for the City to construct a treatment plant; and - future standards adopted by the U.S.E.P.A. under the Safe Drinking Water Act could also have the impact of requiring the City to construct a treatment plant. o of the standards currently adopted or proposed by the U.S.E.P.A. under the SDWA, only their proposed corrosion control standards based on the results of testing consumers' water at- the -tap could cause the City some difficulty. However, under the SDWA, the U.S.E.P.A. has been mandated to adopt standards covering many additional chemicals annually. While it is anticipated that few, if any, of those standards will impact Brooklyn Center's system, it is apparent that the City will be best served b continuing tinuing to develop ur system in a way which would P Y y allow construction of a treatment plant at some future date. Accordingly, all recommendations within the report are based on that premise. During the progress of the study, the consultants recognized and analyzed an operational problem which we have been aware of, and dealing with for many years; i.e. - the location of Water Tower No. 2 (at 69th and Dupont) as it relates to the City's wells and to the balance of the distribution system, makes this tower ineffective in meeting peak demand periods. Accordingly, the study describes and proposes distribution system improvements which will optimize the effectiveness of Water Tower No. 2. Following s a g summary f recommended ommended improvements, probable costs (in 1989 dollars), recommended scheduling and effect on water rates for each of the four phases of improvements recommended in the report: Cumulative • Water Rate Recommended Increase Over Probable Completion Current Rate Recommended Improvement Cost Year of $0.43/1000 gal Existing System N/A N/A -- PHASE I: Well No. 10 750,000 1990 $.07 Well Collection Lines 170,000 Distribution Mains 730.000 Subtotal $1,650,000 PHASE II: Reservoir and Pumping Station 3,250,000 1995 $0.42 Distribution Mains 550.000 Subtotal $3,800,000 PHASE III: Well No. 11 750,000 2000 $0.47 Distribution Mains 300.000 Subtotal $1,050,000 PHASE IV: Pilot Testing 40,000 "If Required" $1.58 Water Treatment Plant 8.000,000 • Subtotal $8,040,000 Total $14,540,000 Council Action Required Representatives from Black and Veatch will attend the 8/14/89 Council meeting to present and discuss this report with the Council. It is recommended that a thorough discussion be conducted. As noted above, the report recommends initiation of "Phase I" improvements immediately with completion of those improvements in 1990. If the Council agrees with that recommendation, we will submit our recommendations on how to proceed with those improvements (i.e. - whether to use City engineering staff or consulting engineers, how the construction of the proposed collection and distribution lines can best be coordinated with other projects in those areas, etc.) in the near future. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date — EZ��/6 - q Agenda Item Number — &--/2— REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR "FEE - FOR - SERVICE" CITY INSURANCE AGENT DEPT. APP VAL: kc:! ,,�,j Director of Finance Signature - title 4 9ft MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report X Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUM E PLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached The City's current insurance agent is Jerome Coughlin of Brooklyn Park. He has been the City's agent for a number of years. Recently, it came to my attention that Mr. Coughlin does not have errors and omission insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 as required by the City. For that reason, we are sending out requests for proposals to various insurance agents to see if they are interested in being selected as insurance agent for the City. A request for proposal will also be sent to Mr. Coughlin. It is possible that he may be able to squire the errors and omissions coverage necessary. Mr. Coughlin is currently being compensated on a commission basis. His annual commissions are apporximately $21,000. We are requesting proposals on a fee - for - services" basis, rather then a commission basis. We expect that we can obtain the same services as we are currently receiving at an approximate annual cost Of $10,000 to $15,000. I have attached a list of insurance agents to whom the requests for proposals will be mailed. These agents have experience in serving as insurance agents for cities. The list was gathered from names recommended by our risk management consultant and names given to us by the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) as agents who have served as agent for cities covered by LMCIT. Our risk management consultant, American Risk Services, Inc., has helped prepare the request for proposals and will assist us in selecting the agent from the proposals submitted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION --------------- - - - -- The staff recommends that we mail the attached requests for proposals to the agents named on the list attached to this memorandum and select an agent from those proposals submitted to serve as the City's insurance agent on a "fee- for - service basis. SPECIFIC ACTION REQUIRED BY THE CITY COUNCIL Authorize for a "fee- for - services" insurance agent to the attached listing of insurance agents. LISTING OF INSURANCE AGENTS TO RECEIVE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR FEE -FOR- SERVICE CITY INSURANCE AGENT ---- ---------- ------ ------------------------------------------------------------ David J. Howard IAG, Inc. Vice President 11800 Single Tree Lane B.H.K. &R. Suite 400 Olympic Place Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 7825 Washington Avenue South Bloomington, Minnesota 55435 Midwest Area, Inc. 6900 Humboldt Avenue North Sandra Sargent Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Corporate Resources Insurance Agency, Inc. Robert Comeau 1401 West 76th Street North Suburban Insuranace Agency Suite 550 P.O. Box 33160 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55423 Coon Rapids, Minnesota 55433 Cary Schaich Towle Insurance Agency 330 2nd Avenue South Suite 548 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Daniel M. Rooke Rooke, Johnson and Renster 5620 Smetana Drive Suite 370 Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 Jerome Coughlin Coughlin Insurance Agency 8824 Cottonwood Lane Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369 Conway Olson T.C. Field & Company P.O. Box 64016 St. Paul, Minnesota 55164 -0016 Carl Bennetsen R.L. Youngdahl & Associates 10261 Yellow Circle Drive Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 Lee Lauer Anderson Agency 312 Central Avenue, S.E. Suite 488 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER R F P FOR FEE -FOR- SERVICE QUOTES City of Brooklyn Center is soliciting quotes for Fee - For - Services proposal as per schedule attached. All quotations must be submitted on the form enclosed in a sealed envelope, addressed to the following; by or before August 15, 1989: Director of Finance City of Brooklyn Center 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416 -2290 The City of Brooklyn Center reserves the right to reject any or all quotations. In determining the quotations to be accepted, the City of Brooklyn Center reserves the right to select the Agency that appears to be the most advantageous to the City and the right to hold all quotations for a period of thirty (30) days. AGENCY Insurance Agency must be a Minnesota Licensed Agency having carriers who can and will write municipal insurance business. TERMS OF POLICY Proposals shall be submitted for one (1) year commencing at 12:01 A.M. on January 1, 1990 and terminating December 31, 1990. COVERAGE The specific coverages and limits for each portion of the policy will be provided by the City on or before October 1, 1989. Insurance coverage proposals are to be received no later than November 15, 1989. PROPOSERS RESPONSIBILITY It shall be the proposer's responsibility to satisfy themself as to the accuracy of the data included in these specifications. Agent or Company Representative shall furnish the City of Brooklyn Center with certificate of insurance, no less than one million dollars, evidencing insurance agents professional liability for errors and omissions. RFP For Fee - For - Service Quotes Page 2 • REQUIREMENTS OF PROPOSER The successful proposer shall provide a breakdown of the premium suffi- cient to permit the City to perform its cost accounting function. The successful proposer must also supply a list of rates applicable to the various coverages of this policy when requested. DEVIATION FROM SPECIFICATIONS It shall be the responsibility of the proposer to fully explain any deviation from the specifications. The Council shall have the sole authority to weigh the merits of a deviation and to accept or reject any bid which deviates. FORMS2:1 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Insurance Agent and Carrier Evaluation Check List I. PROFILE OF ACCOUNT: A. Type of Operations: Municipality B. Operations /Commissions: 1. Administration 2. Water 3. Economic Development 4. Fire 5. Park and Recreation 6. Police 7. Planning 8. Inspection 9. Housing & Redevelopment Authority (inactive) 10. Nature Center (two) C. Anniversary Date: D. Current Policy Overview: 1. Property Coverages: a. Limits: (1) Blanket Building & Contents: $ 14,996,400 (2) Contractors Equipment: 863.294 (3) Misc. Equipment 121,916 b. Premium: $ 24,442 -1- 2. General Liability: a. Limits of Liability: $600,000 Each Occurrence $600,000 Annual Aggregate $1,000 /$10,000 Deductible b. Population: 29,759 9 00 c. Waterworks: 1---776,248 d. Liquor Stores: (three plus golf course) $2,512,966 receipts e. Premium $ 59,298 3. Automobile Coverages: a. Limit of Liability: $600,000 Each Occurrence b. Vehicle Description: (1) Fire Trucks 8 (2) Light Weight Trucks 18 (3) Trucks 24 (4) Private Passenger Vehicles 26 c. Premium: $ 49,157 4. Public Officials Errors & Omissions Premium: $ 7 5. Crime Premium: $ 5,110 -2- 6. Workers' Compensation: a. Payrolls: $4,384,200 b. Experience Modifification: .79 (Minnesota W.C. Bureau) c. Premium: $ 135,688 7. Liquor Liability a. Limits of Liability: $1,000,000 C.S.L. b. Revenues: $2,512,966 Annual c. Premium: $ 20,557 8. Boiler & Machinery a. Limit: $3,000,000 b. Covering: 2 (Locations) c. Premium: $ 2,162 -3- • II. PROSPECTIVE AGENCIES CHECK LIST Producer /Agency Name: Address: Name of Agent who will service: Telephone Number: ( ) 1. Agency Background /Experience a. Size of Agency: b. Does the Agency have experience with municipality clients? Number of years experience: c. Approximate number of accounts in each premium group in municipality operation: Under $25,000 in premiums: $25,000 to $50,000 premiums: $50,000 to $100,000 premiums: Over $100,000 premiums: d. How many years has the agency been in business? e. Can the agency provide coverage for: Automobile Workers' Compensation General Liability Property Coverages Boiler and Machinery Umbrella Crime Public Officials Liability Liquor Liability Law Enforcement Liability (Police Professional Liability) -4- 2. Name of staff that will service the account: a. Representative to call on the Client: b. Day -to -day problem representative, ie. vehicle changes etc.: c. Representative to handle claims: 3. The Client anticipates compensation to be paid on a FEE FOR SERVICE basis rather than a commission with the policies being written on a net basis. Is this acceptable? 4. Type of services that are anticipated under the FEE FOR SERVICE basis: a. Claim Management Assistance b. Monthly review of Loss Experience Reports with Client c. Coordinate Loss Prevention Services with Carrier and Client. d. Review Workers' Compensation Claims with the Carrier prior to the unit statistical data being sent to the rating organization e. Ability to work with Risk Management Consultants in insurance placement -5- 5. Does the agency have the ability to work with the carrier in regard to a loss control program? Describe: 6. Name the top three carriers you would use for the following lines of coverage: a. Automobile: b. General Liability: c. Liquor Liability d. Boiler & Machinery e. Crime: f. Workers' Comp: -6- g. Property: h. Umbrella: i. Public Officials: j. Law Enforcement: 7. Please provide references in the municipality industry that we may contact (provide name, municipality, and telephone number): -7- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Fee - For - Service Proposal ANNUAL TASK FEE A. Consult with the Client in their evaluation of insurable losses and provide alterna- tives to treating the loss exposures. (e.g. deductibles, self insurance, rating plans). B. Assist and cooperate with the Risk Management Consultants to establish coverage specifications for such insurance and obtain proposals for such insurance from qualified underwriters. Obtain and provide specimen contracts, rating work- sheets on all insurance proposals received. Provide financial standing and services of the underwriter and ultimate net cost to Client. C. Conduct on behalf of the Client, all negotiations with insurance underwriter relating to proposals, issuance and mainte- nance of policies, audits, premium reports and all matters customarily handled by insurance agents. Act as a representative of the Client with the respect to all insured losses. E. Provide and review monthly the loss experi- ence reports with the Client. F. Quarterly provide analysis of workers' compensation, automobile and general liability claims and reserves. G. On the third month prior to renewal, submit an annual report of the work performed during the year, the results achieved, premiums paid, losses incurred, summary of the current insurance program and any outstanding, unfulfilled recommendations for risk coverage on cost improvement. TOTAL ANNUAL FEE $ -8- To Be Completed By Consultant: AGENTS' SELECTION CHECKLIST QUESTIONS TO ASK REFERENCES Agency: Address: Contact: Telephone: Date: Reference: N/A Yes No Comments 1. Determine if references are comparable as to: a. Industry or operations.(3) b. Size.(3) N/A Yes No Comments c. Geographic dispersion.(3) d. Lines being serviced (e.g., general liability, workers' compensation).(3) -9- 2. Has reference experienced an undue N/A Yes No Comments amount of turnover as regards to agency individuals working on the account ?(2) 3. Have communication lines been respon- sive to needs ?(2) 4. Is information provided accurate, in a usable format, and on a timely basis ?(3) 5. Is agent alert to what is going on, anticipating problems before they arise, so that the Client does not always have to initiate action ?(3) 6. Are there problems that keep recur - ring ?(3) 7. Does agency adequately respond to problems ?(3) 8. Has agent been able to adjust when necessary to respond to changing needs? (2) 9. Have the agency's employees in- teracted with client's employees in a professional manner ?(2) 10. Does agency provide insurance budgeting information to Client ?(2) -10- 11. Have premiums remained within N/A Yes No Comments pre- established budget parameters ?(3) 12. Does reference intend to renew his or her insurance policies with the agency ?(3) FORMS2:la -11- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/14/89 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: SELECTION OF A PROSECUTING ATTORNEY *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature - title *************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * ** ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: l No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Attached please find copies of a memorandum from Chief Lindsay to myself relating to the staff committee's review of the proposals submitted by prospective city prosecuting firms. As you will recall, the City Council directed staff to seek proposals from interested attorneys for prosecution services for the City of Brooklyn Center. The City Council then approved a request for proposal document, and staff sent out the RFPs to prospective attorneys. The City then received 14 proposals . for consideration. A staff committee composed of the police chief, director of planning and inspections, Captain Kline, and Sergeants Sollars and Werner reviewed these applications. Under the City Council's direction, staff was to review the applications and submit the names of two firms or individuals who could provide quality prosecution services from the request for proposals submitted. The attached memorandum documents the process used and recommends two law firms for Council consideration. I have reviewed the process and the request for proposals by these two law firms, and 1 concur with the committee's recommendation. The firm Carson and Clelland or the firm of Peterson, Bell, Converse, & Jensen will provide quality prosecution services for the City of Brooklyn Center. As a part of the review of the proposals, little weight and consideration was given to the hourly rate portion of the proposals. The major emphasis through the selection process by the committee was on the quality of the service to be given and on the commitment of continuity and low turnover of prosecutors. The two recommended firms will fill both of these requirements very nicely. We have been in contact with both firms, and it is my understanding they would agree to negotiate a proposal, if selected, which would give the City of Brooklyn Center an annual not -to- exceed dollar amount for prosecution services. The City Council can either proceed to select one of the two suggested firms at your council meeting Monday evening or proceed with further interview and analysis of the two proposals. RECOMMENDATION It is staff's recommendation that the City Council Monday evening proceed with the selection of a prosecutor and pass the attached resolution. When the selection is made, we would recommend the transfer be made in the following fashion: Effective September 1, 1989, all cases would be transferred from the current prosecutor to the newly chosen prosecutor. We reviewed other alternative methods of handling the transfer, and they created more confusion administratively for our police department and enforcement agencies in handling cases. By leaving the current cases with the current prosecutor and phasing in the new prosecutor with new cases, the net result would be confusion dealing with two prosecutors for an extended period of time, which might be up to six or eight months. We believe transferring all the cases at a given date and time is the most effective way of making the change. However, the city manager or his designee should be allowed to let some cases stay with the current prosecutor if it is obvious that it would be more economical because of • the amount of preparation already committed to a given case. • MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: James Lindsay, Chief of Police DATE: July 20, 1989 SUBJECT: Prosecuting Attorney Proposals The committee for recommending a firm to provide prosecution for the City of Brooklyn Center met on Tuesday, July 18, 1989. The committee was comprised of Ron Warren, Director of Planning; Scott Kline, Police Captain; Sergeants Dave Werner and Don Sollars as well as myself. Administrative Services Manager Barbara Cox acted as recording secretary. The committee first reviewed the RFP 's de veloped by the city nrlm ;n ; , ctrnti�ne sta A Nct of the requirements was made. The committee then reviewed each proposal recording each item of the requirements that was met. This process allowed the committee to place perspective firms into groups of three firms for further review. General discussion was exchanged. A scoring system was utilized by the committee to establish a ranking. A first place received three points, second place received two points, and third place received one point. After voting, another discussion was held to determine if the vote represented the general feeling of the committee. No adjustments were made. The final position was the law firm of Peterson, Bell, Converse and Jensen received twelve (12) points; the law firm of Carson and Clelland received eleven (11) points; and the law firm of Wurst, Pearson, Larson, Underwood and Mertz received eight (8) points. A decision was made not to forward the Wurst, Pearson, Larson, Underwood and Mertz firm for consideration. During the general discussion, members of the committee made certain observations about the two candidate firms. I am including a number of those observations. The committee was impressed with the depth of experience in the Peterson, Bell, Converse and Jensen firm and their proposal booklet. It was also the general concurrence that the Carson and Clelland firm had the experience necessary to fill the prosecution needs of Brooklyn Center. In fact, Sergeant Sollars stated, "In the twenty -six years I've been here, Bill Clelland is the best prosecutor we've had" and Sergeant Werner agreed. Sergeant Werner did question the size of the Carson and Clelland firm to handle the workload of the police department. Memorandum to G. G. Splinter Page 2 July 20, 1989 The committee did make note of the closeness of the scores of the two firms and believe that either firm would be more than satisfactory as prosecutors for Brooklyn Center. The committee recommends the firm of Peterson, Bell, Converse and Jensen and the firm of Carson and Clelland for your i consideration in appointing the city's prosecution firm. In addition to the board's review, I have contacted the two finalist firms. I spoke with William Clelland of the Carson and Clelland firm and Martin Costello of the Peterson, Bell, Converse and Jensen firm. I inquired into the questions suggested by Councilman Paulson and briefly reviewed the proposals submitted by each firm. Councilman Paulson slgg t itPmc o f intPrPCt ThP fir-,t k t fiit71 of the firms or attorneys regarding mergers, splits, et cetera. Both firms have indicated they have been independent for a considerable period of time and it is their intent to remain independent in the future. The second item of interest was the extent of malpractice insurance carried by the firms. Clelland indicated they have a five hundred thousand dollar ($500,000.00) per claim with a one million dollar ($1,000,000.00) overall umbrella policy for malpractice. Costello indicated they have a five hundred thousand dollar ($500,000.00) per claim with a two million dollar ($2,000,000.00) umbrella policy for malpractice. Both firms indicated copies would be available upon request. r � The third item of interest is the amount of pro bono publico legal work done by the firms or attorneys. Costello indicated all prosecutors of the firm belong to Volunteer Attorneys of Ramsey County. This involves spending one night for two hours approximately eve six months interviewing people in the P Y rY g P P program. The average interviews are of about twelve people who cannot pay attorney fees. They usually pick up one or two cases to handle. Costello is a director of the Minnesota Justice Foundation which provides pro bono publico services for people who cannot pay fees. Memorandum to G. G. Splinter Page 3 July 20, 1989 Clelland indicated a member of the firm has provided free attorney services for ten years to the Babe Ruth Baseball League. A member is on the board of the North Hennepin Community College and provides free services. One attorney participates in the Anoka County Bar Association pro bono program once a year. One attorney participates in the Hennepin County Bar Association "Law Day" information booth. The firm provides prosecution -type training programs for the Hennepin County Sheriff's Department. I discussed generally with each firm how they intended to staff the city's prosecution services. Costello indicated that it was his intent to be the chief prosecutor and provide twenty to twenty -five percent (20 -25 %) of the prosecution work as well as meet with the City Manager and /or Chief of Police as needed. Costello has fourteen (1,1) x/Pwrc PvnPr;PnrP ac a Yrnci—t iitnr T - TP has a Ph.D. in American Studies concentrating in Criminal Justice Studies from the University of Minnesota. William Drinane will be the primary prosecutor, doing approximately seventy -five to eighty percent (75 -80 %) of the prosecution. Costello indicated they do not have an office in Brooklyn Center, but have begun exploring Brooklyn Center office space with a rental agent and do not anticipate any problems in establishing an office in Brooklyn Center. William Clelland indicated he would be the chief and lead prosecutor performing - p i g seven five percent 75% of the tY P ( ) prosecution services. He would P also meet with the City Manager and /or Chief of Police as needed. Clelland has fourteen (14) years experience as a prosecutor. He indicated he has an "A- VII rating in the Martindale Hubble Legal Directory, a rating established upon a confidential rating f attorneys in the community. An "A -V rating is the g Y tY g highest rating of legal ability and ethics which can be obtained. He indicated a Margaret Hepper will perform approximately twenty -five percent (25%) of the prosecution work. Clelland indicated they would add an attorney to the firm, although the attorney would not be involved in prosecution. Carson and Clelland have an established office at 6300 Shingle Creek Parkway, directly across from the police department. Attached is a breakdown of the fees quoted by the two finalist firms. Also attached is a listing of all firms which submitted RFP's. Memorandum to G. G. Splinter . Page 4 July 20, 1989 FEES QUOTED Peterson, Bell, Carson & Clelland Converse & Jensen* All attorneys $55 /hr Chief prosecutor $75 /hr raise cost as of Lead & assistant 1/1/90 $60 /hr prosecutors $65 /hr Paralegal /support Legal assistant $50 /hr personnel $25 /hr Routine complaints .100 /P (complex complaints at w-- attorney rates) *Has offered two alternate proposals of retainer or higher hourly rate with an annual cap. States that a retainer or hourly fee /cap proposal usually controls and lowers the attorney fees. The retainer fee puts the risk of cost over runs on the law firm, but allows for increased profitability. The hourly fee /cap spreads those risks and benefits evenly between the city and the law firm. We estimate that the total amount of attorneys fees for the services described in this proposal on either a retainer or hourly /cap would be about $104,000 - 108,500 annually. Memorandum to G. G. Splinter Page 5 July 20, 1989 FIRMS SUBMITTING RFP'S FOR PROSECUTOR Carson and Clelland Peterson, Bell, Converse and Jensen Wurst, Pearson, Larson, Underwood and Mertz Moriarity and Janzen Hance and L .eVahn Henderson, Howard, Pawluk and Hass Warren J. Maas and Associates Corrick and Sondrall Babcock, Locher, Neilson and Mannella Rosenthal, Rondoni, MacMillan and Joyner Kelly Law Offices LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien and Drawz Vesely, Miller and Steiner Thompson, Nybeck Law Firm John Brink Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING APPOINTMENT OF CITY PROSECUTOR WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Charter vests in the City Council the authority to appoint a municipal prosecutor for the City; and WHEREAS, the Council has previously directed the City Manager to solicit and receive proposals for the provision of prosecution services; and WHEREAS, in accordance with such directive, the City Manager has received a number of proposals and has selected from those proposals two proposers for consideration by the Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has fully reviewed the written proposals made by the firms which the City Manager has recommended for consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center as follows: 1. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 below, the law firm of is hereby selected and designated as the Brooklyn Center prosecuting attorney. 2. The City Manager is hereby designated to negotiate and present to the Council a contract for the provision of such services. The contract will provide that the provisions of such services will begin not later than September 1, 1989. 3. The City Manager and the firm designated in paragraph 1 above, shall have until August 28, 1989, to negotiate and present a proposed contract to the City Council. If the proposed contract is not presented by that date, or if the proposed contract is not approved on that date, the Council may terminate the appointment and take whatever action which the Council in its sole discretion deems appropriate. Date Mayor RESOLUTION NO. 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. GA.RSON AND GLEZI.AND ATTORNEYS AT LAW BROOKOALE CORPORATE CENTER SUITE 305 6300 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY JEFFREY A. CARSON MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA SS430 TELEPHONE WILLIAM G. CLELLAND (612) 561 -2800 MARGARET C. HEPPER FAX (612) 561.1943 10 July 1989 Ms. Darlene K. Weeks, City Clerk City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Re: Proposal of Carson and Clelland for Municipal Prosecution Dear Ms. Weeks: We are pleased to submit the Proposal of Carson and Clelland to serve as prosecuting attorneys for the City of Brooklyn Center. The partners of our firm have each had more than fourteen years experience as municipal prosecutors and.our firm presently serves as City Attorney for five communities serving as civil attorneys and prosecuting attorneys for them. We have had the pleasure of previously serving as prosecuting attorneys for the City of Brooklyn Center from 1975 to 1979 and we welcome the opportunity to again serve the City. Sincerely, CARSON AND CLELLAND � i effrey A. Carson WOC:smn Enclosure PROPOSAL OF CARSON AND CLELLAND AS PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER A. Lawfirm Background The lawf irm of Carson and Clelland is located at 6300 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, across the street from the Brooklyn Center City Hall and the Hennepin County Division II Courthouse where the City's criminal cases are heard. The firm recently celebrated its 10th anniversary and has been located in the City of Brooklyn Center since its inception, first at 5901 John Martin Drive and since 1982 at its present location. The lawfirm telephone number is 561 -2800 and the facsimile number is 561 -1943. The partners of the firm, Jeffrey A. Carson and William G. Clelland were admitted to the practice of law in the State of Minnesota in 1972 and 1975 respectively and have been associated with one another for the past 14 years. Mr. Carson and Mr. Clelland practiced law together as associates from 1975 to 1979 during which time they were both prosecuting attorneys for the City of Brooklyn Center and other communities and formed their present firm in 1979 as partners. In addition to the two attorneys who are partners, the firm employs Margaret C. Hepper as an associate attorney and the addition of a fourth lawyer and additional secretary is contemplated in the near future. Lawfirm personnel also include one full -time paralegal, one full time secretary, a part -time secretary /bookkeeper and a law clerk. The firm is engaged in the general practice of law with a substantial commitment to municipal law and criminal prosecution. The firm devotes approximately 45 percent of its time for its municipal clients providing both civil legal services and criminal prosecution for the cities of Spring Lake Park, Greenfield, Corcoran, Maple Plain and the township of Hassan. The firm complements its municipal practice by also practicing in the fields of business, real estate, personal injury, family law, banking and all aspects of trial work. The paralegal and legal secretary each has a vocational technical certificate and several years experience with our firm particularly working in criminal administration for the five communities for which our firm serves as prosecuting attorney. Our law clerk is a senior at the University of Minnesota Law School with graduation scheduled in Spring 1990. B. Attorney Qualifications All attorneys in the firm are experienced criminal prosecutors and each will be available to serve the City of Brooklyn Center. However, it is proposed that William G. Clelland shall serve as the primary prosecuting attorney and Margaret C. Hepper shall serve as a back -up prosecutor as required. Jeffrey A. Carson is a 1972 graduate of the University of Minnesota Law School and is the appointed City Attorney for the municipalities the firm serves. He has remained active in the field of criminal prosecution since his admission to the bar and is prepared for all phases of criminal prosecution in addition to the services extended by Mr. Clelland and Ms. Hepper. He devotes a substantial part of his practice to civil municipal work and general practice for the firm's clients. -2- William G. Clelland is a 1975 graduate of the University of Minnesota Law School and has been heavily involved in the field of criminal prosecution since admission to the bar. Mr. Clelland was the prosecuting attorney for the City of Brooklyn Center from 1975 to 1979 and since 1975 has been the regular prosecuting attorney for the cities of Spring Lake Park, Greenfield, Corcoran and Maple Plain. From 1975 to 1979 Mr. Clelland also prosecuted for the communities of Medina and Independence, Minnesota. In addition, Mr. Clelland has also served as prosecuting attorney for various other cities including the cities of Columbia Heights and Crystal where conflicts have arisen and a, special prosecutor was required. During his 14 years of experience, Mr. Clelland has tried more than 75 jury trials with countless appearances at pretrial conferences, arraignments and other proceedings. Mr. Clelland also engages in general practice in the fields of civil trial work, business, commercial, real estate and personal injury. He is rated "A -V" in the Martindale Hubble Legal Directory which is a rating estblished upon the confidential ratings of attorneys in the community. An "A -V" rating is the highest rating of legal ability and ethics which can be obtained. Approximately 40 percent of Mr. Clelland's practice over the last 10 years has been devoted to criminal prosecution. Since joining the firm as an associate in 1987, Margaret C. Hepper, who is a 1986 graduate of the William Mitchell College of Law, has devoted a majority of her time. to criminal prosecution including responsibility for drafting all criminal complaints, regular attendance at arraignments, pretrial conferences, court trials and jury trials. -3- William G. Clelland is a 1975 graduate of the University of Minnesota Law School and has been heavily involved in the field of criminal prosecution since admission to the bar. Mr. Clelland was the prosecuting attorney for the City of Brooklyn Center from 1975 to 1979 and since 1975 has been the regular prosecuting attorney for the cities of Spring Lake Park, Greenfield, Corcoran and Maple Plain. From 1975 to 1979 Mr. Clelland also prosecuted for the communities of Medina and Independence, Minnesota. In addition, Mr. Clelland has also served as prosecuting attorney for various other cities including the cities of Columbia Heights and Crystal where conflicts have arisen and a special prosecutor was required. During his 14 years of experience, Mr. Clelland has tried more than 75 jury trials with countless appearances at pretrial conferences, arraignments and other proceedings. Mr. Clelland also engages in general practice in the fields of civil trial work, business, commercial, real estate and personal injury. He is rated "A -V" in the Martindale Hubble Legal Directory which is a rating estblished upon the confidential ratings of attorneys in the community. An "A -V" rating is the highest rating of legal ability and ethics which can be obtained. Approximately 40 percent of Mr. Clelland's practice over the last 10 years has been devoted to criminal prosecution. Since joining the firm as an associate in 1987, Margaret C. Hepper, who is a 1986 graduate of the William Mitchell College of Law, has devoted a majority of her time to criminal prosecution including responsibility for drafting all criminal complaints, regular attendance at arraignments, pretrial conferences, court trials and jury trials. -3- Ms. Susanne Nalezny, our paralegal, is a graduate of the Anoka County Vocational Technical Legal Secretaries Program has been employed by the firm for four years and has the responsibility of coordinating all trial dates, arranging for witnesses, including service of subpoenas as necessary, typing and filing Complaints and as a liaison between our firm and the municipal police departments we represent. She has extensive experience dealing with the Courts in Anoka and Hennepin Counties. It is proposed that Mr. Clelland will have primary responsibility for the initiation, supervision and prosecution of criminal cases including decisions as to what charges, if any, shall be brought, the establishment and maintenance of standards regarding appropriate plea negotiations, disposition of cases according to those standards and court and jury trials of cases not settled. The lawfirm believes that plea negotiations serve a necessary and useful function to resolve cases according to their individual merits and characteristics but also believes that negotiations must be conducted only in a responsible and conservative manner with just consideration for the rights of victims and the punishment for those adjudged guilty. Routine criminal complaints such as prosecution of worthless check offenses and petty misdemeanor traffic offenses shall be prepared by the paralegal under the direct supervision of an attorney. All other criminal complaints shall be prepared by attorneys with Mr. Clelland assuming primary supervisory role and other attorneys in the firm assisting as necessary. -4- The firm is equipped with facsimile transmission equipment, word processors and photocopying facilities sufficient to prepare, log and serve complaints, retrieve reports and respond to requests for information information quickly. The firm is proud of its ability to draft Complaints on short notice as required by the police departments. C. Firm Qualifications In addition to the five cities for which the firm already serves as municipal prosecutor, the firm has also served the City of Brooklyn Center on occasion as special projects attorney. The firm also represents a number of established business including the Norwest Banks in Brooklyn Park and Camden and many other local businesses. The City of Brooklyn Center may feel free to contact the following representatives of the government agencies served by the firm including Donald Busch, Clerk /Treasurer and Chief Bruce Porter of the City of Spring Lake Park; Donald Loebrick, City Clerk and James Franklin, Chief of Police of the City of Maple Plain; Steven Peaslee, Administrator for the Township of Hassan; Robert Derus, City Administrator and Carl Sorensen, Chief of Police of the City of Corcoran and Gail Lippert, Administrator, for the City of Greenfield. The City may also feel free to contact Thomas Welch, President of the Camden and Brooklyn Park offices of Norwest Bank Minnesota. The firm has always maintained the philosophy that competent and efficient criminal prosecution is one of the most important governmental services extended by a municipality to its citizens. Most of the crime committed and /or suffered by members of the general public falls within the ambit of municipal prosecution and it is within this part of the system that most of the members of the general public have contact. Most of the crime committed does not consist of major felonies but rather consists of traffic offenses including serious offenses such as charges of driving while under the influence, domestic assault, theft and related offenses. As the primary prosecuting attorney, Mr. Clelland will be shifting some of his present case load to other attorneys in the office so as to be able to devote the time to the City's needs. The firm believes that with respect to municipal prosecution, our client includes not only the City Government and staff itself but also the general public served by this most important function. The total billing for prosecution by our firm to the five communities it serves was $80,444.84 in 1988 which was approximately 62% of the total municipal billings of $130,386.18. D. Fees The firm proposes to charge the City an hourly rate of $55.00 per hour for attorneys which is the prevailing rate for the present municipal clients for prosecution services. The firm proposes to raise the rate to $60.00 per hour effective 1 January 1990 which is also consistent with the rate charged other municipal clients for prosecution services. The time billed for paralegal and support personnel shall be at the rate of $25.00 per hour. Routine complaints shall be prepared for a flat charge of $20.00 while extensive or complex complaints including i s -6- additional documentation such as requests for arrest warrants or preparation of Spriegl notices shall be billed by the attorney at the prevailing attorney rate. There is no billing for incidental items such as routine photocopying but only for actual out -of- pocket costs such as the cost of serving subpoenaes, the fees charged by experts if they are required and direct out -of- pocket expenses such as the purchase of medical reports, costs of photographic reproduction and the like. The firm shall send a monthly billing statement to the City of Brooklyn Center as it does with its other municipal clients itemizing the date of service, the individual providing the service, the time spent performing the service, a description of the service involved and the fee charged. E. Summary Carson and Clelland more than meets the criteria set forth for prosecuting attorney in the City's request for a proposal. All attorneys are experienced in criminal prosecution and Mr. Clelland is prepared to serve as primary prosecuting attorney for two to three days per week plus the trial of jury cases. The firm has the appropriate facilities including a facimile machine, word processors and other equipment to issue complaints on a regular basis and complaints on an emergency basis as required. The firm has been located within the City of Brooklyn Center for more than 10 years and intends to stay in the community. It is committed to a long term relationship with the City providing the best possible service to the City staff and the public. -7- MUNICIPAL PROSECUTION PROPOSAL for THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Brooklyn Center City Hall 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 l SUBMITTED BY THE LAW FIRM OF t PETERSON, BELL, CONVERSE & JENSEN L ST. PAUL OFFICE ROSEVILLE OFFICE 2100 American National Bank Building 2780 North Snelling Avenue, Suite 327 101 East Fifth Street Roseville, Minnesota 55113 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 224 -4703 Telephone (612) 224 -4703 Telecopier (612) 631 -8489 L Telecopier (612) 223 -8070 1 L 1 - I LAW OFFICES OF ERWIN A. PETERSON ROBE RT C. BELL PETERSON, BELL, CONVERSE & JENSEN j ROBE , , WILLARD L CONVERSE ROGER A. JENSEN ST. PAUL OFFICE KURT F. WALTHER 2100 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BUILDING W. TIMOTHY MALCHOW 101 EAST FIFTH STREET MARTIN J. COSTELLO ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 JAMES C. ERICKSON TELEPHONE (612) 224 -4703 DAVID S. ANDERSON TELECOPIER (612) 223 -8070 WILLIAM M. DRINANE PAMELA CONVERSE ZERIN ROSEVILLE OFFICE CAROL A. BALDWIN 2780 NORTH SNELLING AVE., SUITE 327 SCOTT B. CROSSMAN ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA 55113 DAVID R. FENSKE TELEPHONE (612) 224 -4703 CAROLINE F. BELL TELECOPIER (612) 631 -8489 REPLY TO: July 17, 1989 St. Paul Office Darlene K. Weeks City Clerk City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 j Re: Prosecution Legal Services Proposal Dear Ms. Weeks: This firm would be honored to serve as prosecuting attorneys for the City of Brooklyn Center. Enclosed is our ro osal (five additional vi e co ies provided) P P ( P P ) and other materials. Because Brooklyn Center should have the best prosecution legal services available, we are putting forth Martin J. Costello as the chief prosecutor and Wiliam M. Drinane as lead prosecutor. Mr. Costello would not only personally handle a substantial part of Brooklyn Center's prosecutions, but also supervise the lead and assistant prosecutors. His expertise in municipal prosecution is indicated by the enclosed copy of Minnesota Misdemeanors and Moving Traffic Violations the leading treatise in the field, which he co- authored. This single volume synthesizes the statutes, case law, court rules, and customs which govern misdemeanor practice and procedure in Minnesota courts. A new edition is scheduled for publication in 1990. Additionally, Mr. Costello has a significant academic record in criminal law and procedure. He has served as an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and William Mitchell College of Law for nearly fifteen years. His current teaching assignment is the Misdemeanor Clinic, focusing on municipal prosecution. Several times a year he lectures locally and nationally on criminal and traffic law subjects. In 1987 he completed his Ph.D. in American Studies, concentrating in Criminal Justice Studies. His dissertation, written on criminal sentencing, will be published by Garland Press in 1990. 3 i i i Brooklyn Center requires the law firm to have an office in the city. We would certainly be willing to do so (we already have a Roseville office for our suburban Ramsey County clients). We have begun exploring Brooklyn Center office I space with a rental agent and could easily be set up in the city by the beginning ' of the contract period. We would appreciate the opportunity to discuss the economics of office location with you at the appropriate time. This firm's team of chief, lead and assistant prosecutors can provide Brooklyn Center with the best prosecution legal services available anywhere in Minnesota. If you have any questions about our proposal or need additional 3 information regarding our qualifications, be sure to call me. t Sincerely, PETERSON, BELL, CONVERSE & JENSEN f Willard L. onverse Managing Partner WLC /kmt Encl. s' MUNICIPAL PROSECUTION PROPOSAL for THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Brooklyn Center City Hall 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 f SUBMITTED BY THE LAW FIRM OF PETERSON, BEI-4 CONVERSE & JE NSEN ST. PAUL OFFICE ROSEVILLE OFFICE 2100 American National Bank Building 2780 North Snelling Avenue, Suite 327 101 East Fifth Street Roseville, Minnesota 55113 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 224 -4703 Telephone (612) 224 -4703 Telecopier (612) 631 -8489 Telecopier (612) 223 -8070 0 1 a PETERSON, BELL, CONVERSE & JENSEN i TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction.................................................................. ............................... 1 FirmBackground ............................................................ ............................... 2 Brief History and Overview of Personnel ........................... ............................... 2 Office Organization Chart .............................................. ............................... 3 Flow Chart of Municipal Prosecution Work Process ............... ............................... 3 Attorney and Personnel Qualifications .................................... ............................... 4 ChiefProsecutor ........................................................ ............................... 4 LeadProsecutors ........................................................ ............................... 5 Assistant Prosecutors ................................................... ............................... 6 LegalAssistants ......................................................... ............................... 6 LawClerks .............................................................. ............................... 6 FirmQualifications .......................................................... ............................... 7 ClientReferences ....................................................... ............................... 7 Brooklyn Center Workload ............................................ ............................... 7 s Amount of Municipal Work ........................................... ............................... 7 Municipal Prosecution Services ........................................... ............................... 8 Peterson, Bell Converse & Jensen Computerized System ......... ............................... 8 Ten Point Summary of Prosecution Work....... ........... 9 Fees........................................................................... ............................... 12 Appendix A: The Misdemeanor Criminal Justice Process in Minnesota ' Appendix B: Examples of Forms & Information Generated by Prosecution Data Base System d PETERSON, BELL, CONVERSE & JENSEN 1 INTRODUCTION This is Peterson, Bell, Converse & Jensen's proposal for the municipal prosecution services for the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. (Brooklyn Center is responsible for prosecuting all petty misdemeanors, misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors committed within its geographical boundaries.) Peterson, Bell, Converse & Jensen is a medium -sized law f= with municipal law as a special emphasis. This firm has represented municipalities for nearly thirty years. The efficiency and quality of its municipal prosecution services has been enhanced by a modern computer system designed especially for the firm's municipal prosecution practice. Peterson, Bell, Converse & Jensen's extensive Hennepin County law practice in the municipal, employment, insurance, criminal and other areas has made the partners and associate attorneys thoroughly familiar with Hennepin County District Court practice and procedure. F There are many factors which require that municipal prosecution services be of the highest quality. Perhaps most important is the fact that many of the offenses prosecuted are of a serious nature (in recent years the legislature has transferred responsibility for gross misdemeanors to municipalities). Victims of gross misdemeanors, misdemeanors and moving traffic violations often suffer physical injuries or property losses. Defendants charged with gross misdemeanors can face a one -year jail sentence and $3000 fine. Defendants charged with misdemeanors can face a ninety -day jail sentence and $700 fine. Traffic cases in particular, although they involve seemingly technical or victimless offenses, play a major role in society's efforts to limit the terrible human and social costs of automobile accidents. And defendants charged with moving traffic violations can face fines and an extended loss of driving privileges. In addition, restitution, treatment, and other conditions of sentence may be imposed for certain offenses. Moreover, what misdemeanors and petty misdemeanors may lack in seriousness of offense, they make up for in numbers. Misdemeanor and petty misdemeanor violations comprise well over ninety percent of all charges filed in Minnesota. And the courts which handle these cases are the courts which have the greatest impact on the average citizen, as defendants, witnesses, victims, and jurors. Thus, it is from these offenses that most citizens form their opinions about the quality of justice in our country and perhaps about the meaning of justice itself. The courts also have the opportunity to apply corrective measures to misdemeanants before they graduate to more serious offenses. Furthermore, because only a small number of misdemeanor and petty misdemeanor cases are appealed, the responsibility for doing justice in the individual case generally begins and ends with the judge, the attorneys, and the jurors at the trial level. Peterson, Bell, Converse and Jensen is able to provide the efficient and high quality services that are necessary for the prosecution of petty misdemeanor, misdemeanor, and gross misdemeanor offenses in the City of Brooklyn Center. 2 MUNIC2PALPR0SE=0NPR0P0S4L LAW FIRM BACKGROUND Brief History and Overview of Personnel The law firm of Peterson, Bell, Converse & Jensen was founded in 1960 (as Peterson, Bell & Converse) by senior partners Erwin A. Peterson, Robert C. Bell, and Willard L. Converse, who were then partners in a large Minneapolis -St. Paul law firm. From the beginning, Peterson, Bell, Converse & Jensen distinguished itself as a firm specializing in municipal, employment, and _ insurance law. Today Peterson, Bell, Converse & Jensen comprises fifteen attorneys and has added the areas of employee benefits, estate planning, tax, probate, casualty and workers' compensation to its practice. Municipal law, however —both civil and criminal —has remained a mainstay of the firm and accounts for nearly one -fifth of the firm's legal work. The firm's fifteen attorneys and their specialization include: Erwin A. Peterson (employ- ment law); Robert C. Bell (municipal civil law and casualty litigation); Willard L. Converse (municipal civil and casualty litigation); Roger A. Jensen (municipal civil law and employment law); Kurt F. Walther (employment law and workers' compensation); W.Timothy Malchow (estate planning, probate and tax); Martin J. Costello (municipal criminal law, employment law and casualty litigation); James C. Erickson (municipal criminal and casualty litigation); David S. Anderson (municipal criminal law, employee benefits and employment law); William M. Drinane (municipal criminal law and employment law); Pamela Converse Zerin (municipal criminal law); Carol A. Baldwin (employment law); Scott B. Crossman (municipal criminal law and employee benefits); David R. Fenske (municipal criminal law and commercial litigation); and Caroline F. Bell (municipal criminal law and casualty litigation). (A more detailed account of the qualifications of all attorneys performing prosecution services for this firm follows in the "Attorney Qualifications" section.) The attorneys work together with a staff of experienced paralegals, including: Beth Rosen- berg (supervision and general); Janet Schwanz (employee benefits); Kim Tuckner (municipal prosecution); Lori Draeger (municipal prosecution); and Cathy Kummet (workers' compensation). Support personnel include a staff of twelve experienced secretaries, one secretary- [ receptionist, three law clerks, one file clerk, and one bookkeeper. Peterson, Bell, Converse & L Jensen also employs a number of supplement staff, such as legal assistants, investigators, etc., who provide the firm with the flexible support necessary for a law practice. In addition, the firm's office manager, Liz Blaisdell, supervises the entire support personnel staff. Peterson, Bell, Converse & Jensen has a number of Hennepin County clients in the muni- cipal and other areas (e.g., City of Richfield, Milwaukee Mutual Insurance Co., various employment clients and business organizations and American Family Insurance Co.), and in the future this firm expects to continue its steady growth in these and other areas. L r PETERSON, BELL, CONVERSE & JENSEN 3 1 Office Organizational Chart The chart below is a display of the office organizational structure (primarily as it relates to municipal prosecution services) of Peterson, Bell, Converse & Jensen: Managing Office Partner Manager Willard L Converse Liz Blaisdell Other Law Practices Chief Including municipal civil Prosecutor employment, casualty Martin J. Costello litigation, workers' oomp- ensati on, employee benefits, Late planning. tax aril al liti a- Primary Primary Primary Primary g Prosecutor Prosecutor Prosecutor Prosecutor bon. William M. Drinane Pamela Zerin James C. Erickson David S. Anderson Assistant Assistant Assistant Prosecutor Prosecutor Prosecutor Other Support Personnel Caroline F. Bell David R. Fenske Scott B. Crossman Including paralegals, law clerks, secretaries, book- keeper, secretary- recepticin _ Legal Legal Law Law ist, file clerk and other sup- Assistant Assistant Clerk Clerk plemental support staff. Secretarial Support Staff Flow Chart of Municipal Prosecution Work Process The chart below shows the typical work process flow in municipal prosecution services at Peterson, Bell, Converse & Jensen: Chier Prosecutor Provides general supervision, training, support, etc. during entire process. Case Case Secretary Primary Pros. Legal Assist. Secretary ConchAded Received Case Information p�ary Faeanrs per- Primary Pros. Update computer by PBC&J Ended on Prosecutor cutoff s mstruc. lst Pg ment Legal Assist. Computer Reviews Case (e.g., complaint)S Pretrial Primary Pros. Ptetrials 0 bus Hearings Care Concl"&d Secretary Secretary Legal Assist. Secretary Prep are Care Update Computerinfo. Co p terulnto. Repro Client casemform atiott Coadrdtd Primary Pros. Trial by Judge or Jury Note: A more detailed chart showing the entire misdemeanor criminal justice process in Minnesota is provide in Appendix A. l 4 MUMCEPALPROSEMHONPROPOSAL ATTORNEY QUALIFICATIONS Peterson, Bell, Converse & Jensen provides municipal prosecution services to the Hennepin County city of Richfield and the Ramsey County cities of Maplewood, Roseville, Vadnais Heights, Lauderdale and the Town of White Bear. Unlike many firms that assign prosecution dut- ies to less experienced lawyers, Peterson, Bell, Converse & Jensen has five partners and associ- ates with three to seventeen years of prosecution experience actively prosecuting for municipal clients and an active training program for its assistant prosecuting attorneys. Peterson, Bell, Converse & Jensen has organized its prosecution services into a division head called Chief Prosecutor, principal prosecutors for particular jurisdictions called Lead Prosecutors, back -up prosecutors for these jurisdictions called Assistant Prosecutors, legal assistants, and law clerks. The prosecution division also calls upon the general secretarial, word processing, etc. services of the firm. Martin J. Costello will supervise all of Brooklyn Center's municipal prosecution work, including meeting with and reporting to the Chief of Police and City Manager, as well as perform twenty to twenty -five percent of the prosecution work. William M. Drinane will be the primary prosecutor doing approximately seventy -five to eighty percent of the prosecution. William M. Drinane is now lead prosecutor for Vadnais Heights and White Bear Township and assistant prosecutor for Richfield. He has adequate time to perform the duties of primary prosecutor because he is dropping his domestic relations practice entirely to concentrate more on prosecution.. David Fenske will be the back -up prosecutor covering for Mr. Costello and Mr. Drinane in their absence. Kim Tuckner will be the legal assistant assigned to Brooklyn Center. A brief r6sum6 for each of the attorneys, legal assistants and law clerks involved in prosecution services is given below. Chief Prosecutor MARTIN J. COSTELLO, has nearly fifteen years prosecution experience, comprising over fifty percent of his time. He was born in St. Paul, Minnesota on March 14, 1947. Education: Col- lege of St. Thomas (B.A., cum laude, 1969); University of Minnesota (J.D., cum laude, 1974); L University of Wisconsin - Madison (M.A., 1982); and University of Minnesota (Ph.D., 1987). Admitted to bar: Minnesota (1974); U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota and U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit (1978); U.S. Supreme Court (1981). Author: Minnesota Misdemeanors and Moving Traffic Violations, Butterworth Legal Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minnesota (1982). Teaching: Instructor, Criminal Law and Procedure, William Mitchell College of Law (1975 - pres- ent); Adjunct Professor, Criminal Law and Procedure, University of Minnesota Law School (1974 0 L f PETERSON, BELL, CONVERSE & JENSEN 5 - present). Member: Ramsey County, Minnesota State and American Bar Associations; Minnesota Trial Lawyers Association; The Association of Trial Lawyers of America. Lead Prosecutors WILLIAM M. DRINANE has nearly nine years prosecution experience, comprising over fifty percent of his time. He was born in St. Paul, Minnesota on December 8, 1951. Education: University of Minnesota (B.S., 1973); William Mitchell College of Law (J.D., cum laude, 1980). Admitted to bar: Minnesota and U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota (1980). Member: Ram- sey County, Minnesota State and American Bar Associations; and Minnesota Trial Lawyers Association. DAVID S. ANDERSON has nearly eleven years prosecution experience, comprising over fifteen percent of his time. He was born in Minneapolis, Minnesota on July 27, 1949. Education: University of Minnesota (B.A., 1972); and William Mitchell College of Law (J.D., cum laude, 1978). Admitted to bar: Minnesota (1978); U.S. District Court, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and Western District of Wisconsin (1987). Teaching: Adjunct Instructor, Criminal Law, William Mitchell college of Law (1982 - 1986). Member: Minnesota State Bar Association; Ramsey County Bar Association (Labor Law Section); and Speakers Bureau, International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans. JAMES C. ERICKSON has seventeen years of prosecution experience, comprising twenty percent of his time. He was born in St. Paul, Minnesota on April 14, 1947. Education: Hamline University (B.A., 1969); and University of Minnesota (J.D., 1972). Admitted to bar: Minnesota (1972); U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota (1979). Teaching: Adjunct Faculty, Trial Tactics, William Mitchell College of Law (1981 - present). Member: Ramsey County and Minnesota State Bar Associations; National Association of District Attorneys; Minnesota Trial _ Lawyers Association; The Association of Trial Lawyers of America. PAMELA CONVERSE ZERIN has nearly eight years prosecution experience, comprising one hundred percent of her time. She was born in St. Paul, Minnesota on June 15, 1953. Educa- : University of Minnesota (B.A., 1976); University of Minnesota (J.D., cum laude, 1981) Admitted to bar: Minnesota and U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota (1981). Member: Ram - sey County, Minnesota State and American Bar Associations. i� 6 MUNICIPALPROSEC MONPROP0.SAL Assistant Prosecutors SCOTT B. CROSSMAN was born on March 19, 1962, in Peterboro, New Hampshire. He has been training as a prosecutor for the past two years. Education: Marquette University (B.A., 1984); University of Minnesota Law School (J.D., cum laude, 1987). Admitted to bar: Minnesota (1987). Member: Minnesota State Bar Association; and Hennepin County Bar Association. DAVID R. FENSKE was born on October 20, 1961, in Worthington, Minnesota. He has been training as a prosecutor for the past year. Education: Gustavus Adolphus College, St. Peter, Minnesota (B.A., 1984); William Mitchell College of Law (J.D., 1987). Admitted to bar: Minnesota, U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, 8th Circuit Court of Appeals (1987). Member: Minnesota State Bar Association. I CAROLINE A. BELL was born on June 17, 1961, in St. Paul, Minnesota. She has been !r training as a prosecutor for the past year as an associate attorney. During the two years prior to graduation from law school, she was employed with the firm as a law clerk. Education: University of Minnesota (B.A., 1984); William Mitchell College of Law (J.D., cum laude, 1988). Admitted I to bar: Minnesota (1988). Member. William Mitchell Law Review (1986 -87). Legal Assistants KIM TUCKNER has been employed with the firm for the past five years, and works exclusively in municipal prosecution. Education: High School; Rasmussen Business College, St. Paul TVI. LORI DRAEGER has worked exclusively in municipal prosecution since June of this year. Education: High School; University of Minnesota, Duluth (B.A., 1989). 4, Law Clerks SUSAN E. DAMON has been employed with the firm since May 1989 and spends fifty percent of her time in municipal prosecution work. Education: Western Michigan University (B.A., magna cum laude 1979); Middlebury College (M.A., 1980); University of Minnesota Law School (J.D. expected 1990). Student Director, Misdemeanor Prosecution and Defense Clinics (1989 -90). Member: Law and Inequality Journal (Managing Editor, 1989 -90). RANDY TIETJEN has been employed with the firm since August 1988 and spends twenty - five percent of his time in municipal prosecution work. Education: University of Minnesota (B.A., 1985); William Mitchell College of Law (J.D. expected 1990). Member: William Mitchell Law Review (Editor -in- Chief, 1988 -89). s PETERSON, BELL, CONVERSE & JENSEN 7 FIRM QUALIFICATIONS Client References For references regarding the qualifications of Peterson, Bell, Converse & Jensen, the follow - ing three individuals can be contacted: John D. Erskine Kenneth V. Collins James D. Zelinsky Director of Public Safety Director of Public Safety Chief of Police City of Richfield City of Maplewood City of Roseville 6700 Portland Avenue South 1830 East County Road B 2660 Civil Center Drive Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 (612) 869 -7521 (612) 776 -4533 (612) 498 -2254 Peterson, Bell, Converse & Jensen also represents other municipalities. The following peo- ple can serve as additional references: Gerald J. Urban Mark Sather William Malinen City Clerk City Manager Clerk Treasurer City of Vadnais Heights City of White Bear Lake Town of White Bear 687 East County Road F 4701 Highway 61 1281 Hammond Road Vadnais Heights, MN 55110 White Bear Lake „MN 55110 White Bear, Minnesota 55110 (612) 429 -5343 (612) 429 -8526 (612) 429 -5827 Brooklyn Center Workload Through Peterson, Bell, Converse & Jensen's organization of a chief prosecutor, lead prosecutors and assistant prosecutors, Brooklyn Center's municipal prosecution will receive the highest priority. Mr. Costello will supervise the entire prosecution program (including doing about one - fourth of the actual court work himself); Mr. Drinane will have as his primary responsibility the Brooklyn Center prosecution duties; adequate back -up and support staff will be provided. Amount of Municipal Work The percentage of total 1988 billings related to municipal work was approximately twenty per - cent or for a total of approximately $450,000. 1 r I ' i 8 MUNIC2PAL PROSEC MONPROPOSAL Municipal Prosecution Services The role of municipalities in prosecuting violations of ordinances and statutes has expanded to P Pr g P include all non - felony traffic and criminal offenses. The law firm of Peterson, Bell, Converse & Jensen will prosecute all petty misdemeanor, misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor violations for the City of Brooklyn Center, venued in Hennepin County District Court, Division Two, Brookdale. Also, at the City's direction, we will pursue any related work in the Minnesota Court of Appeals and the Minnesota Supreme Court. Municipalities are responsible for prosecuting all non - felony criminal and traffic matters, with certain statutory exceptions (e.g., violations of the Fair Campaign Practices Act). These violations include gross misdemeanors: aggravated DWI and assault violations, etc.; misdemeanors: DWI, careless driving, theft, assault, disorderly conduct, etc.; and petty misdemeanors: possession of marijuana, minor traffic violations, etc. Included in these services are both statutory and ordinance violations. Peterson, Bell, Converse & Jensen's Computerized Prosecution System Peterson, Bell, Converse & Jensen uses a modern computer system to provide efficient and quality prosecution services. This system consists of a number of computers and laser printers linked together in a network. The central feature of this computer system is its unique and custom designed "prosecution data base system" software. The prosecution data base system —which is actually a collection of various data bases — stores sorts and reports all of the essential informa- tion on every case being prosecuted by Peterson, Bell, Converse & Jensen. In addition, the prose- cution data base compiles information of the general sort necessary for the daily, weekly and monthly accounting of the municipal caseload. When a case is reported to the prosecutor, all of the necessary information concerning the defendant, offense, witnesses, arresting officer, etc. is entered in the computer data base. Stan- dard information, such as offense descriptions and probable cause "language," is permanently stor- ed in the prosecution data base system and is easily transferred to the defendant's file— saving time and reducing the possibility of error. Once a file is created for the defendant, documents such as complaints, witness notifications and victim notices can be quickly and easily generated —and in a timely manner. As the case progresses, the defendant's file is continuously updated, until final disposition. There is also an archive data base that allows for permanent storage of all the records r for cases prosecuted in the past. L 16 L 1 z PETERSON, BELL, CONVERSE & JENSEN 9 Ten Point Summary of Prosecution Work The following is a summary of the prosecution work Peterson, Bell, Converse & Jensen would do as Brooklyn Center city prosecutors: 1. Advising Police Agencies: The police, code enforcement officers and others submit in- vestigatory reports and other necessary materials to the prosecutor for review. Our firm has an attorney available for consultations with lice agencies throughout the work week, even - Po g g ings and weekends. In this way, the defendants can be charged within the thirty-six hours prescribed by the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure. We will advise the police and other city departments on the appropriate action or follow -up action to be taken in all cases submitted. 2. Ordinance Enforcement: A successful ordinance violation prosecution program includes two elements: (1) vigorous prosecution of ordinance violations, and; (2) keeping the ordinances current with other legal developments. We will work closely with the various City departments to enforce all City ordinances. Additionally, will advise the Brooklyn Center p tY Y• Y City Council as requested or required on all ordinance law developments and changes. 3. Peace Officer Training: We will inform, advise and train the Brooklyn Center Police and other city departments on legislative changes, case law developments, and courtroom pro- cedures, as scheduled by the appropriate department head. In -house legal seminars would include an annual law up -date on domestic violence, DWI, juvenile law, obscenity/porno- graphy and similar topics. 4. Charging: We will draft complaints for statutory and ordinance violations (petty misde- meanor, misdemeanor, and gross misdemeanor). All gross misdemeanor cases (aggravated _ DWI, gross misdemeanor DWI, gross misdemeanor assault, etc.) must start with a complaint drafted by the prosecutor. Misdemeanor and petty misdemeanor violations are sometimes ini- tiated by the drafting of a complaint and sometimes initiated by citations issued by police agencies; thereafter, the prosecution must amend, recharge or re- initiate charges by filing a complaint. If probable cause exists, we will draft appropriate documents and arrange to have y the complaint signed before a judge of the Hennepin County District Court. Further arrange- ` ments are then made to have the defendant appear in response to appropriate process. i G 10 MUNICIPAL PROSEG7JTIONPROPOSAL 5. Calendar Appearances: The City should be competently represented at every stage of the criminal process, and the prosecutor must be prepared. Arraignments for the City of Brook- lyn Center are on Monday and Friday mornings in Hennepin County District Court, Division Two, Brookdale. We will prepare, assemble and review all case files; draft any appropriate documents (motions, orders, etc.); appear for and represent the City of Brooklyn Center at the arraignments; take necessary follow -up action (filing amended complaints, obtaining further _ records or documentation, directing additional investigation, etc.). The prosecuting attorney continues to handle any matter for which a further appearance is scheduled pursuant to the defendant's no guilty plea or continued arraignment. Additional calendar appearances include any continued arraignments, pretrial diversion, sentencings, post- conviction relief, etc. 6. Court Trials: Seemingly minor cases —but nonetheless important —are often resolved by non -jury trials. Trials for petty misdemeanors (and some misdemeanors) are in Hennepin County District Court, Division Two, Brookdale, on every other Monday and Friday, at 9:00 a.m. We will represent the City by assembling a case file, notifying and/or subpoenaing all necessary witnesses, obtaining all necessary documentation (certified driving records, prior conviction records, insurance records, etc.), meeting with and interviewing witnesses, presenting the City's case and attending any subsequent proceedings (sentencing, probation revocation, etc.). Typical court trial cases include minor traffic violations (speeding, stop signs, lane use, etc.) and minor criminal matters (possession of a small amount of marijuana, paraphernalia, etc.). 7. Pretrial Conferences and Omnibus Hearings: A comprehensive policy for case resolution must be maintained by the city prosecutor. In misdemeanor and gross misde- meanor cases, pretrial conferences and/or omnibus hearings are held in Hennepin County 4 District Court, Division Two, Brookdale, alternating from week to week. We will represent the City of Brooklyn Center by preparing a case file, obtaining all necessary documentation (certified driving records, certified conviction records, etc.), notifying and/or subpoenaing any necessary witnesses, contacting victims pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act (to solicit input on dispositions, restitution, etc.), making and responding to pretrial motions, and appearing for the city at the pretrial/omnibus hearings. If the case results in a guilty plea at the pretrial conference, we will represent the City at sentencing; if not, the matter is set for further proceedings and we will follow that case through trial. Typical gross misdemeanor cases set for an omnibus hearing include aggravated driving while under the influence of alcohol, PETERSON, BELL, CONVERSE & JENSEN ll i fleeing a police officer, some forms of assault, theft, bad checks, forgery and criminal damage to property. 8. Jury Trials: More serious cases — misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors —are tried to twelve person juries if the crime was committed prior to February 8, 1989, and to six person juries if the crime was committed on or after February 8, 1989. Jury trials are in Hennepin County District Court, Division Two, Brookdale, at least every other week. Cases set for jury trials are those that do not result in a guilty plea at the pretrial conference and/or omnibus hearing. Normally jury trials are set for a "day certain "; that is, cases are scheduled for trial on specific days throughout the week. The prosecuting attorney will be available throughout the week should the case be called for trial. We will prepare the case file, notify and/or subpoena necessary witnesses, obtain all necessary documents, make a response to pretrial motions and present Brooklyn Center's case at jury trials. 9. Sentencings: Normally sentencings occur at the time of the guilty finding, verdict, or plea (arraignment, pretrial conference, omnibus hearing); however, in many cases (assault gross misdemeanor violations, etc.), the court conducts a presentence investigation and has sentenc- ing occur at a latter date. We will represent the City at the sentencing, present information pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act, supply the court with all necessary information (prior record, restitution claims, etc.) and argue Brooklyn Center's case at sentencing. 10. Appeals: Appeals from district court are to the Minnesota Court of Appeals and then a discretionary appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Appeals are rarely taken by the defense in non - felony matters and are almost never pursued by the prosecution. Such appeals are not covered by the retainer proposal, and would only be initiated with the express permission of the Chief of Police and/or the City Manager. 12 MUMMAL PROSECMON PROPOSAL + FEES Peterson, Bell, Converse & Jensen will perform the above described prosecution services to the City of Brooklyn Center on any of three alternative proposals that the City should prefer: 1. Hourly Fee: We would provide all prosecution services exclusive of appeals on an hourly basis of seventy -five dollars ($75) per hour for the chief prosecutor, sixty-five dollars ($65) per hour for the lead and assistant prosecutors, and fifty dollars ($50) per hour for the legal assistant. This structured fee arrangement, in our experience, would average approximately sixty-five dollars ($65) per hour for all municipal prosecution services. 2. Retainer Fee: We would provide all prosecution services exclusive of appeals for a flat monthly retainer fee to be agreed upon between the city and this law firm. We would analyze the city's bills for the last twelve months and negotiate a monthly retainer that would both reduce and control costs.* 3. Hourly Fee /Cap: We would provide all prosecution services exclusive of appeals for sixty -seven dollars fifty cents ($67.50) per hour with a limitation or "cap" on total annual fees. We would analyze the city's bills for the last twelve Y months and negotiate an annual cap on fees that would both reduce and control costs.* The above legal services include all back -up resources necessary for proper discharge of the prosecution responsibilities. Back -up includes secretarial, office supplies, travel, and the like. The only additional charges are certain out -of- pocket expenses such as filing fees, transcript fees, photocopying, etc. for documents and materials required to be served and/or filed by the court. such expenses are posted to the monthly retainer fee statement on a cost item basis. It would be a privilege for Peterson, Bell, Converse & Jensen to serve as prosecuting attor- neys for the City of Brooklyn Center, and we look forward to the opportunity to be of service to the City. Respectfully submitted, PE RSON, LL (�� % SEN Martin J. Costello ` 2100 American National Bank Building L 101 E. Fifth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 (612) 224 -4703 L * A retainer fee or hourly fee/cap proposal usually controls and lowers the attorney fees. The retainer fee puts L the risk of cost over runs on the law firm, but allows for increased profitibility. The hourly fee/cap spreads those risks and benefits evenly between the city and the law firm. We estimate that the total amount of attorneys fees for the services described in this proposal on either a retainer or hourly /cap would be about $104,000 - 108,500 annually. %_ Appendix A: The Misdemeanor Criminal Justice Process in Minnesota i � r t r i THE MISDEMEANOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS IN MINNESOTA PRFSEN I NCE INVESTIGATION, INCIDENT : »;CHARGING PFEI'RIAL 1st F.A APPEARANCE 2ndAPPRANCE PRETRIAL TRIAL POST -TRIAL SENTENCING (Hulas 2,3 & 4) alines t 3, 4 & 6) WI- 3, 4 b & 10) obtlea 4 & 20) nudes 10,12 & 16) Rues 22, 24, 26 & 26) (tine 28) - :; 8w 'd .APPEAL abtlee 27 & 28) TIME LIMITATIONS Continue for Citation Attorney From To : Ti Limit: R ule /Stam Observed Decide Not To :KM!".se NBR Act Charge 3 Years ¢ 628.26 By Police Report To Prosecu7on----1 Posted Motion of Pe ho- Arrest 1st Appear. 36houn R. 4.02 subd, 6(1) Yc Jail logical Evaluation R 3.02 ..bd. 2(3) Held In Custody [.. No Complaint let Appear. Complaint 48 hm'30 days K 4.02 subd.6(3) 1 For lst App—n. < Z Demand Complaint Complaint Motion Hearing $day. R. 30.04 Warrant for Arrest Not Cuilty Plea Trial 10/60 days R. 6.06 Investigation A Summary Motion By police Probable Cause to D(aru e. only for certain Guilty Verdict Post trial 16 days R. 28.04, .. 1(3) &..2 I F Summon. Denied Sentencing Appeal 10/6/6 days R. 2&02 subd. 4(3) _ Competent R. 28.04 ..bd. 2(2) _ Decide Not to Report Plead Guilty to Prosecutor Plead Not Guilty Not Competent I - Report To Police Discovery Add Charge. (Rules 7 & 9) Plead Plead Amend Charges Guilty Guilty Report Demand Rasmussen r .' Certify as a Hearing/Spriegel Hear. y Petty Misdemeanor Demand Found posLTrial Observe Citizen's Rasmussen by Citizen Arrest Hearing W Bail Motions t Spiegel te O Hearing Found Return —► C Rasmussen Notice. Not Guilty Property,et<. I 0. 1 Decide Not to Report Spriegel Notice to Police Report to Dismiss Prosecutor Diversion September, 1988 l_. 4, L Appendix B: Examples of Forms & Information Generated by Prosecution Data Base System 4 Peterson, Bell, Converse & Jensen r Prosecution Data Base System Description of the data bases in the system Prosecution Data Base The primary data base; holds records describing cases currently being prosecuted. Archive Data Base Contains records for cases prosecuted in the past. Controlling Agency Data Base Contains information about law enforcement agencies. The Prosecution Data Base gets such information from here as controlling agency number, and officials' names and addresses. Defense Attorney Data Base Contains names, addresses, and registration numbers of defense attorneys frequently faced by Peterson, Bell, such as public defenders. The Prosecution Data Base will look up this information automatically if a "defense attorney code" is entered into a case record in the Prosecution Data Base. Month Names Data Base Used by the Prosecution Data Base to look up a month's name (January, February, etc.) from a month's number (1, 2, etc.). This allows the month name to be printed on the third page of a Gross Misdemeanor Complaint. L Offense Data Base Contains offense description information, including type, severity, UOC and GOC codes, statute section /subdivision number, and the statute's language (for inclusion in a complaint). This information is automatically entered into a case record in the Prosecution Data Base if an "offense code" is entered. Probable Cause Data Base Contains "probable cause" language for use in a complaint. When a "probable cause code" is entered into a case record in the Prosecution Data Base, the corresponding language is automatically entered into the record. The language can then be modified if necessary for the particular case. L Staff Time Data Base Contains records describing time spent by attorneys and staff on work for prosecution clients. L Witness Data Base Contains the names and addresses of frequently-used witnesses, such as law enforcement officials. When a "witness code" is entered into a case record in the Prosecution Data Base, the witness information is automatically transferred to the record. Witness Notification Data Base Used to print Witness Notification letters and Victim letters. Witness names in the Prosecution Data Base must be transferred into this data base to generate the letters. All of these data bases can be accessed usin g the standard FileMaker commands and techniques used with the Prosecution Data Base. 3 1 ' i Prosecution Tracking System i Case Number: Client: Law Enforcement Agency: { Defendant Information Cross Ref No.: Name: Drivers Lic Number: Date of birth: Def Age: Age at Commission: Offense in' formation Date of Offense Code Offense IM Severity IF IF Related Prior Convictions: Code Offense Offense Type Date Severit 0 L o j 2 Defense Attorney Code: I Name: Telephone: Address: F L City: - 1 State: C�ZIP: Q Relationship: Reg. No.: Comments: Prosecution Tracking System I Procedural Status Latest court date: Direct Set: Warrant: Date AM /PM Offense: Arraign. /First Appearance Formal Complaint Demanded:C Pretr Conf. /Omnibus Hearing: Jury Trial Court Trial: Q It Sentencing /Discharge: Explanation of other f Other: t Disposition Sentence Days Fine Probation Offense Disposition Days Susp. Fine Susp. In Days Conditions C�C�00 0000 00�00 Disposition Comment Disposition: ` Diversion Status: L Sentence: Formal Complaint Status: Date Comments Due: F Drafted: Signed: Filed: �� L Served: Copy: � L Prosecution Tracking System 1 witnesses Code Name Telephone Tv °e 4.� 6. 7. 8. Address State Z E r ' I F DD 2. 3. �� 0 5. S ' 0 0 7. 8. 0 �� Records Needed Alert Alert OK Certified Records I Complaint Police Reports Needed Status - Citation Tests Photographs Needed Results Needed Completed 0 Court Orders Record Checks Case Information Form I Defendantl First name Last name DOB Race Gender Height Weight 0❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Drivers Lic Number DL State Lic. Plate No. /VIN State Yr & make ❑ ❑ F - 1 0 Address City State ZIP �-- - - - --- I ❑ o Client: Case No Law Enf Agcy: Pros. Atty: Intoxilyzer test rec. no.: Test Results: License Status: Custody status: ProbCauseCode: Court datesl Latest I E — � Date AM/ PM D ate AM /PM Offense: C � Direct set: Arr /1st App: Jury Trial: Comp Dem'd: �� �_� Court Trial: Warrant: PT /Omni: E= Sent /Dischg: Related Prior Offenses C ode Offense Tvoe S Date 0 0 �i I F o 0 Offense Date of Offense ode Offense Type ev it statute Language Count 1 Complaint type: Bail: Conditions of release: E CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/14/89 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: GROUP HOME LEGISLATION - BROOKLYN CENTER LEGISLATIVE INVOLVEMENT DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached The City Council previously authorized up to $10,000 for involvement in a lobbying effort with other communities and organizations to modify group home legislation to provide for more community -based input into the process. Efforts to develop this joint lobbying effort failed two times during the last year to year and a half. I have recently received copy of the audit of group home facilities commissioned by Hennepin County (see attached). It is my understanding in the near future the state legislative audit of these facilities and programs will be completed. It is also my understanding that • legislation dealing with the whole question of housing the mentally ill failed to pass in the 1989 legislative session, thus allowing more opportunity for input in the 1990 session starting early next year. I still see a need for considered effort to get more local input into the siting process and the whole question of group homes and housing the mentally ill. I believe there's a need for a positive effort so that all the interests are served effectively. In the 1987 Housing Act, Congress directed HUD to report in 1989 on the issues of housing younger mentally ill with the elderly population in federally assisted housing. The definition of federally assisted housing in this act could apply to other federal Programs such as tax exempt bonds, low income housing credits, Section 8 developments, HUD insured developments, etc. HUD has not finalized a ruling on this yet but if it does, it offers the same profound implications in the suburban area as it has for Minneapolis. The Fair Housing Act passed last year by the federal government strengthens the anti - discrimination laws. This is also causing the State of Minnesota to review its legislation regarding housing mentally ill and was one of the reasons the legislation was not passed last session. The existing and proposed state legislation primarily relates to a community's ability to avoid overconcentration of such facilities in a given neighborhood and the maximum number of group home residents in anyone community or location. With all this background activity going on, it's my understanding from our legislators that some type of legislation will likely be acted upon in the 1990 legislative session. Our legislators have expressed a willingness to work with us to get the best kind of accommodation for suburban interests. In taking an overview of the timing of all of the above activity surrounding state and federal legislation, I happen to believe it would be of critical importance to Brooklyn Center to start a lobbying effort as soon as possible. I have reviewed with Boland and Associates the feasibility of their organization developing a work program for the last half of 1989, which would be directed at organizing a multicommunity and agency lobbying effort which has to date escaped us. Attached please find a work program of the mental health /chemical dependency issue developed by Boland and Associates for the last half of 1989. This work program is directed in the last half of 1989 at attempting to develop a joint powers lobbying effort among communities, counties, and other interested public agencies on this issue. 1 do not believe the lobbying effort can be organized among interested governmental agencies without one community taking the lead and hiring someone to organize that effort. I believe Brooklyn Center should take the lead in attempting this organization. RECOMMENDATION Recommend the City Council authorize up to $5,000 for the legislative work proposed in the Boland and Associates work program document attached. Council should understand that if the organization of the lobbying effort is successful, Brooklyn Center's share of lobbying costs in the 1990 legislative session would be approximately $10,000. If we are able to enroll additional communities in the lobbying effort, the Brooklyn Center share of $10,000 in 1990 legislative session lobbying could be reduced. • � �00mr BOLAND AND ASSOCIATES � Mental Health / Chemical Dependency Issue Work Program for last half of 1989. Develop a position paper with a citizen task force from St Paul, Minneapolis, and Brooklyn Center. Meet with citizens from other suburbs to enlist their support. � Meet with city council representatives from other_cities to- obtain additional financial assistancsV � Meet with Ann Wynia and other members of the State Department � of Human Services. � � Meet with Shirley Hokanson, Office of Ombudsman for Mental Health. Meet with key legislators from both political parties. Meet with representatives from the Met Council to determine what role the Met Council can take on this issue. Meet with Hennepin County representatives to review the county � audit of Rule 36 programs and determine the counties � involvement in our lobby efforts. Monitor and review the audit that is currently being conducted by the legislative auditor. This audit is being conducted as a � direct result of our lobby efforts of 88 and 89. � Monitor the Attorney Generals report on the proposed Mental � Health Act as it relates to applicable federal legislation. � � i i C HENNEPIN COUNTY Financial and r rogi - aiinuaatic n View of Rule 36 Programs 1985 - 1988 Executive Summary June 1989 - t;J[�'.Ywi+(V/= 'Y�w.. �`�r, >��w. s.v,;r;v.�' � .jw�+w+.4n..c�t�. �w.b"�� ...... t. .1.,' � a�s' , i« a' x .,i :`_ �,L�• _"n �'� z� yf.•- 01 fiche Hoss INTRODUCTION The Mental Health System within the State of Minnesota is a rapidly evolving arena. State and County governments continue to struggle with changing legislation, funding questions, management responsibility and siting issues, court decisions, federal enforcement of IMD (Institutions for Mental Disease) statutes, and concerns of advocacy groups. Amidst this changing environment, Touche Ross was asked to perform a financial and programmatic review of Hennepin County's Rule 36 programs during the years 1985 through 1988. Rule 36 refers to the State licensing statute for community based residential treatment programs for mentally ill adults. Rule 36 was first implemented in 1976 and revised in 1982. The Minnesota Department of Human Services has begun another Rule 36 revision process to be completed in July 1990. Before describing our review, it is important to emphasize that Rule 36 programs are only a small piece of the Mental Health System. There are many other residential settings for the mentally ill as shown below: Residential Settings for the Mentally il( • Regional Treatment Centers • Rule 36 Facilities • Community Hospitals • Board and Lodge Facilities • Veterans Hospitals • Board and Care Facilities • Nursing Homes • SLR's • Adult Foster Homes • Apartment Training Programs (only two in MN) • Tasks Vocational Lodges �- • Independent Living • Living with Relatives L HCMH Executive Summary - 602 1 L /0 Touche Nosy Furthermore, the residential based services provided by Rule 36 programs are only a piece of the continuum of services offered to mentally ill adults. Supported Employment Group Vocational Outpatient Therapy Training Emergency p Psychological and Crisis and Testing Services Care Psychiatric Evaluation & Therapy RESIDENTIA Outpatient Case Medical BASED Manage- Social Care TREATMENT Hospital Based ment Treatment Recreation I Programs As illustrated below, Rule 36 programs are funded through room and board payments, and through a County/State matched grant that is stipulated under State Rule 12. Rule 12 is the funding legislation which is designed to support the "program- related" costs (as opposed to room and board costs) of residential treatment programs licensed under Rule 36. The County is responsible for approximately 25% of the program related funding, with the State providing the other 75% through an annual Rule 12 grant to the County. In fiscal year 1988, the State Rule 12 grant to Hennepin County was $3,096,224. The programs collect room and board payments from patients at rates set by the State for each individual program. Since most patients are on some form of public assistance, room and board l funding primarily comes from Social Security, Minnesota Supplemental Assistance, General Assistance or combinations of the above. 60% of Total Revenue 39% of Total Revenue "Program Related" Room and Board g ted Funding Funding • GA • Rule 12 Grants 75% Residential • MSA Programs Licensed • SSI • County /Local under Rule 36 • SS�I Matching Grant 25% • Private Insurance • VA • Patient Funds One percent of revenues comes from miscellaneous sources. 1 HCMH Executive Summary - 602 2 0 Touche Ross Hennepin County's Rule 36 programs can be divided into three basic categories: Category I, Category H and Respite (technically considered Category H under Rule 36). Category I programs provide more intensive programming that is delivered primarily within the facility. Category II programs offer a combination of in -house and community based services in their treatment plans. Respite programs are short term programs (usually 60 days or less) providing treatment for patients that are in transition to other Rule 36 programs or other community residential settings. Due to their temporary nature, respite programs have not been included as part of Category II programs in our analyses. Several of Hennepin County's Rule 36 programs are primarily designed to serve specific patient populations (e.g., hearing impaired mentally ill, dual diagnosed mentally ill and chemically dependent). In fiscal year 1988, Hennepin County contracted with nineteen Rule 36 programs. Six of these are "not for profit" organizations (i.e., do not have a contracted profit figure in their budget). These programs are owned by a variety of individuals and organizations, many of which operate other public service businesses. Category I Category 11 Respite Andrew Special Needs* Anchor March House Bill Kelly Breckinridge Welcome Home Carlson Drake Bristol Groveland Janus Bristol Ridgewood Journey House CIP Passageway Oasis Northwest Residence Reentry House GaK 6 - rove Tasks Training Center Sentinel House Wellspring * Andrew Board and Care is considered a Rule 36 program, but is not under a Rule 12 grant and matching contract with the County. Andrew Special Needs is a separate program of 10 beds within the Andrew Board and Care facility that is under a Rule 12 grant and matching contract with the County. The above programs provide a total of 352 beds in Hennepin County. The utilization of these beds is high. In fiscal year 1988, Category I beds were 94.2 % utilized, Category II beds were 97.6% utilized, and Respite beds were 88.9% utilized. The patients served by the Rule 36 programs are those considered "seriously and persistently mentally ill ". The types of patient disorders include schizophrenia, affective disorders, major personality disorders, organic brain disorders, and other mental illnesses. From July 1987 through June 1988, the above Rule 36 programs served 932 patients. GENERAL APPROACH I After discussion with a to Rule 36 r County management, we limited our analyses programs that were currently active in fiscal year 1988, and funded by County and State funds through the Rule 12 grant process. We interviewed a variety of County and State personnel as well as staff from each of the Rule 36 programs. We also visited the facilities of all nineteen programs, and conducted a case record review of approximately 24% of the non - respite patients discharged during fiscal year L _ 1987. Each program provided us with various program data (patient - related) and supplemental facility financial data. Some program data was gathered from Hennepin County records. The main financial data was taken from financial statements submitted to the County by each program. HCMH Executive Summary - 602 3 Olouche Ross Our report is structured in four general areas of findings: • Rule 36 System Management Issues • Financial Review e tew Results • Case Record Review Results • Program and Outcome Analysis Based on our findings, our recommendations are u g grouped into three categories: • Legislative Initiatives • Financial Reporting Recommendations • Program Management Recommendations Our report was not meant to be a comprehensive review of operations within the Rule 36 programs themselves. Our study did not include evaluations of program quality or content. Furthermore, we did not evaluate staffing levels or review the qualifications of staff with the programs. Qualified mental health professionals would be required to make those judgements. We also did not complete a compliance audit of Rule 36 requirements. All programs had valid licenses and are inspected by State licensing staff. i f_ t ( HCMH Executive Summary -'602 4 i 0 TOUChe Ross FINDINGS RULE 36 SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ISSUES Selected Findings • No centralized County screening system exists for determining the most appropriate Rule 36 placement or for monitoring placements from other counties. Referrals are made by county social workers, hospital social workers, physicians, the county mental health center and other sources. During discussions with county staff and program directors, it was reported that most of the referrals to Rule 36 programs come from sources other than County social workers. This was reinforced by our case record review where we found that 70 % of the patients were referred directly to the program by other sources (e.g., hospitals, regional treatment centers, psychiatrists, family, etc.). In most cases, the County does not determine where a patient should go for services or which patients should receive priority for admission (an exception to this is found in pre- petition screening for commitment cases). Although State rules prohibit restricting admissions only to County residents, no screening takes place as to the appropriateness of out -of -county placements in Hennepin County programs. The Mental Health Division program managers have recommended changes to the admission process of a program when they feel the program is not admitting the type or severity of patients it should. The program managers arrive at these conclusions by monitoring the client statistics and reviewing case records during site visits to the programs. However, during the admission process, the programs themselves are the decision makers as to who is accepted or rejected to the program. • The Rule 12 grant application process (State Funding Source for Rule 36 programs) requires an extensive amount of unnecessary administrative _ processing and financial reporting. Rule 12 is the funding legislation designed to support the "program related" costs of Rule 36 programs (as opposed to room and board costs). Rule 12 is a fixed grant and not a "cost reimbursement" grant (i.e., the grant to each program is increased by a fixed percent each year, usually 0 to 3 %, whether or not actual costs of the program are expected to be higher or lower than the percentage increase). Programs must adjust their budgets to match the percentage increase in revenues that is available. { Each year the County together with the programs must submit a Rule 12 grant application that t shows how much of their expenses are attributable to program activities and how much of their expenses are attributable to room and board. This is used to determine the Rule 12 grant in support of the "program related" portion of expenses. However, in 1985 the State froze the allowed room and board rates for each program, and set a cap of approximately $800 per month. Only "cost of living type" increases have been allowed in the room and board rates since then. HCMH Executive Summary - 602 5 1 r 0 Totiche Koss Since the room and board revenue rate has been frozen and capped, the room and board revenues no longer match the room and board expenses incurred by each program. In spite of this fact, the Rule 12 application and reporting process still requires that the programs and the County go through an extensive allocation process between "room and board" and "program" for each expense line item. Since the room and board rate is frozen, this allocation process is somewhat artificial. In reality , the programs must "adjust" their allocation process so that the room and board expenses reported in the Rule 12 application will "match" the frozen level of room and board revenue they are allowed to collect. The remaining expenses become "program" expenses. The extensive administrative effort required to generate the "right numbers" for the Rule 12 application and reporting requirements are unnecessary given the capped room and board rate and the fixed percentage increase in the Rule 12 grant. • Limited housing opportunities are available for patients when they leave Rule 36 facilities, and few resources are available to help patients during the transition to living arrangements in the community. There are few housing alternatives for mentally ill patients after they are discharged. Program directors reported a shortage of supervised apartment living opportunities and other transitional housing opportunities. n her low income housing is also in short ou g opp rtu i s. Subsidized apartments and of g supply. Since most patients are discharged while still on public assistance, they don't have the resources for most independent housing. Funding for after discharge residential support services has also been limited in the past, although some positive initial steps are being taken by Hennepin County. A portion of other Rule 12 funds from closed Rule 36 facilities in Hennepin County has now been budgeted for part-time follow -up personnel in the remaining programs. Staff in these program positions will visit clients after discharge and check on things like medication compliance, continued use of community resources, progress on independent living skills, employment and financial situations, and other treatment issues for those patients. Program directors believed this is very important to help patients transition to living arrangements in the community. • The State only allows counties to recoup only the local share of direct program costs on Rule 36 patients from other counties. The additional administrative and support costs are borne by the host county. The Hennepin County Rule 36 programs included in our study served 182 out-of -county patients in from July 1, 1987 to June 30, 1988 (includes 36 in Andrew Board and Care). Under present rules, Hennepin County is only allowed to charge other counties for the "local share" portion of direct program costs. It is not allowed to charge other counties for the administrative costs of managing and monitoring the quality of these programs or for the cost of case management. The County staff is currently researching the possibility of billing case management services under Rule 74. (Note: the seven metro counties do have an agreement that "home county" social worker still services a client in a facility outside the home county.) Although program management staff and the availability of community resources contribute to the quality of treatment that out -of- county residents in Rule 36 programs receive, the additional support costs are borne by Hennepin County. t HCMH Executive Summary - 602 6 3. 0 Touche Ross • County of financial responsibility for a patient is determined primarily by economic assistance staff. Residency requirements for General Assistance or Minnesota Supplemental Assistance determine financial responsibility for mental health services, including Rule 36 program costs. The determination of financial responsibility for patients at Rule 36 facilities is determined outside of the mental health system in most cases. If a patient is qualified for public assistance in a county under the residency requirements, that county is also financially responsible for Rule 36 services for the patient. The county of financial responsibility can shift in certain situations. If an out -of -county patient is discharged to their own home or apartment in Hennepin County and later returns to a Hennepin County Rule 36 facility, they now become the financial responsibility of Hennepin County. Other findings _ No formal tracking system or summary cost data exists for following patients' historical use of mental health services (other than individual county case management files). However, the requirements of the State Community Mental Health Reporting System (implemented by Hennepin County during the first quarter of 1989) may help provide the means for identifying this type of data in the future. • More residents from other counties are served by Hennepin County Rule 36 programs than Hennepin County residents that are served by Rule 36 programs in other counties. Rule 36 facilities are highly regulated and inspected regularly by State, County and city officials from the State Department of Human Services, the County Community Services Department, State and Local Health Departments and Fire Marshals. • There is some overlap in management and administrative activities between State Department of Human Services personnel and County Department of Community Services and Division of Mental Health personnel. • There are many differences in forms and procedures used by programs. t i t HCMH Executive Summary - 602 7 L_ /e Touche Ross FINANCIAL REVIEW Highlights The major cost categories defined by the County are: Personal Services, Commodities, Purchases Services, Other Charges, Administrative Allocation (for non - profit corporations) and Contracted Profit. In fiscal 1988, most of the costs of the programs (61%) were found in the Personal Services budget category which includes salaries benefits payroll taxes workers' compensation, g g ry , p yr P , and other employee based costs. A major portion of Personal Services costs may be considered "fixed costs" since minimum program staffing requirements are specified by Rule 36. FY 1988 Total Costs - All Programs Administrative Contracted Allocation Profit Other Charges C/1 3% Purchased Services Personal Services 61% i Commodities Hennepin County Rule include profit" and "not for profit" enterprises. p ty e 36 programs c ude both for p o p rp ses. In fiscal year 1988, the budgeted profit rate for those programs that are "for profit" enterprises was 5% of total budgeted costs. The actual profit achieved by all Hennepin County Rule 36 programs combined (both "for profit" and "not for profit ") was 2.5% of total costs in fiscal year 1988. This was slightly below the actual budgeted profit of 3% of total costs for all programs combined. 4 HCMH Executive Summary - 602 8 i t r j^ 0 Touche Noss Selected Findings • Actual profit levels achieved by individual programs vary from contracted profit levels. In fiscal 1988, four out of nineteen programs had profits over $1000 above contracted levels. Two not - for - profit programs had substantial losses for the year. The rest were near or below contracted profit levels. Programs can achieve profits above contracted profit levels by collecting more room and board revenues than they were budgeted to collect. Since room and board rates are fixed, the programs collect higher room and board revenues when they achieve utilization levels that are higher than their budget (i.e., more patient days in the program than they were budgeted to achieve). Two not - for - profit corporations incurred substantial losses for the year. Not - for - profit corporations are under more financial risk since they have no contracted profits to buffer them against unforeseen expense levels or shortfalls in room and board revenues due to lower than budgeted utilization levels. • Annual cost per bed and cost per patient day vary considerably between programs. Due to the large portion of fixed costs in these programs, cost per bed is generally higher for smaller facilities. Fiscal year 1988 cost per bed varied from $18,798 to $32,009 in Category I programs (excluding Andrew and Journey due to the unique nature of these programs), from $12,092 to $22,025 in Category H programs, and from $17,160 to $21,701 in Respite programs. Category I facilities generally have higher costs than Category II or Respite facilities due to the Rule 36 requirements for more staff and more intensive on -site treatment programs. The range of costs within a Category can primarily be explained by program size. A large portion of the costs of these programs are relatively fixed. Although there are a couple exceptions, generally, smaller programs are going to be more expensive to operate on a per bed basis. The following chart shows the relationship between cost per bed and program capacity for Category I programs. Category I so Reentry 25 Jan s Client y • Wellspring Capacity sili Keuy 15 Oasis 10 Tasks Carlson Drake 5 0 00 lobw 1 20600 25 3 Cost Per Bed FY 1988 HCMH Executive Summary -'602 9 0 Touche Ross • Although the cost per patient day for Rule 36 placements are substantially below the regional treatment center per diem, one must be cautious in interpreting the figures. The cost of several community based services outside of the Rule 36 programs could not be included in the Rule 36 per diems. Many services similar to community based services are included within the regional treatment centers. Also, the cost of State management support is included in the regional treatment center per diem, but the cost of State Rule 36 support is not included in the Rule 36 per diems. In fiscal year 1988, cost per patient day for Rule 36 placements fell within the following ranges: Range of Costs Average Cost per per Patient Day Patient Day Category I * $53.18 - $89.45 $64.21 Category H $33.59 - $61.18 $52.00 Respite $53.64 - $65.72 $59.70 *Category I excluding Journey House and Andrew Home due to the specialized nature of these programs. All of these rates fall substantially below the cost of care per diem rate for regional treatment centers of $159.80 that was effective July 1, 1988. However, several costs aren't reflected in the per diem rates for Rule 36 programs. rust, uic Rule 36 per diems do not include statewide support costs such as the statewide program management personnel and licensing personnel. The regional treatment center does include statewide support costs. Second, the Rule 36 per diems do not include the cost of community services such as vocational training, group therapy at the Mental Health Center, psychiatrists visits, psychological testing, and others. Some of these types of services are similar to those received as part of the regional treatment centers' programming. Since information on both types of costs listed above was not available, it was difficult to draw conclusions about the difference between the per diems. However, both types of costs would need to exceed approximately $100 a day to make treatment through community based programs as expensive as regional treatment centers. - Finally, there are differences between Rule 36 programs and regional treatment centers in the severity of patients served and the intensity level of treatment that is required for those patients. In other words, they treat different patient populations requiring different levels of services. Therefore, one must be cautious in interpreting the figures to mean that all patients could be treated more cost effectively in community based treatment programs. It should also be noted that neither per diem rate includes the cost of county overhead support in the form of social workers, accounting and administration for people in Rule 36 placement or regional treatment centers. _ There are no policies in place to govern the sale of a facility after County /State funds have paid for the build -up in equity through depreciation, interest, and maintenance reimbursements. If a Rule f r 36 program purchases its own facility, the County/State pay the program o depreciation, mortgage interest, budgeted maintenance and approved building improvements required to make the facility suitable for a Rule 36 treatment program. With a mi nimum dow payme or even M&_financing,aprogram can purchase a facility and have most of zhe_financial risk borne by the County /Mate and the or o ther financial.institutiotx). HCMH Executive Summary - 602 10 016tiche Ross During he time the County/State State are paying for / o these facili expenses, the program w g ry p y g y pe p g am o ner is building u equity in the roe Eq uity is be built through incr eases i ou h cre ses n the property g P q ty property. rty q tY g P g value and through the principal payments on the mortgage. If a program owner decides to sell its current facility for whatever reason, the program owner is not required to share any of the equity 1 build -up in the facility with the County/State. The County/State do not recoup any of their investment into the property. Furthermore, if the facility is sold within the first half of its depreciable life, the program owner will keep the excess in depreciation payments over the mortgage principal payments. This creates an incentive to sell the property when the build -up of equity becomes substantial. There has been no evidence of this occurring yet since Rule 36 programs are still relatively young. However, the incentive will grow as property values increase and as properties progress further along down their depreciable life span. • Several programs pay bonuses to employees out of underspending in the salary budget. Nine programs paid bonuses to employees during fiscal year 1988. The total amount of bonuses paid ranged from $600 to $8,300. The total amount of bonuses paid for all programs was $30,575. Eight programs paid bonuses out of underspending in the salary budget. Underspending in the salary budget can occur due to open positions that are not filled immediately after an employee leaves, or from hu ng e upl^vye.°.v'�,°.iv�: rL.o n 1--Al nVied i.n . tk} bi..r?b °t. As tl:e fi$cal yr'a* draws to a close, these programs distribute underspent salary funds according to policies developed by the program. The Purchase of Service Office did approve this process as long as the program had defined policies for distributing the underspent salary funds. We did not find any cases where the executive directors received bonuses as part of the programs bonus policy. Other findings • There were no consistent differences between annual facility cost per bed of program owned facilities and rented facilities. However, there is more variation in the facility cost per bed of owned facilities. • There is no audit or documentation required of the purchase price of assets' that are being depreciated. • Two out of the ten program depreciation schedules we examined revealed deviations from County Guidelines. • No certified audits are required of the financial statements of Rule 36 programs. Only three County audits of Rule 36 programs have been performed since 1982. • Contracts are not closed out i.e. final adjustments to actual costs /reven ues out ( i.e., are not made) for over a year after financial statements are submitted to the County in most cases. r HCMH Executive Summary - 602 11 L L ' 0 Touche Ross • Some changes have been made in the ways that the County's published adjustment guidelines for vendor contracts are being applied in contract closing adjustment reviews. No errors were found in the calculation of adjustments during our review of a sample of programs. • The Purchase of Service contract manager is given complete authority to approve transfers of costs between budgeted expense categories as long as the total budget of the contract is not exceeded. • Salary cost allocations are based on subjective judgements in cases where employees are shared between more than one program or where administrative overhead is allocated among several programs. Programs are not required to report the total salaries received by employees of more than one program, or justify their administrative cost allocation methods. • Administrative structures and total administrative salary costs vary between programs. • Staff salary levels are reasonably consistent across programs. A wider range of salaries existed for executive director /administrators. • In some programs, budgeted room and board utilization rates do not reflect actual utilization in the past. HCMH Executive Summary - 602 12 /0 Totiche Ross CASE RECORD REVIEW Highlights During the site visits to each Rule 36 facility a sample of case records was randomly drawn from patients discharged during fiscal year 1987 (Seventy-seven patient records in non - respite facilities). This represents 23.9% of the total non - respite patients discharged in this period. The average length of stay for the patients in the sample was 263 days and ranged from 10 days to almost three years (1030 days). Selected Findings • The rate of psychiatric hospitalization during the six months following discharge from Rule 36 facilities was substantially reduced for the population of patients sampled (as compared with hospitalization during the 12 months prior to admission). Over 75% of the patients sampled had been hospitalized during the twelve months prior to admission. During the six months following discharge from a Rule 36 facility, at least 56% of all patients either were not hospitalized or hospitalized at a reduced rate. Furthermore, the actual percentage is likely to be even higher since 30% of the cases sampled did not have hospitalization follow -up data available. HENNEPIN COUNTY R ULE 36 REVIEW Case Analysis l ip Hospitalization of Patients during Six Months Following Discharge - n =77 NA 30% Not Hospitalized 44% Hospitalized at an Increased Rate 13% NA - Data not available ' Hitalized ' Hospitalization per month Z osp during this period compared at a Reduced Rate Hospitalized 12% to hospitalization during at Same Rate 12 months prior to Rule 36 1 % admission. HCMH Executive Summary - 602 13 f z 0 Tout le Ross Further analysis was done for patients admitted to Rule 36 facilities directly from a hospital or nursing home. The results showed that 73% of these patients were not hospitalized at discharge. Furthermore, at least 50% of these patients were either not hospitalized or hospitalized at a reduced rate during the next six months. If we strictly look at rates of psychiatric hospitalizations for patients that had six month follow -up data available, the average rate during the 12 months prior to admission was 6.38 days per month. During the 6 months following discharge, the rate was almost cut in half to an average of 3.43 days per month. Two words of caution should be noted in the interpretation of these analyses. First, data was only available for six months following discharge. Thus, we were not able to make a balanced comparison between twelve months prior to admission and twelve months after discharge. Second, some of the programs rely on self -report by patients for hospitalization data. Others obtain the data from social workers or relatives and follow -up with hospitals. The sample showed a substantial increase in the number of patients living in their own home or apartment after discharge from a Rule 36 facility compared to before admission. Only 3% of the patients sampled were living in their own home or apartment prior to admission to the Rule 36 facility. At discharge the percentage increases to 29 %, and at six month follow -up at least 25% are living in their own home or apartment. (Again, the actual percentage at six month follow -up may bee nigner. j HENNEPIN COUNTY RULE 36 REVIEW Case Analysis Living Situation n =77 At Six Months Before Admission At Discharge Following Discharge F G G H A E 3% 6% 5% 3% A H 10% 4% 22% 23% B 39% C D F ;. 29 g 14 /° :. :. x x < 8% •, D 9% D 17% F E B E 25% 14% 22% 15% ❑ A Hospital, Nursing Home, Correctional Facility E a Other Group Home © Non- Respite Rule 36 Facility � Own Home /Apartment C Respite Rule 36 Facility G Other Relative's Home E Data Not Available HCMH Executive Summary - 602 14 t_ O Touche Ross Program directors cautioned that patients living on their own at discharge may not necessarily be better off, particularly if they left before completing the program. However, almost 60% of the patients living on their own at discharge have successfully completed their programs. In general, this data does appear to show the positive impact of Rule 36 facilities on independent living status. • Vocational status of the sample population did not change between admission P P P g and discharge. Six month follow -up data on vocational status is not conclusive due to the number of cases where follow -up data was not available. Seventy percent cent of the population sampled were unemployed admission w Y P P P p at and 66% ere unemployed at discharge. Although there were vocational status changes by some individuals between admission and discharge, as a group, vocational status was not significantly changed. • Discharge summaries are documented in the file. However, the extent of after discharge planning varies significantly between facilities. Of the cases sampled, 97% had some documentation of a discharge summary in the case file. There was substantial variation in the forms used to document discharges and the amount of after discharge planning that took place. Rule 36 only requires that a discharge conference is held with a patient and that "identification of community resources which directly relate to the continuing needs of the resident" is done. There is not a requirement for specific after care objectives for the patient or identification of people responsible for follow -up on specific needs and progress of the patient in the community. Many of Hennepin County's Rule 36 facilities do much more than required under discharge planning, but a lack of consistency exists between facilities. All document the progress of the patient in the program and the continuing needs of the patient after discharge, however, it is not always clear specifically how these needs will be met and by whom. Other Findings • Individual treatment plans are being developed for patients. Documentation exists that demonstrates treatment plans are being implemented and that contracted services are being provided to patients. gP P • Follow -up documentation met the minimal data gathering requirements in all but one program. Only four out of seventeen non - respite programs do more extensive follow -up. - • Several of the admission and discharge criteria are subjective in nature. Whether a patient meets or does not meet a specific criteria requires a subjective judgement by the program staff or other qualified mental health professionals. • It is not possible to consistently determine the residential history of patients from data available in case files. L i HCMH Executive Summary - 602 15 L_ { O Totiche Ross PROGRAM AND OUTCOME ANALYSIS Highlights Almost half (47 %) of the patients served in Rule 36 facilities during fiscal 1988 had a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia. Affective disorders were diagnosed in 39% of the patients. HENNEPIN COUNTY RULE 36 REVIEW PROGRAM ANALYSIS Primary Diagnosis of Patients Served June 1987 - July 1988' 6% 7% 2% 7% Other Major Personality 12�° Disorder 32% Affective Disorder 1 q, Schizophrenia All Category Category Respite Programs I II Throe Category I programs are reooted Jan. 1987 - Dec. 1987. Note: Some patients have more than one primary diagnosis, leading to totals over 100%. As a whole, Category I programs show higher patient percentages in several client descriptor areas. Examples are as follows: Category I Category 1I 47% 18% Experienced chemical abuse problems within the last 12 mos. 27% 20% Attempted suicide in last 12 mos. 56% 46% Previously committed to a psychiatric hospital 47% 37% Onset of Mental Illness prior to age 18 35% 24% Have never lived independently 19% 14% Have assaulted others in last 12 months. S HCMH Executive Summary - 602 16 1 !0 Touche Ross Indications are that Category I programs, as a whole, treat more patients with severe treatment t needs. However, the distinctions between Category I and Category II programs get blurred when one looks at patient statistics for individual programs. + The average length of stay for patients discharged between July 1987 and June 1988 was 249 days for Category I programs, 384 days for Category H programs and 47 days for Respite programs. It is difficult to judge the appropriateness of the average length of stay at any one program without a patient severity or difficulty of care index. Excluding respite programs, Hennepin County was the county of financial responsibility for 82% of the patients served in Category I and II programs combined. The percentage is slightly lower in Category I facilities (76 %) partially due to the more specialized nature of some of the programs. In other words, Hennepin County may be one of the few state -wide resources for certain types of programs (e.g., Journey - Hearing Impaired; Tasks - Work oriented treatment; CIP Passageway - Mentally III/Low Intellectual Functioning). HENNEPIN COUNTY RULE 36 REVIEW PROGRAM ANALYSIS County of Financial Responsibility t June 1987 - July 1988 Other Counties Hennepin County Category I Category Category Respite } 3 II 1 11 (( Combined A strong majority of patients (72 %) served by Category I and II programs are age 35 or younger. Category I programs have a higher concentration (87 %) than Category II programs (53 %) of this age group. Only 3% of Category I patients are 45 or older. Hospitals are the predominant living situations for patients prior to being accepted into Category I and II programs. Thirty-six percent of the patients were in hospitals immediately prior to Category I and II placement. There is also considerable variety between programs where patients are living prior to admission. L HCMH Executive Summary - 602 17 i Y I 0 1ouche ROSS HENNEPIN COUNTY RULE 36 REVIEW PROGRAM ANALYSIS Patient's Living Situation Before Admission July 1987 - June 1988 3% 3% 4% 7% 6 %... ::::.: `. 13 Other t 9 % 14% 17% Own Home /Apt 6% 0 Other Group Home/Board a Lodge t 3% 16% Relatives Homes 25% 0 Respite Rule 36 18% 12% ® Non- Respite Rule 36 ® Hospital, Nursing Home 40%' 40% 40% 59% i Category Category Category Respite � iau i n C «ne.,ed Category I programs reported that 34% of their discharged patients completed their programs, while Category II programs reported a 40% completion rate. Program directors commented that completion rates are somewhat misleading since patients can be reasonably close to completion and choose to leave on their own. In fact, 23% of Category I patients and 28% of Category II patients decided to leave on their own before completing the program. This statistic emphasizes that patients voluntarily stay in Rule 36 programs, and are not "required to stay" unless under court supervision. _ Only 16% of Category I patients and 13% of Category II patients are discharged to the hospital due to an acute psychiatric episode. This fact reinforces the results of our case record review which showed a reduction in psychiatric hospitalization after placement in a Category I or II program. Another 13% of the patients discharged from Category I and II programs are placed out of the program due to problem behavior. These problems usually stem from a patient's unwillingness to adhere to the rules of the program or lack of participation in treatment activities. This should not be viewed negatively since programs are defined as treatment facilities and not just lodging facilities. A reasonably large portion of Category II patients (35 %) move into their own home or apartment after discharge. The percentage for Category I is lower (18 %). This indicates some success in placing patients in independent living situations. The majority of patients discharged from Category I and II programs were unemployed (66 %). Only 20% of Category I patients and only 24% of Category II patients had some kind of full or part time employment. The rest of the patients discharged were involved in vocational training or educational programs. Some programs achieve better results (e.g., Tasks training center), but this may be due in part to the type of patients originally referred to the program. HCMH Executive Summary - 602 1 3 0 Touche Ross Selected Findings • County -wide Rule 36 outcome data, in its current form, can be used for certain mental health system planning needs and gross levels of effectiveness evaluation. However, the data has only limited use for evaluating the effectiveness of a particular program or comparing effectiveness between programs. In Hennepin County, County-wide Rule 36 outcome data is limited to changes in living situation, vocational status and hospitalization before admission and after discharge. This data is very useful in determining system requirements for the mentally ill such as the need for supervised living arrangements, psychiatric hospitalization needs, vocational training requirements, etc.. However, the current outcome data only points to gross levels of effectiveness for the system or any individual program. Examples of gross levels of effectiveness for a particular program that are available with the current data are: l • Reduction in the number of patients hospitalized at discharge versus number of patients hospitalized immediately prior to admission; • Increase in the number of patients living in their own house /apartment at discharge versus t admission; • Reduction in the number of patients unemployed at discharge versus admission. I Although most program directors accept hospitalization as a valid outcome /effectiveness measure, some would have concerns about the last two measures listed above. Even on these gross levels, program directors note that individual program effectiveness can only reasonably be judged for those patients that voluntarily completed the program. ` Beyond these gross levels of effectiveness, there are several reasons why the current data cannot be used for effectiveness evaluation of individual programs or effectiveness comparisons between programs. Among them are: a) The outcome data is not tied to an evaluation of the severity of patients at admission and the type of mental illness. In other words, a "success" for one patient may be defined differently than a success for another patient depending on the type and severity of the illness. b) The outcomes would need to be ranked on some collective scale of desirability. c) The data is in aggregate form only, so it is not possible to know if a program is being successful with one type of patient and not successful with others. Furthermore, it is not possible to determine what other factors (e.g., client descriptors) may be correlated with success or failure. d) There is no a common definition of effectiveness for each outcome measure. For instance, what percentage of mentally ill people can reasonably be expected to move into regular employment settings or other vocational status categories? e) Hospitalization data is not indexed (i.e., days per month per patient). I HCMH Executive Summary - 602 19 i «Tbuche Ross f) Summary data for each program across several years needs to be collected and analyzed in order to obtain the numbers of patients necessary to make valid conclusions for individual programs. Each program does submit, as part of their contracting process, a list of program - specific client outcomes and percentage goals for achieving them. These are useful in evaluating the effectiveness of an individual program when the goals are set under the supervision of qualified staff at the County. • Even after considering some of the concerns noted by program directors, the Rule 36 programs show positive results on the gross outcome measures of hospitalization and living situation at discharge. In employment, the results show little change at discharge except for certain programs which tend to emphasize employment or work training as part of treatment. Excluding Journey House which is a small specialized program for the hearing impaired, all Rule 36 programs showed a reduction in the number of people hospitalized at discharge compared to hospitalization immediately prior to admission in fiscal year 1988. In living situation, five out of nine Category I programs and seven out of eight Category N programs increased the number of patients living in their own house /apartment. The remaining programs remained close to the same levels between admission and discharge. • There are a substantial amount of patient transfers among non - respite Rule 36 programs. Of Category H patients, 25% were living in other non - respite Rule 36 facilities prior to admission. Of Category I patients, 12% were transferred. There could be several reasons for this: decision of a patient to move for a variety of personal reasons, change in the patient's treatment needs requiring transfer, or poor initial assessment of a patient's match to the program. Other Findings: • State and County program reporting requirements are inconsistent in several areas and add to the tabulation and paperwork efforts required of the programs. • The County collects more data than is required by the State giving it a more comprehensive information base for decision - making. • Hospitalization data is collected by the programs and could be reported to the County on a rate basis (i.e., days per month per patient) as an outcome measure. • Chemical dependency treatment may be a sizeable treatment need for these patients, particularly for the population entering Category I programs. • The absence of any Category I programs serving a predominantly older population may be a service need that is not being met in the system. • Respite programs are not being predominantly used for providing temporary treatment programs until placements can be made in Category I or II programs. t HCMH Executive Summary - 602 20 /\ Tbuche Russ RECOMMENDATIONS LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES 1 The County should support or sponsor a legislative initiatives to rewrite the • Rule 12 application and reporting requirements. Specifically, the unnecessary requirement to allocate expenses between program expenses and room and board expenses should be eliminated. A combined Residential Mental Health Fund for both program expenses and room and board is one alternative that would accomplish this objective and serve several system wide needs. As noted in our findings, the allocation of expenses between program expenses and room and board expenses is unnecessary given the capped room and board rate and the annual fixed percentage increase in the Rule 12 grant. This administrative process is costly; it takes a substantial amount of time by Rule 36 program staff, County staff, and State staff. The bottom line is that programs must know how much revenue to expect from each source (i.e., room and board funds, and State Rule 12 /County match funds), and must adjust their total expenses to "live" within the total revenue available. Two of the ways to simplify the application and reporting process are presented. The first approach is to provide programs with the necessary information to develop a budget, and report actual performance without allocating expenses between funding sources. This would not require any significant change in the funding sources themselves. The second approach would involve creating a combined Mental Health Rule 36 Fund out of the current room and board funds and Rule 12 /County match funds. This approach would serve several needs: 1) it would simplify the funding process by eliminating the need to manage two funding sources in the legislative process; 2) the significant administrative effort required in the programs to collect room and board revenues from patients would be eliminated; 3) mentally ill patients would no longer be required to go through the same public assistance system as general welfare recipients; 4) it would allow the State /County flexibility in designing a grant based funding mechanism, a unit of service funding mechanism or some combination of the two. The main requirement of this system would be the coordination of funding from Social Security (SSI & RSDI), General Assistance , and Minnesota Supplemental Assistance (MSA), and any other funding source into one fund. In both approaches, the budgeted utilization rates should be changed to reflect a realistic estimate of the actual utilization expected in the programs. • The County should initiate a joint task force to develop an alternative facility /property expense payment system for Rule 36 programs. This task force should include members of State staff, County staff, and program owners. -:r The current facility/property expense payment system allows program property owners to retain the accumulation in equity that has been paid for through County and State funds, and any appreciation in the market value of the property. Although it has not taken place, current system may eventually encourage the turnover in programs to new ownership to realize the increase in equity. The sale of the property to another owner would then set up a new financing structure that would result in payment for equity and interest a second (or multiple) time. 1 0 HCMH Executive Summary - 602 21 3 0 Touche Ross The facility /expense issue is a complex one involving three major financial stakeholders: the State, the County, and the property owners. The development of alternatives must involve all three. However, several public policy issues must be addressed when considering alternatives. Two alternatives could be the starting point for discussions. The first would be a shared equity arrangement on the property(s) and/or facility(s). In simple terms, the State and County would receive a percentage of the increase in the property's/facility's equity during the time the program is under contract (less the original investment by the program). Payment to the State and County would be made whenever property is sold or equity is refinanced. Another alternative would be to follow the nursing home reimbursement methodology of facility/property expense system. In simple terms, programs would be allowed to charge rent equal to a percentage of the equity portion of the fair market value of the property. (In nursing homes, this is approximately 5.66%.) There are advantages and disadvantages to both methods, and other alternatives should be considered. • The County should promote legislative initiatives at the State for developing levels of licensed housing opportunities based upon individual patient needs after discharge from Rule 36 facilities. More funding is also needed to provide post- discharge care programs to insure that patients remain stable after leaving Rule 36 programs. The County may want to promote a supported independent living program similar to the SILS program for the mentally retarded. The types of mental illness treated through Rule 36 programs are chronic in nature. Program directors reported that patients will go through cycles between acute symptoms and stability throughout their lifetime. Furthermore, a "cure" is not available. Given this situation, it is important to consider the continuum of care that the mental health system must provide to meet the needs of these individuals and minimize the added costs of repeated treatment. The progress in `- stabilizing patients and assisting them in basic living skills within a Rule 36 program must be maintained after discharge. In the absence of long term support mechanisms and appropriate housing opportunities after discharge, program directors report that a patient's condition will eventually deteriorate; especially if the patient chooses to discontinue their medications. When this happens the treatment in Rule 36 or regional treatment centers will be repeated, resulting in added cost. This scenario may be avoided if post discharge housing opportunities are structured to the level of care needed to maintain the patient after discharge. This would be much more effective than the unlicensed board and lodge housing that is currently the only alternative for many patients after discharge. For those patients that are able to live independently, more long term support programs are needed to help insure that patients are taking their medications and not experiencing acute symptoms. • The County should sponsor legislative initiatives for the reimbursement of case management and other overhead administrative costs for out -of- county patients of Rule 36 facilities. • The County should propose changes in the way county of financial responsibility is determined for Rule 36 patients. When an out -of- County resident chooses to live independently in Hennepin County after discharge from a Rule 36 program, the patient should retain a link to the other county for two years in case they must return to a Rule 36 program. HCMH Executive Summary - 602 22 O Touche Ross FINANCIAL REPORTING i • Bonus pay should be a separate line item within the Personal Expenses category, and should be approved as part of the budget process. The practice of paying bonuses out of underspending in the salary budget should be discontinued. Bonus programs may be desirable in these programs as incentives for retaining employees. However, they should be included in a budget at the beginning of the year. • Rule 36 programs should be required to report the total annual salaries of all individuals shared by more than one program; (this should be done whether the other programs are Rule 36 or not). For individuals working more than one part -time position within a program, programs should report the salary received by that individual under each position. • Any organization that has employees that are shared by more than one program should be able to demonstrate some justification for the methods they use to allocate the salaries across programs. • A more complete breakdown of expenses included under the line item "administrative allocations" should be required for non - profit entities with more than one program. The breakdown should include the allocation methods used and the total salary of each individual included in the allocation. • Hennepin County Rule 36 facilities should be required to provide the County with annual audits of their financial statements. • Detailed documentation of the purchase price of a depreciable asset should . be submitted to the County. Y • Under the present facility /property expense system, depreciation should be -— eliminated as an allowable expense and mortgage principal expense should be substituted in its place. As noted in our findings, the amount of depreciation expense allowed in the program budget is generally more than the principal portion of the mortgage payment during the first half of the property's depreciable life. This excess depreciation results in a cash inflow to the program since interest costs are fully reimbursed. During the second half of the depreciable life of the property, principal payments will be more than depreciation. This system requires that programs "save" the excess depreciation during the first half of the property's life in order to make the principal payments during the second half; an unlikely scenario. Therefore, it is more prudent to include actual principal amounts in the allowable expenses rather ( than depreciation. This change will also decrease the incentive to sell the property and retain the L excess depreciation after the first half of the property's depreciable life. • Under the present facility /property expense system, the County should require periodic documentation of fair rental value for rented facilities. t_ HCMH Executive 23 xec t Summary -602 /0 TOtiche Ross • All Rule 36 programs should be required to report the financing arrangements for owned facilities. • The County should set budgeted room and bard utilization rates closer to the actual utilization achieved by the programs in the past. This may create a decrease in the budgeted Rule 12 grant funds in some programs because room and board budgets will increase with higher utilization rates. The County should lobby with the State to transfer these Rule 12 grant funds to programs with utilization rates that are set too high and to other Rule 36 program needs (e.g., after discharge follow -up). • The County should charter a task force to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of per diem contracting for Rule 36 programs. This task force should consist of County Accounting staff, Purchase of Service staff, Mental Health Division staff and program directors. RULE 36 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT • Hennepin County should implement a centralized screening process for intake into Rule 36 programs. There are five primary reasons for implementing a centralized screening process: a) Since each Rule 36 program is specialized to some degree on the patients it serves, it is important to make sure patients are being sent to the most appropriate program. b) Due to the substantial differences in the cost per patient day between programs, the County should be certain that the patient really needs the type of treatment offered at a higher cost program. c) The County may be able to decrease the number of transfers between Rule 36 programs by making more appropriate placements; thus saving money since a patient does not need to "start over" in a new program. d) The County will be able to judge the appropriateness of out -of -county residents that are placed in Hennepin County Rule 36 facilities. e) The County will be able to gather more extensive historical information on the types of patients being admitted to Rule 36 programs. This information would be valuable in ' planning for mental health system needs. This recommendation is not meant to replace the admission process that is undertaken by each individual program director. Each program would still retain the ultimate decision on whether to admit an individual to their program after the screening process. The recommendation is also not meant to create a long, involved evaluation process that will make it difficult for patients to receive treatment in a timely manner. Rather, the screening process should be a simple procedure involving an interview with the client, discussion with the referral source on the patient's needs, and gathering some basic historical information on the client through each of the above discussions. It may also be appropriate to exempt respite programs from the screening process. HCMH Executive Summary -'602 24 O 7miche boss • The County's information systems plans should be reviewed to determine the cost and feasibility of tracking individual patient's use of all services in the County's mental health system, assigning costs to those services, and linking usage with patient outcome and descriptive data. The tracking of individual patient's use of mental health services is desirable for the following reasons: it would allow the County to judge the effectiveness of a treatment plan involving several service providers, it would allow the County to link patient outcomes to patient severity/descriptive data in order to evaluate the effectiveness of individual mental health system service providers, and it would allow the total cost of treatment in community based settings to be determined by individual. An argument can made that State and Federal funding would be appropriate for this type of project, particularly since it would facilitate data that can be used in evaluating treatment effectiveness. • The County should develop more consistent and comprehensive documentation requirements for discharges and after - discharge plans. The programs should 1 also be made responsible for reporting on the initial implementation of the after- discharge plan. • More comprehensive follow -up documentation should be developed. Follow - 3 up should be required at one, three, six and twelve months after discharge and should be coordinated with County tracking systems for longer periods after discharge. • The County's mental health staff should review the training and staffing needs in Category I facilities related to chemical abuse treatment issues. • The County should re- evaluate internal staffing to insure that the need for program data and cost analysis, and system planning is being met. The County should re- evaluate whether the current number of Rule 36 program management staff is adequate to meet the County's program objectives. In 1986, the evaluation team (three people) in the Mental Health Division was eliminated making it difficult to maintain the management reporting that contributes to effective system planning. The Division reports that the County currently does not have staff available to produce summary reports and comparisons analyses between Rule 36 programs. The Rule 36 program management staff has also been reduced by three people through budget cuts. Currently there are only 3.5 people that are responsible for program management of all residential and non - residential programs, in addition to special project work. The County's Mental Health Division reports that the County has a vested interest in maintaining management staff over these programs. First, they provide the County with input into the day -to- day operations of the programs and the patient populations they serve. Second, they ensure that program quality standards are appropriately established and maintained. Third, they provide professional input to the County contracting process regarding which programs should continue to be funded and which budget requests are appropriate. Fourth, they are a resource within the County on the interpretation and implementation of legislation, and a resource on the latest developments in treatment programs. Fifth, they provide a communication link between the State and County that: 1) helps ensure that Hennepin County continues to receive the most state funding possible, and 2) provides input to State Rules and other legislative changes. • County mental health staff should evaluate whether their is a need for a Category I program to serve an older population of the mentally ill. HCMH Executive Summary - 602 25 f /0 Touche Doss • The County should consider creating a Rule 36 peer group review system to inspect each program and provide input on forms and procedures /practices. 5 } The County should charter or participate in a task force to develop severity scales or client profile "clusters" that can be linked to individual patient t outcomes. These could then be used to better measure the effectiveness of different treatment programs. The County has taken a positive step in program data reporting by developing an individual based data collection system for Rule 36 patients. This is the first step toward linking patient outcomes with client profiles and the type of treatment they receive. 4 The County must be able to better define the type of patient and the severity of their symptoms in order to: 1) make sure the patient is admitted to the right treatment program, 2) judge whether the r program was more or less effective than other programs, and 3) determine what is missing or ineffective in the mental health system. Without this type of data, the effectiveness of programs can only be evaluated on very gross dimensions (e.g., reduction in hospitalization for all patients). 3 • The County should consider coordinating the program data record keeping requirements so that the same patient data required by the State is available from data already supplied to the County. l i • Hennepin County Purchase of Service Office should institute stricter controls to insure that Rule 36 contracts are "closed -out" and adjustments are made on a timely basis. • The County should revise their accounting guidelines to be consistent with present contract adjustment practices noted in the Purchase of Service Office proposal instructions. • The County should consider setting limits on the amount of budget transfers that can be approved by the Contract Manager without Department Manager approval. t i 1 l HCMH Executive Summary - 602 26 /� Touche Ross CONCLUSION After our discussions with Rule 36 programs, mental health professionals, and County and State officials, it is clear that a coordinated approach is needed to designing a fair and effective treatment ' delivery system for the mentally ill. In addition, a long term perspective which considers all parts of the delivery system must be taken. What is done in one part of the system can have a tremendous impact on the service requirements of other parts of the system. For Hennepin County, it is clear that a proactive relationship with the State continues to be required on the issues surrounding Rule 36 programs. Some of the fundamental changes needed require legislative change and funding at the State level. One of the foremost needs is a simpler and more direct funding system for Rule 36 programs under Rule 12 and public assistance. Another primary - area is after- discharge housing and support resources. Hennepin County can choose to initiate several actions that will facilitate better use of resources, and provide more information on system wide needs and program effectiveness. Our 1 recommendations for a centralized screening system and improved tracking of patients follow the theme of a system -wide perspective to mental health services. There are many other issues enveloping the County and State that have not been addressed by our study. Two of the most notable are the issue of movement of mentally ill from out -state counties to metropolitan counties for treatment services, and the question of facility density and siting. The issues facing Rule 36 programs ana the mentai neaitn system are compiex and chaiienging. in designing a publicly funded treatment delivery system it is important to balance the needs of all groups that are impacted - in this instance, primarily the mentally ill, service providers and the general public. Thus, all groups must be actively involved in the system planning and design. t HCMH Executive Summary - 602 27 Licenses to be approved by the City Council on August 14, 1989: GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE Block Sanitation 6741 79th Avenue N. Browning Ferris Industries of MN 9813 Flying Cloud Drive Metro Refuse 8168 West 125th Street Robbinsdale Transfer 3601 48th Avenue North Waste Management -- Blaine 10050 Naples Street NE Sanitarian ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Knights of Columbus 6816 Fremont Place North c/o Bob Kramer Sanitarian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS C. 0. Carlson Air Conditioning Co. 1203 Bryant Ave. N. D. J's Heating 6060 LaBeaux Avenue 0 • . 4aA1Z) Building Official n v GENERAL APPROVAL D. K. Weeks, City Clerk Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WHEREAS, an agreement has been negotiated by and between Robert H. Rhodes III and the City Manager on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center in connection with the separation of Rhodes from employment with the City; and content. WHEREAS, the City Council is fully informed as to its NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center as follows: 1. The City Council hereby approves the agreement. 2. The City Council authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City ana to take aii other actions and do all things necessary to perform the City's obligations thereunder. 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. t